Baylor Football

Hang ups in first round of the Big 12's expansion prevented more additions

October 22, 2021
27,249

SicEm365 Radio provided an update on the hangups that could be coming in the Big 12’s potential second round of expansion and why the league didn’t expand with more than four teams originally.

Highlights From The Conversation

  • The Big 12 is willing and wanting to move to the next level. The league was interested in possibly adding eight teams in Chapter 1 of expansion and eliminate the need for a second chapter of Big 12 expansion after adding Cincinnati, BYU, UCF and Houston.
     
  • Boise State, South Florida, SMU and Memphis were all on the radar for initial round of expansion for the Big 12 and continue to be on the radar for a second round of expansion. Some of those programs told the Big 12 that they were not ready.
     
  • Memphis is dealing with a presidential change that could be impacting a move in chapter one in addition to the need for renovating the Liberty Bowl, the program’s football stadium.
     
  • There is belief from the Big 12 that Memphis was not be as adamant about the move and was balking at the move from the American Athletic Conference and the Big 12 opted to move with four additions.
     
  • Memphis is still likely to be included in an additional round of expansion by the Big 12.
Tags: Big 12, Football
Discussion from...

Hang ups in first round of the Big 12's expansion prevented more additions

20,000 Views | 61 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by bear2be2
Bear2014
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The more i read into the goings on at Memphis, i am hoping that they do not get an invite to the Big 12. I'm not liking what i'm seeing
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm surprised by USF. Except as a natural partner/rival for UCF, what reason is there to add them? Maybe the Miami market for TV & recruiting. Is that enough? They are not very good at football this year and I don't remember them being very good in any recent year. I don't think of them as very good in MBB either. I guess they are good in WBB. The Lady Bears found out about that recently.

Correction: I did some research & their football team did very well in 2016 & 2017 (11 wins & 10) but it also looks like those are the exceptions. Going back 50 2008, it looks like they struggled to be bowl eligible much of the time.
“Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 10:31
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

I'm surprised by USF. Except as a natural partner/rival for UCF, what reason is there to add them? Maybe the Miami market for TV & recruiting. Is that enough? They are not very good at football this year and I don't remember them being very good in any recent year. I don't think of them as very good in MBB either. I guess they are good in WBB. The Lady Bears found out about that recently.

Correction: I did some research & their football team did very well in 2016 & 2017 (11 wins & 10) but it also looks like those are the exceptions. Going back 50 2008, it looks like they struggled to be bowl eligible much of the time.
USF was one of the fastest rising programs in America for a long time. But their momentum has stalled big time in the last decade. They need to fix quite a few things in order to be a contributing member of a power conference.

I think the Big 12 needs to think about logistics if it's going to add to 16 schools. You almost have to do four geographic pods to make it work. That almost forces westward expansion at this point after the addition of BYU and the likely coming addition of Boise.

Adding Memphis would give you an Eastern pod of Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF and WVU. Then you'd have a Southwest pod of Baylor, Houston, TCU and Tech and a Midwest pod of Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Oklahoma State. To make the rest of this make sense, you'd need a couple of schools you could reasonably pair with BYU and Boise. I think San Diego State would be a good addition if we expanded westward. Finding a fourth would be more difficult. I would guess Colorado State, Nevada or Air Force would be the next best options at that point.
Mitch Henessey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

I'm surprised by USF. Except as a natural partner/rival for UCF, what reason is there to add them? Maybe the Miami market for TV & recruiting. Is that enough? They are not very good at football this year and I don't remember them being very good in any recent year. I don't think of them as very good in MBB either. I guess they are good in WBB. The Lady Bears found out about that recently.

Correction: I did some research & their football team did very well in 2016 & 2017 (11 wins & 10) but it also looks like those are the exceptions. Going back 50 2008, it looks like they struggled to be bowl eligible much of the time.
USF is located in Tampa Bay. Confusing, because their name "Southern Florida" doesn't match up with the area you usually associate with S. FL, but they aren't in Miami.
Big_Pumpin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is my understanding that those 4 teams were well below the fours teams we took based on the decision criteria. The current contract with ESPN only allows up to 14 teams. If one of the top 4 would have declined, they would have only taken 2 in this round of expansion.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

It is my understanding that those 4 teams were well below the fours teams we took based on the decision criteria. The current contract with ESPN only allows up to 14 teams. If one of the top 4 would have declined, they would have only taken 2 in this round of expansion.
The current contract with ESPN is pretty irrelevant to the expansion discussion at this point because none of the teams in the next round of expansion would be here before 2025, in all likelihood, which is after the current contract expires.
Big_Pumpin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Big_Pumpin said:

It is my understanding that those 4 teams were well below the fours teams we took based on the decision criteria. The current contract with ESPN only allows up to 14 teams. If one of the top 4 would have declined, they would have only taken 2 in this round of expansion.
The current contract with ESPN is pretty irrelevant to the expansion discussion at this point because none of the teams in the next round of expansion would be here before 2025, in all likelihood, which is after the current contract expires.


I guess I was saying that they were not really on our radar for this round of expansion. Or would that even matter?
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

bear2be2 said:

Big_Pumpin said:

It is my understanding that those 4 teams were well below the fours teams we took based on the decision criteria. The current contract with ESPN only allows up to 14 teams. If one of the top 4 would have declined, they would have only taken 2 in this round of expansion.
The current contract with ESPN is pretty irrelevant to the expansion discussion at this point because none of the teams in the next round of expansion would be here before 2025, in all likelihood, which is after the current contract expires.


I guess I was saying that they were not really on our radar for this round of expansion. Or would that even matter?
I would bet that any school we could reasonably name as an addition was on the conference's radar after the 2016 dog and pony show. I'd imagine there's a hierarchy of who are and are not realistic candidates, but they've basically heard everyone's pitch.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I should have known that. Should have known I can't make a logical assumption, especially when it's about an institution of higher education.
“Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 10:31
ColoradoGRN&GLD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll never understand the desire to grow the league past 12 teams. IMO, 12 is the perfect number for a collegiate football conference. Even divisions, play your division rivals home and away every other yr, and cross division schools come to you once every 4 yrs. Any more than that and it's barely a conference. Also, why would the B12 consider diluting the money pool with even more small programs with limited viewership? No one NEEDS a travel partner. If that were the case UCF would have stayed in the AAC. Maybe someone can give me a different perspective and explain why further expanding the conference is a good idea because I certainly don't get it.
DST
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Literally, what's the rush? It isn't as though any of the other P5 conferences are going to recruit these schools, and we aren't hurting for members anymore.

See where coming TV negotiations are headed and keep ears to the ground on any possibly unhappy members of the PAC 12. I wish the ACC were a little unstable, too, but their GOR are tight. Schools like Clemson and Florida State are going to be rue being a part of that conference as it falls further behind the SEC and Big Ten in the coming decade and the Big 12 pulls even with it. Almost like a football conference with four members from North Carolina is dumb or something. A shame, because I think schools like Louisville and Pitt would be a good fit for the new Big 12.
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

There is belief from the Big 12 that Memphis was not be as adamant about the move and was balking at the move from the American Athletic Conference and the Big 12 opted to move with four additions.


I can only imagine how angry Memphis may be if their admin was "meh" about the possibility of a Big 12 invite instead of begging for one.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DST said:

Literally, what's the rush? It isn't as though any of the other P5 conferences are going to recruit these schools, and we aren't hurting for members anymore.

See where coming TV negotiations are headed and keep ears to the ground on any possibly unhappy members of the PAC 12. I wish the ACC were a little unstable, too, but their GOR are tight. Schools like Clemson and Florida State are going to be rue being a part of that conference as it falls further behind the SEC and Big Ten in the coming decade and the Big 12 pulls even with it. Almost like a football conference with four members from North Carolina is dumb or something. A shame, because I think schools like Louisville and Pitt would be a good fit for the new Big 12.
TV negotiations are the rush. You can't wait to act after your next TV contract is negotiated. You need to have a plan in place to sell to your media partners. This conference as is won't have the names or ratings numbers to come anywhere close to its current TV deal. They'll need to get creative and in a hurry to create added value for their next media rights deal.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoGRN&GLD said:

I'll never understand the desire to grow the league past 12 teams. IMO, 12 is the perfect number for a collegiate football conference. Even divisions, play your division rivals home and away every other yr, and cross division schools come to you once every 4 yrs. Any more than that and it's barely a conference. Also, why would the B12 consider diluting the money pool with even more small programs with limited viewership? No one NEEDS a travel partner. If that were the case UCF would have stayed in the AAC. Maybe someone can give me a different perspective and explain why further expanding the conference is a good idea because I certainly don't get it.
Twelve teams is ideal in a college football landscape that makes sense. Unfortunately, we left that port a long time ago. So the Big 12 has to play the game.

And while adding to 16 might dilute your already diminished Tier 1 and 2 TV rights money, it would add a ton of value to your Tier 3 rights, which is the one trump card the Big 12 holds over the PAC-12 and ACC, which are anchored to terrible conference networks. The Big 12 schools control their own Tier 3 rights and they can recoup a lot of what they'll lose through Tier 1 and 2 TV rights with a robust Tier 3 inventory. Having 16 schools as opposed to 12, gives you three or four more games a week that you can sell to a streaming service. It also improves the televised matchups for your TV partners every week and gives the league a better chance at drawing respectable ratings.

As Bowlsby said recently, in this market, bigger is better.
DST
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

DST said:

Literally, what's the rush? It isn't as though any of the other P5 conferences are going to recruit these schools, and we aren't hurting for members anymore.

See where coming TV negotiations are headed and keep ears to the ground on any possibly unhappy members of the PAC 12. I wish the ACC were a little unstable, too, but their GOR are tight. Schools like Clemson and Florida State are going to be rue being a part of that conference as it falls further behind the SEC and Big Ten in the coming decade and the Big 12 pulls even with it. Almost like a football conference with four members from North Carolina is dumb or something. A shame, because I think schools like Louisville and Pitt would be a good fit for the new Big 12.
TV negotiations are the rush. You can't wait to act after your next TV contract is negotiated. You need to have a plan in place to sell to your media partners. This conference as is won't have the names or ratings numbers to come anywhere close to its current TV deal. They'll need to get creative and in a hurry to create added value for their next media rights deal.


No, that's stupid. A well-negotiated contract will have clauses for additional members during it's lifetime and the ability to renegotiate based on the value they bring. Elevators.

The only of the above four schools that brings eyeballs is maaaybe Boise State, and their position is tenuous compared to a few years ago. SMU, Memphis, and USF have no brand. They don't add value to offset the money lost relative to the mouths the conference would have to feed.

If we were to add two more, it should be Boise and, honestly, San Diego State. They have better a better football brand than any of those other three, and a better basketball brand than any of them save for Memphis (though better on court results lately). And before anyone complains about geography, it's literally no different than adding Boise and the problem is lessed if you divide the conference into the West+Texas (BSU, SDSU, BYU, BU, TTU, TCU, UH) and East+Old Big 8 (OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, UC, UCF, WVU).
BearlyBeloved
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why not USF? Somebody needs to be the "little sisters of the poor" in expansion. Kansas is begging for the conference to add somebody they maybe could beat.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DST said:

bear2be2 said:

DST said:

Literally, what's the rush? It isn't as though any of the other P5 conferences are going to recruit these schools, and we aren't hurting for members anymore.

See where coming TV negotiations are headed and keep ears to the ground on any possibly unhappy members of the PAC 12. I wish the ACC were a little unstable, too, but their GOR are tight. Schools like Clemson and Florida State are going to be rue being a part of that conference as it falls further behind the SEC and Big Ten in the coming decade and the Big 12 pulls even with it. Almost like a football conference with four members from North Carolina is dumb or something. A shame, because I think schools like Louisville and Pitt would be a good fit for the new Big 12.
TV negotiations are the rush. You can't wait to act after your next TV contract is negotiated. You need to have a plan in place to sell to your media partners. This conference as is won't have the names or ratings numbers to come anywhere close to its current TV deal. They'll need to get creative and in a hurry to create added value for their next media rights deal.


No, that's stupid. A well-negotiated contract will have clauses for additional members during it's lifetime and the ability to renegotiate based on the value they bring. Elevators.

The only of the above four schools that brings eyeballs is maaaybe Boise State, and their position is tenuous compared to a few years ago. SMU, Memphis, and USF have no brand. They don't add value to offset the money lost relative to the mouths the conference would have to feed.

If we were to add two more, it should be Boise and, honestly, San Diego State. They have better a better football brand than any of those other three, and a better basketball brand than any of them save for Memphis (though better on court results lately). And before anyone complains about geography, it's literally no different than adding Boise and the problem is lessed if you divide the conference into the West+Texas (BSU, SDSU, BYU, BU, TTU, TCU, UH) and East+Old Big 8 (OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, UC, UCF, WVU).
What incentive would a media rights partner have to include such clauses for a conference with no substantial expansion prospects? The Big 12 is negotiating from a position of weakness any way you slice it. The goal has to be mitigating that weakness as best we can before we sit down at the negotiating table.

And the value added isn't in individual schools. It's as a collective. With 16 schools, you have eight games in a given week. Your best four matchups are likely to be more attractive and draw better ratings in that scenario than they would in a 12-team conference where one of your games every week includes Kansas.

And in addition to that, you'll have an additional three or four games every week to pool and sell as a block to a streaming service, be that Amazon, ESPN+ or whoever.

When you're in the position our league is in, you have to accentuate your strengths and mask your weaknesses. That's easier done in a larger league with more game inventory.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlyBeloved said:

Why not USF? Somebody needs to be the "little sisters of the poor" in expansion. Kansas is begging for the conference to add somebody they maybe could beat.

We don't want more than one Kansas, which ensures every time they take the field that one of your games will go unwatched. Hell, we don't want the Kansas we have, to be honest.
BearlyBeloved
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even the Bottom 10 have a following!

College football's Bottom 10 -- An inspirational tale -- and a new No. 1 (espn.com)
DST
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

DST said:

bear2be2 said:

DST said:

Literally, what's the rush? It isn't as though any of the other P5 conferences are going to recruit these schools, and we aren't hurting for members anymore.

See where coming TV negotiations are headed and keep ears to the ground on any possibly unhappy members of the PAC 12. I wish the ACC were a little unstable, too, but their GOR are tight. Schools like Clemson and Florida State are going to be rue being a part of that conference as it falls further behind the SEC and Big Ten in the coming decade and the Big 12 pulls even with it. Almost like a football conference with four members from North Carolina is dumb or something. A shame, because I think schools like Louisville and Pitt would be a good fit for the new Big 12.
TV negotiations are the rush. You can't wait to act after your next TV contract is negotiated. You need to have a plan in place to sell to your media partners. This conference as is won't have the names or ratings numbers to come anywhere close to its current TV deal. They'll need to get creative and in a hurry to create added value for their next media rights deal.


No, that's stupid. A well-negotiated contract will have clauses for additional members during it's lifetime and the ability to renegotiate based on the value they bring. Elevators.

The only of the above four schools that brings eyeballs is maaaybe Boise State, and their position is tenuous compared to a few years ago. SMU, Memphis, and USF have no brand. They don't add value to offset the money lost relative to the mouths the conference would have to feed.

If we were to add two more, it should be Boise and, honestly, San Diego State. They have better a better football brand than any of those other three, and a better basketball brand than any of them save for Memphis (though better on court results lately). And before anyone complains about geography, it's literally no different than adding Boise and the problem is lessed if you divide the conference into the West+Texas (BSU, SDSU, BYU, BU, TTU, TCU, UH) and East+Old Big 8 (OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, UC, UCF, WVU).
What incentive would a media rights partner have to include such clauses for a conference with no substantial expansion prospects? The Big 12 is negotiating from a position of weakness any way you slice it. The goal has to be mitigating that weakness as best we can before we sit down at the negotiating table.

And the value added isn't in individual schools. It's as a collective. With 16 schools, you have eight games in a given week. Your best four matchups are likely to be more attractive and draw better ratings in that scenario than they would in a 12-team conference where one of your games every week includes Kansas.

And in addition to that, you'll have an additional three or four games every week to pool and sell as a block to a streaming service, be that Amazon, ESPN+ or whoever.

When you're in the position our league is in, you have to accentuate your strengths and mask your weaknesses. That's easier done in a larger league with more game inventory.
The conference isn't going to command SEC money, but it's not like it's fighting to not be on Facebook Live, either. The Big 12 will be "fine" in TV negotiations relative to the national landscape. It's not going to get walked over in negotiations. What people don't realize is that the shrinking cable subscriptions results in a seller's market for TV rights. There's very little content that results in appointment television, and sports is one of them. Look at a company like WWE, which has had declining viewership for 20 years, landing a massive deal to put a show primetime on FOX. Their product might suck compared to history, but more people regularly watch their show on a weekly basis than most other programs, so it's a safe bet.

College football isn't any different. Networks need games to put on during the fall. And with the conferences consolidating, it drives up the demand. You think FOX is happy they're about to lose Texas and OU games soon? Of course not. Glass half empty says that robs the Big 12 of selling power. Glass half full says that puts more pressure to pay to get games on the network to fill the void. Look at CBS losing the SEC contract, as well. Are they going to pull out and have nothing to show on Saturday afternoons in the fall, or are they going to get a new partner?

The fact of the matter is that every network that isn't ESPN is going to be looking for content because ESPN is the exclusive home of the SEC soon. I think the Big 12 has the most to sell behind the Big Ten. A lot of hungry brands that are football schools first and foremost and tend to put on good products. That's something that (most) of the ACC and Pac 12 can't claim.

So back to your collective argument. It's ultimately still a numbers game. Yes, the common logic is that more members = more games = more to sell, but it's all still relative. It also means whatever the contract is gets divided between more members. So the question is, will the Big 12 learn definitively from prospective networks that it would earn more per school with these four members than without? They would have to be going all-in on the FOX route, because I seriously doubt ESPN will care about the Big 12 getting Memphis, USF, and SMU seeing as they already have those schools' games under the AAC's contract.

Last: Look at what happened to CUSA. Having numbers and markets doesn't make your conference valuable by default, even relative to your playing level. CUSA had been dragging behind the AAC, MWC, and SBC for years. The best thing for your conference is adding members that have football brands and can attract viewers based on how good the program is and not necessarily where it's located. The only one of these four schools I think fits that bill is Boise State, and again, they're teetering right now.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree there is no rush to do anything right now. The conference is no longer trying to just survive. It did survive and even survived as what we currently call P5. Now the XII once again have the luxury that the other P5 conferences currently have, they can look only at how much a prospective member adds to the pie. Adding 4 random G5 schools just to have 16 is silly.
Self Made Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just don't see the allure of SMU a d the need to add another Texas team. Wish we could poach a team or two from ACC, PAC 12 or even B1G10
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DST said:

bear2be2 said:

DST said:

bear2be2 said:

DST said:

Literally, what's the rush? It isn't as though any of the other P5 conferences are going to recruit these schools, and we aren't hurting for members anymore.

See where coming TV negotiations are headed and keep ears to the ground on any possibly unhappy members of the PAC 12. I wish the ACC were a little unstable, too, but their GOR are tight. Schools like Clemson and Florida State are going to be rue being a part of that conference as it falls further behind the SEC and Big Ten in the coming decade and the Big 12 pulls even with it. Almost like a football conference with four members from North Carolina is dumb or something. A shame, because I think schools like Louisville and Pitt would be a good fit for the new Big 12.
TV negotiations are the rush. You can't wait to act after your next TV contract is negotiated. You need to have a plan in place to sell to your media partners. This conference as is won't have the names or ratings numbers to come anywhere close to its current TV deal. They'll need to get creative and in a hurry to create added value for their next media rights deal.


No, that's stupid. A well-negotiated contract will have clauses for additional members during it's lifetime and the ability to renegotiate based on the value they bring. Elevators.

The only of the above four schools that brings eyeballs is maaaybe Boise State, and their position is tenuous compared to a few years ago. SMU, Memphis, and USF have no brand. They don't add value to offset the money lost relative to the mouths the conference would have to feed.

If we were to add two more, it should be Boise and, honestly, San Diego State. They have better a better football brand than any of those other three, and a better basketball brand than any of them save for Memphis (though better on court results lately). And before anyone complains about geography, it's literally no different than adding Boise and the problem is lessed if you divide the conference into the West+Texas (BSU, SDSU, BYU, BU, TTU, TCU, UH) and East+Old Big 8 (OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, UC, UCF, WVU).
What incentive would a media rights partner have to include such clauses for a conference with no substantial expansion prospects? The Big 12 is negotiating from a position of weakness any way you slice it. The goal has to be mitigating that weakness as best we can before we sit down at the negotiating table.

And the value added isn't in individual schools. It's as a collective. With 16 schools, you have eight games in a given week. Your best four matchups are likely to be more attractive and draw better ratings in that scenario than they would in a 12-team conference where one of your games every week includes Kansas.

And in addition to that, you'll have an additional three or four games every week to pool and sell as a block to a streaming service, be that Amazon, ESPN+ or whoever.

When you're in the position our league is in, you have to accentuate your strengths and mask your weaknesses. That's easier done in a larger league with more game inventory.
The conference isn't going to command SEC money, but it's not like it's fighting to not be on Facebook Live, either. The Big 12 will be "fine" in TV negotiations relative to the national landscape. It's not going to get walked over in negotiations. What people don't realize is that the shrinking cable subscriptions results in a seller's market for TV rights. There's very little content that results in appointment television, and sports is one of them. Look at a company like WWE, which has had declining viewership for 20 years, landing a massive deal to put a show primetime on FOX. Their product might suck compared to history, but more people regularly watch their show on a weekly basis than most other programs, so it's a safe bet.

College football isn't any different. Networks need games to put on during the fall. And with the conferences consolidating, it drives up the demand. You think FOX is happy they're about to lose Texas and OU games soon? Of course not. Glass half empty says that robs the Big 12 of selling power. Glass half full says that puts more pressure to pay to get games on the network to fill the void. Look at CBS losing the SEC contract, as well. Are they going to pull out and have nothing to show on Saturday afternoons in the fall, or are they going to get a new partner?

The fact of the matter is that every network that isn't ESPN is going to be looking for content because ESPN is the exclusive home of the SEC soon. I think the Big 12 has the most to sell behind the Big Ten. A lot of hungry brands that are football schools first and foremost and tend to put on good products. That's something that (most) of the ACC and Pac 12 can't claim.

So back to your collective argument. It's ultimately still a numbers game. Yes, the common logic is that more members = more games = more to sell, but it's all still relative. It also means whatever the contract is gets divided between more members. So the question is, will the Big 12 learn definitively from prospective networks that it would earn more per school with these four members than without? They would have to be going all-in on the FOX route, because I seriously doubt ESPN will care about the Big 12 getting Memphis, USF, and SMU seeing as they already have those schools' games under the AAC's contract.

Last: Look at what happened to CUSA. Having numbers and markets doesn't make your conference valuable by default, even relative to your playing level. CUSA had been dragging behind the AAC, MWC, and SBC for years. The best thing for your conference is adding members that have football brands and can attract viewers based on how good the program is and not necessarily where it's located. The only one of these four schools I think fits that bill is Boise State, and again, they're teetering right now.
College football is very different from WWE, in that there's an abundance of competition. Networks need games but they're not going to pay a premium for content that's going to get 700,000 viewers on a good night. They're going to pay the market rate for it, which isn't particularly high. And if you want an idea of what post-OUT TV ratings are going to be, the data is out there, and it's not particularly flattering.

College football live content is a very saturated market. Media companies will pay out the nose for premium content, but they're not going to continue to pay top dollar for games that don't draw flies. They have no need to if they can put the AAC or Sun Belt in that same spot for a fraction of the cost and get a similar number.

The new Big 12 will have intriguing matchups. But even the good games will have trouble doing good numbers. We saw that with our game against OSU this year, which only drew 550,000 viewers. That's why it's important to maximize quality content in the hopes that over time it will attract viewers. The best way to do that is to put as many quality programs as possible on the Big 12's roster and hope that you can put four games on every week that people want to watch.

And again, adding to 16 isn't even necessarily about adding to your Tier 1 and 2 rights. It's about putting together a Tier 3 package that can help close that gap between your diminished TV deal and that of other comparable conferences (PAC-12 and ACC).
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

I agree there is no rush to do anything right now. The conference is no longer trying to just survive. It did survive and even survived as what we currently call P5. Now the XII once again have the luxury that the other P5 conferences currently have, they can look only at how much a prospective member adds to the pie. Adding 4 random G5 schools just to have 16 is silly.
You're not adding four random schools just to have 16. No one has suggested that as a goal or strategy. You're adding programs that make your conference stronger and add to your live media inventory.

I love the new 12-member Big 12. I'm super pumped about it. But I'm also a realist and understand that its TV ratings are very likely to suck. We're not going to trick a media partner into paying top dollar for a dramatically diminished return. We're going to have to prove (and improve) our value. In the absence of available brands, that's done with programs that put a product on the field worth watching and pooling as many of those types of teams as possible. The more you have, the more likely you'll be to be able to put four games on per week that can draw eyeballs. And you can send the rest to streaming and add few extra millions to the coffers.
Tibbles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Tampa area is prime recruiting grounds, that's a great reason to ask them to join
BearlyBeloved
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the story says the Big 12, which may temporarily have 14, was nearly at 16 permanently (18 temporarily)which demonstrates the identity crisis of including a number in the name of the conference.

When will a name change arrive?

Maybe the Big Deal Conference?
Big Time?
Or just plain Biggie?
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We need to know for sure if the play off is expanded before we add 4 teams no other P5 will touch unless they are about to implode. We are now more stable than at least 2 other P5 conferences right now so we are not in a take anyone to prevent implosion state. Adding the folks mentioned does nothing for the XII as I see it, value is t added, the pot is diluted and if the play off stays at 4 it almost locks us out of the play off picture from the get go.

I'm not feeling this emergency rush to grab the likes of Boise and SMU.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

We need to know for sure if the play off is expanded before we add 4 teams no other P5 will touch unless they are about to implode. We are now more stable than at least 2 other P5 conferences right now so we are not in a take anyone to prevent implosion state. Adding the folks mentioned does nothing for the XII as I see it, value is t added, the pot is diluted and if the play off stays at 4 it almost locks us out of the play off picture from the get go.

I'm not feeling this emergency rush to grab the likes of Boise and SMU.
We'll have no idea how stable the Big 12 is until the next TV contract is on paper and signed. The goal between now and then isn't to avoid implosion, it's to maximize our post OUT media contract so as to avoid a significant money gap between ourselves and two conferences that aren't as strong as ours on the field. If we're adding to 16, and most signs point in that direction, it's because the decision-makers are convinced that will be a more attractive model to media partners and thus more lucrative for all members.
Louise Romano
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I care most about basketball and seem to me scheduling and traveling will be a nightmare given the distance between some schools. I guess it works, but they will have to schedule so each team takes care of business at least 2 games at a time near another school. Like Baylor could play WVU and Cincinnati back to back on the road in a 2-3 days and so forth. BYU will have a lot of jet lag!
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Louise Romano said:

I care most about basketball and seem to me scheduling and traveling will be a nightmare given the distance between some schools. I guess it works, but they will have to schedule so each team takes care of business at least 2 games at a time near another school. Like Baylor could play WVU and Cincinnati back to back on the road in a 2-3 days and so forth. BYU will have a lot of jet lag!
I think that's another benefit of expanding to 16. At that number, you can have four geographically based divisions and schedule in a way that limits extreme travel as best as possible.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many members does the Big 10 have?
“Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 10:31
DST
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not a believer in the pod format. I'll believe the SEC is going to schedule in that direction when I see it.

It makes a lot more sense to have two large divisions and basically run them like separate conferences. What the SEC has done the last 10 years, having 7-team divisions that only play 8 conference games and only 2 interdivisional games, has helped them prop up their records and perception. Georgia can waltz through the SEC regular season without having to catch Alabama, Ole Miss, or A&M. Likewise, all those teams avoid another potential loss by not playing them.

The downside is that by only playing 8 conference games versus 9, you limit the number of quality inter-conference matchups you can sell to networks, but that matters less when people view your product as top quality because, as pointed out, your model for 10 years has helped boost the perception of your league. The SEC are masters of this, all the way down to how the league office plays musical chairs with their teams' bowl matchups every year. Compare that to how the Pac 12, only having 12 members and playing 9 conference games, have eaten each other alive. For what? They've struggled the most to make the playoff and people see the Pac 12 Networks as not nearly as attractive as the SEC Network or Big Ten Network.

If the Big 12 is going big, and I mean really big... We should add quality schools and divide the conference geographically to the point where the divisions are basically separate leagues. Play nine conference games, but only 2 inter-divisional games. That maximizes how much product you can sell to networks while minimizing cannibalism across the divisions.

Then, get creative with network scheduling. Have your westernmost teams' home games challenge for TV space against the Pac 12 and Mountain West. Doing late-night kickoff games for the teams in the east and central makes no sense, but for BYU, Boise, and SDSU? It would be perfect and give the conference to schedule games for every time slot of the day. Be flexible about scheduling weekday games. Do whatever it takes to bring value to networks and put your product in front of eyeballs. This is how the Big 12 crushes the ACC and Pac 12 in overall TV value.

West:
SDSU
BSU
BYU
TTU
BU
TCU
UH
OSU

East:
ISU
KSU
KU
WVU
UC
UCF
UM
USF

I don't want SMU. It's not personal, but them over SDSU makes no sense when we already have TCU.

I'd love to see eastern P5 schools be interested in joining the Big 12, like Louisville, Pitt, etc., but I just don't think it's going to happen. Memphis and USF would be fine, but both need to make serious upgrades. Memphis needs to figure out their stadium situation, and USF needs to start making the same commitment that UCF did.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DST said:

I'm not a believer in the pod format. I'll believe the SEC is going to schedule in that direction when I see it.

It makes a lot more sense to have two large divisions and basically run them like separate conferences. What the SEC has done the last 10 years, having 7-team divisions that only play 8 conference games and only 2 interdivisional games, has helped them prop up their records and perception. Georgia can waltz through the SEC regular season without having to catch Alabama, Ole Miss, or A&M. Likewise, all those teams avoid another potential loss by not playing them.

The downside is that by only playing 8 conference games versus 9, you limit the number of quality inter-conference matchups you can sell to networks, but that matters less when people view your product as top quality because, as pointed out, your model for 10 years has helped boost the perception of your league. The SEC are masters of this, all the way down to how the league office plays musical chairs with their teams' bowl matchups every year. Compare that to how the Pac 12, only having 12 members and playing 9 conference games, have eaten each other alive. For what? They've struggled the most to make the playoff and people see the Pac 12 Networks as not nearly as attractive as the SEC Network or Big Ten Network.

If the Big 12 is going big, and I mean really big... We should add quality schools and divide the conference geographically to the point where the divisions are basically separate leagues. Play nine conference games, but only 2 inter-divisional games. That maximizes how much product you can sell to networks while minimizing cannibalism across the divisions.

Then, get creative with network scheduling. Have your westernmost teams' home games challenge for TV space against the Pac 12 and Mountain West. Doing late-night kickoff games for the teams in the east and central makes no sense, but for BYU, Boise, and SDSU? It would be perfect and give the conference to schedule games for every time slot of the day. Be flexible about scheduling weekday games. Do whatever it takes to bring value to networks and put your product in front of eyeballs. This is how the Big 12 crushes the ACC and Pac 12 in overall TV value.

West:
SDSU
BSU
BYU
TTU
BU
TCU
UH
OSU

East:
ISU
KSU
KU
WVU
UC
UCF
UM
USF

I don't want SMU. It's not personal, but them over SDSU makes no sense when we already have TCU.

I'd love to see eastern P5 schools be interested in joining the Big 12, like Louisville, Pitt, etc., but I just don't think it's going to happen. Memphis and USF would be fine, but both need to make serious upgrades. Memphis needs to figure out their stadium situation, and USF needs to start making the same commitment that UCF did.

The SEC doesn't need to schedule in that format. It's a regional league. Pods work best for conferences that are more spread out -- as the new Big 12 will be.

I also like the idea of a four-team conference playoff at the end of the season, which would create some compelling inter-division matchups that you don't get most years and be a novel concept in college football.
DST
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Based on what evidence? It literally doesn't exist in college football right now.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DST said:

Based on what evidence? It literally doesn't exist in college football right now.
It works better logistically. It gives you much more scheduling freedom, which is important when you're spread potentially from California to Florida.

If your conference schedule is three games against intra-division opponents, a combined five against the two central pods and one east-west crossover game, you have a nine-game schedule that works logistically for everyone. You can basically use the Southwest/Texas pod and the Big 8/Midwest pod to bridge the gap between your east and west members.

It's not all that dissimilar to the structure you're talking about, it's just not as rigid and gives you more scheduling flexibility.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.