****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****

[Saul Good]

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Besides, in a 16 team pod scenario, you wouldn't have to have nine conference games. To me, the perfect structure would be (I came up with this, but I'm sure others have as well):.

You're not understanding my point. Financially, the Big 12 gets a huge benefit from Fox by agreeing to that 9th conference game. If they lose that, in your scenario, their contract value declines. Since the Big 12 does not get the viewership that the SEC or Big 10 does, they have to compensate for that by offering Fox that extra game.


FSU & Miami and GT won't offset that by bringing in more viewers. If anything they are a net-neutral to Fox. We simply must retain the 9th conf game. If you were Fox would you pay the same for 8 SEC games as Big 12 games? Hell no. You will pay closer to it though if the SEC only offers 8 games plus an extra non-con vs. bum***** state.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

I'm not sure. I would assume that they would wait and see what a new negotiation with ESPN/FOX would bring them with the added value of those schools (assuming they bring value).

The media contracts so far for the Big 12 have not been diminished from schools leaving. I'm not saying this is a long term solution but the Big 12 did televise pretty much every single football game last year between ABC/FOX/ESPN... Additional schools to conferences don't necessarily jumpstart your television deal being that there are only a set amount time slots to show games.

I'm not sure the "new schools" will be in the position to be unwilling to sign their rights away. I'm not sure they would be against it in the first place. Either way if they have no where else to go to play competitive football they will come anyway. The Big 12 has to be given value from them though. Splitting a huge pot of $$ 10 ways is tough to move away from.

I get what you're saying, but no other conference has had their teams agree to such a granting of rights.

If the Big 12 can survive at 10 for a while, I don't see why FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, Duke/Va Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincy, NC State, Boston College, and Wake Forest couldn't keep it together for a while. They wouldn't have to last forever, just long enough for the GOR in the Big 12 to expire. At that time, Texas and Oklahoma would be free agents again, and TLN would be expiring.

If Texas were to jump ship, you would have a lot of schools in the Big 12 looking for seats, and they would be competing with more desirable schools from that Big East/ACC hybrid. I don't think Iowa State and Texas Tech want to compete for spots against Florida State and Duke.

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Nice to see you guys still haven't figured what's going on yet...

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You're not understanding my point. Financially, the Big 12 gets a huge benefit from Fox by agreeing to that 9th conference game. If they lose that, in your scenario, their contract value declines. Since the Big 12 does not get the viewership that the SEC or Big 10 does, they have to compensate for that by offering Fox that extra game.


FSU & Miami and GT won't offset that by bringing in more viewers. If anything they are a net-neutral to Fox. We simply must retain the 9th conf game. If you were Fox would you pay the same for 8 SEC games as Big 12 games? Hell no. You will pay closer to it though if the SEC only offers 8 games plus an extra non-con vs. bum***** state.

I understand your point, but I think you're taking a shortsighted approach. You would be trading long-term stability for a bigger piece of pie in the short term. By the time you factor in a CCG, the gap in the short term gets even smaller.

As it sits, you can look at the conference schedule for the next decade, and there is literally only one game per year that you can expect with any degree of certainty to have national appeal. That is OU/Texas. (Frankly, that game has been a turd most years.) Just adding Florida State would immediately triple the number of games with national appeal.

The Big 12, in my scenario, could be fat and happy for 12 years, or they can be simply full and secure for decades.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I understand your point, but I think you're taking a shortsighted approach. You would be trading long-term stability for a bigger piece of pie in the short term. By the time you factor in a CCG, the gap in the short term gets even smaller.

As it sits, you can look at the conference schedule for the next decade, and there is literally only one game per year that you can expect with any degree of certainty to have national appeal. That is OU/Texas. (Frankly, that game has been a turd most years.) Just adding Florida State would immediately triple the number of games with national appeal.

The Big 12, in my scenario, could be fat and happy for 12 years, or they can be simply full and secure for decades.

All I'm saying is, Fox is going to determine what we do either way. There's a myth out there that "Bevo" controls the conference. Untrue. Fox does.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Plus with expansion a conference championship game would be added, that would help offset any perceived revenue loss as well. If the 9th conference game is worth around 2-3 million, and you replace the 9th game with a championship game worth between 25-30 million, then there is no loss of revenue. Plus, with more teams, there are a greater number of conference games over all, which would increase revenue.

Partially true. There is more inventory out there but there is also incremental mouths to feed on the margin. If the adds don't generate more revenue (or the worst situation: they actually take).....then there's no point. The Big 12 - Fox actually - determined Louisville was a net taker. They determined WVU was net neutral. So imagine the surprise when the Big 12 schools wanted Louisville but got WVU. Miraclulous, I tell ya!

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Of course it's up to those schools. If Fox stipulates that all Big 12 schools have to do "x", and "x" is a deal-breaker for those schools, they can choose not to join the Big 12.

Correct, but that really wasn't your scenario. In your scenario, the ACC is basically falling apart, it would not be unreasonable to assume ESPN would revisit the value of that contract if the schools you mentioned left. Those schools that have value NEED a new partner to ensure competitive strength. One thing doesn't happen in a vacuum.

FOX is the main force behind this. They are the ones not in the SE market, so the value is there for them. If they are willing to pony up more cash and alter the deal, that's what drives everything, otherwise the incentive for the B12 to expand is not there.

The GoR is not going to be the deal breaker in this scenario. Three of the four major conferences have GoRs, its not like it is some unknown entity. The B12 negotiates with prospective new members, but the B12 itself is guided by the networks as to what maximizes their potential contract. Its not rocket science.

[Prison Bitch]

True. And there's also confusion as to what the GOR is. It's not something Kansas and TCU "forced" on Texas to handcuff them from leaving. It's what Fox forced on Texas to handcuff them from leaving.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Correct, but that really wasn't your scenario. In your scenario, the ACC is basically falling apart, it would not be unreasonable to assume ESPN would revisit the value of that contract if the schools you mentioned left. Those schools that have value NEED a new partner to ensure competitive strength. One thing doesn't happen in a vacuum.

FOX is the main force behind this. They are the ones not in the SE market, so the value is there for them. If they are willing to pony up more cash and alter the deal, that's what drives everything, otherwise the incentive for the B12 to expand is not there.

The GoR is not going to be the deal breaker in this scenario. Three of the four major conferences have GoRs, its not like it is some unknown entity. The B12 negotiates with prospective new members, but the B12 itself is guided by the networks as to what maximizes their potential contract. Its not rocket science.

Nobody has a GOR like the Big 12.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Nobody has a GOR like the Big 12.

Of course not, all the conferences are structured differently. But, they are all geared towards securing the highest contract they can make with the various networks. We don't have a B12 Network, so our GoR is going to function differently than the B1G or PAC. It doesn't mean they don't accomplish the same thing.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Of course not, all the conferences are structured differently. But, they are all geared towards securing the highest contract they can make with the various networks. We don't have a B12 Network, so our GoR is going to function differently than the B1G or PAC. It doesn't mean they don't accomplish the same thing.

It does, and it doesn't. I mean, no other conference's teams have their hands tied the way the Big 12 members do. What might have been an easy sell to Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech (leaving out local teams to avoid derailing the topic), etc. isn't going to be so easy when it comes to Florida State, Duke, etc.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

It does, and it doesn't. I mean, no other conference's teams have their hands tied the way the Big 12 members do. What might have been an easy sell to Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech (leaving out local teams to avoid derailing the topic), etc. isn't going to be so easy when it comes to Florida State, Duke, etc.

Your mistake is that they are not "selling" anything to those schools. The B12 has a certain business model. You either want to participate or you don't. We're not recruiting. The extra payout isn't that much more by expanding. We make more than the ACC. You get to keep your 3rd Tier rights to sell as you please. You either find that attractive or you don't. Its not like we're competing against the other conferences. They are in a position to offer a more for a variety of factors, but financially, there's not much difference.

You don't look to join a country club but then demand they change their benefits before you do. They are the potential applicants, not the other way around.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Your mistake is that they are not "selling" anything to those schools. The B12 has a certain business model. You either want to participate or you don't. We're not recruiting. The extra payout isn't that much more by expanding. We make more than the ACC. You get to keep your 3rd Tier rights to sell as you please. You either find that attractive or you don't. Its not like we're competing against the other conferences. They are in a position to offer a more for a variety of factors, but financially, there's not much difference.

You don't look to join a country club but then demand they change their benefits before you do. They are the potential applicants, not the other way around.

That's the entire premise of the question; do you re-evaluate the GOR in order to attract new members.

Your country club analogy isn't really accurate. If other, more exclusive country clubs are expanding and driving lesser clubs out of business while yours has been bleeding members, you might drop the initial membership fee in order to attract potential members.

It comes down to the fact that the Big 12 is strong today, but they are very vulnerable when the GOR expires because they haven't done anything to make themselves more attractive to the anchor members.

The Longhorn Network contract expires shortly before the GOR. At the moment, it doesn't look like ESPN would have any reason to renew that money pit. Suddenly, nothing is keeping Texas from bolting to the PAC.

I have a tough time believing Texas remains in the conference long term unless some big programs join the fold. Right now, the only team in the conference Texas cares about having on the schedule is Oklahoma, and Oklahoma would probably move with Texas, anyway.

The Big 12 is in a pretty good spot if the ACC gets raided, but time is on the side of the "orphans" in that scenario. If they can wait out the Big 12 GOR, all bets are off.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That's the entire premise of the question; do you re-evaluate the GOR in order to attract new members.

Your country club analogy isn't really accurate. If other, more exclusive country clubs are expanding and driving lesser clubs out of business while yours has been bleeding members, you might drop the initial membership fee in order to attract potential members.

It comes down to the fact that the Big 12 is strong today, but they are very vulnerable when the GOR expires because they haven't done anything to make themselves more attractive to the anchor members.

The Longhorn Network contract expires shortly before the GOR. At the moment, it doesn't look like ESPN would have any reason to renew that money pit. Suddenly, nothing is keeping Texas from bolting to the PAC.

I have a tough time believing Texas remains in the conference long term unless some big programs join the fold. Right now, the only team in the conference Texas cares about having on the schedule is Oklahoma, and Oklahoma would probably move with Texas, anyway.

The Big 12 is in a pretty good spot if the ACC gets raided, but time is on the side of the "orphans" in that scenario. If they can wait out the Big 12 GOR, all bets are off.

Texas doesn't want to leave. That's the biggest flaw. They want to remain "Texas centric". They don't want to go to some far off coast to play, they don't need to. As long as Texas makes equivalent money, they aren't looking to go somewhere else.

I know everyone thinks Texas wants to leave, but they really gain very little by doing so. The PAC 10 is now the PAC 12, and there is a strong voting bloc AGAINST expansion. CU, Utah, and the Arizona schools don't want their access to California diminished, which under most expansion scenarios, happens. The PAC would have to do something really radical, like got to 20, in order to break up that voting bloc.

Other schools are not going to dictate the terms, at least not on their own. They might go through the networks and say we'll come if these are the terms. Then it would be up to the networks to put the necessary pressure on the conference, if they felt like it was beneficial. My point it, its not up to the schools, and there is nothing inherently dissatisfying about the GoR issue.

What most potential schools have hesitancy about is being on the far end of a Texas based conference. They're concerned about scheduling. They're concerned about "who comes with". The GoR is not a major factor here. Their desire to remain a eastern centric conference is.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Texas doesn't want to leave. That's the biggest flaw. They want to remain "Texas centric". They don't want to go to some far off coast to play, they don't need to. As long as Texas makes equivalent money, they aren't looking to go somewhere else.

I know everyone thinks Texas wants to leave, but they really gain very little by doing so. The PAC 10 is now the PAC 12, and there is a strong voting bloc AGAINST expansion. CU, Utah, and the Arizona schools don't want their access to California diminished, which under most expansion scenarios, happens. The PAC would have to do something really radical, like got to 20, in order to break up that voting bloc.

Other schools are not going to dictate the terms, at least not on their own. They might go through the networks and say we'll come if these are the terms. Then it would be up to the networks to put the necessary pressure on the conference, if they felt like it was beneficial. My point it, its not up to the schools, and there is nothing inherently dissatisfying about the GoR issue.

What most potential schools have hesitancy about is being on the far end of a Texas based conference. They're concerned about scheduling. They're concerned about "who comes with". The GoR is not a major factor here. Their desire to remain a eastern centric conference is.

If Texas and Oklahoma want into the PAC (sans LHN) it's a fait accompli.

Texas would have a ton to gain in the PAC versus the Big 12 in it's current form. Being in a conference with UCLA, USC, Oregon, etc. is much more appealing than the current marriage of convenience both athletically and academically.