Jump to content

camel at sea

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by camel at sea

  1. 10 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

    That is indeed what the TV contracts say. BUT if your the two network stake holders and you were asked. Would you rather the Big12's 16th team be SDSU or Utah. ESPN/Fox just might prefer SDSU, thinking there is more population in the San Diego area than in all of Utah. Not to mention BYU delivers a pretty big hunk of Utah. (I know exit fee and all that)

    Yeah, SDSU isn't covered by the pro rata clause in the Big 12 contract, but that only means the networks have to sign off on them specifically.  If Yormark asked them to do so, they might.  

  2. 1 hour ago, Josef Pwag said:

    This isn't it. The FSU Board Chair was on Warchant before their big meeting yesterday. He told those guys that unequal revenue sharing is on the table, but at most, it would mean an additional $5million a year. That doesn't come close to making up the difference between FSU and their rivals.

    The B1G makes all the sense in the world for FSU. Florida TV markets that they don't have now are of great value. Of course, this would make ESPN oppose that move all the more. 

    Conspiracy theory:  If ESPN wanted to move FSU into the SEC, without the appearance of being the one encouraging the move, they'd need FSU to throw a big public temper tantrum like this one.  Otherwise, maybe the ACC pulls a Bowlsby and threatens to sue them.  As it is now, the ACC will pin this on the Noles and ESPN is in a position to step in and mediate an exit rather than be a party to the in-fighting.        

  3. 3 minutes ago, Crockett said:

    Utah doing everything it can to avoid joining the B12, but the B12 is going to vote them in anyway is distateful. I get teams wanting B10 or SEC over anything else, but Utah seems to almost be going in kicking and screaming. Have some self respect B12.

    Yeah... I get that Utah's football brand is strong right now, but Yormark has talked about "fit" throughout the process.  Does a school that despises its new home actually fit?  

    Utah has been pretty unified against the idea of joining the Big 12 throughout the last 12-18 months, from the admin, to their media spox people, to their message board and twitter fans.  You can compare them with ASU, who has been against the move, too, but it's been more of an aloof indifference than an open hostility in ASU's case.  I think ASU could blend it.  It looks like the Big 12 is prepared to invite Utah but making them take a walk in the MWC desert for a decade first, before inviting them, would have been preferable.  I might prefer SDSU in any case (for the hoops fit and the recruiting turf) if the TV side would sign off on it.    

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 9 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

     

     

     

    Arizona could split with ASU if the alternative is that both get left in the PAC without a place to go.  I guess we're probably going to find out sometime soon whether / how much FOX is going to play ball on Big 12 expansion.  

  5. 11 minutes ago, Sir Ulrich said:

    But I was told on here last week that Oregon wasn't big enough for the Big10 to be interested. 

    Yeah.  It's been reported that way.  Warren allegedly faced significant internal B1G pushback on the idea of further western expansion (Warren publicly mentioned UO, UW, Cal, and Stanford by name as potential expansion targets.)  

    I guess the idea of "the fog of war" probably applies here.  

  6. 3 minutes ago, LTbear said:

    Wasn't Mandel also the guy who used to repeatedly stick up for UCLA's god-awful attendance? Regardless, his continual shitting on the Big XII - talking about its corpse, and putting together an "analysis" of TV numbers so full of bias and errors I wasn't accept it from a freshman-level stats student, has been ridiculous. 

    Yeah, it's been strangely vindictive.  Either he's getting paid to shill for the PAC or he's developed a personal hatred toward the people of flyover country that's rendered him irrational.  

  7. 2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

     

     

    It still blows my mind that Mandel is operating this way.  It makes sense for a west coast media guy (Wilner, Canzano, Altimore) to play to a local audience and tow the PAC party line - at least to some extent.  Why is the guy running The Athletic acting like he works for the PAC?  He's doing damage to the credibility of their entire outlet.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 15 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

     

     

    Arizona, Oregon, and Washington join the Big 12.  Stanford eventually leaves for the B1G when ND gives them the nod.  That leaves Utah where?

    PAC X:  Utah, Cal, ASU, Oregon St, Washington St, SDSU, Boise, UNLV, Colorado St., SMU
     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Drool 1
  9. 1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

     

     

    I think suing their way out of the ACC, for the B1G, is a pretty tall order.  But I suspect they could come to terms on a settlement if ESPN was able to get something good enough from the B1G in return.  If we assume that FSU went with ND, Miami, and Stanford, there might be a way to cut ESPN in on some of that new inventory and make everyone feel good about it.  

    If the ACC got huge buyout money from 2 or 3 schools, that helps their financial situation out quite a bit.  They'd be done worrying about the B1G at that point, too, so the rest of the ACC would abruptly be very stable in the same way that the Big 12 is now.  Maybe they'd even make a run at the Big 12's eastern flank schools.

  10. Clemson is just over a 100 mile drive from Atlanta.  They've got a big presence in that market.  I think the SEC could add them and think of them as being as much Georgia's 2nd in-state school as South Carolina's 2nd in-state school.  Their floor historically is about 7-9 wins.  Their ceiling is competing for titles and their donors have shown they are willing to do it.  There's value in that.  

    The program that probably best parallels Clemson is Auburn, except Clemson seems to have better leadership at the moment.    

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  11. 6 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

    It has more to do with the university presidents than anything else. They couldn't be bothered to associate with schools in Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma that admit anyone who can score a 24 on the ACT, and now they only have themselves to associate with.

    Say whatever you want about Larry Scott, but he had OU and OSU on board in 2011 and the PAC Presidents shot it down.  I don't blame him for just cashing checks for the rest of his tenure.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 9 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    If PAC is adding the MWC teams then they are no longer p5. 

     

    The way I see it is there is going to be a p4.

    Let's see what this looks like:  Utah, Stanford, Cal, Arizona St, Oregon St., Washington St, San Diego St, Boise, Colorado St, SMU

     

    That looks a lot better than the MWC and AAC - especially after raiding from both of them.  Maybe they'd be in some kind of limbo between the four leagues above them and those below, but I think their champ would be a lock to get one of those expanded CFP trips every year.  

  13. 8 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    I wonder if the Big 10 is concerned about bringing in Oregon because they have a multibillionaire who can single-handedly fund all the NIL Oregon needs, even though so far he hasn’t. Everyone wants teams that can produce revenue, but letting that billionaire into your club could be a bit risky.   

    I think it's more that there are only so many spots to go around, and the B1G doesn't necessarily want to add schools that don't make everyone else (potentially) better.  Oregon and Washington both make travel harder and neither really adds much to the league's recruiting turf.  Stanford is a better travel partner for the L.A. schools and has good recruiting turf surrounding it.  Several ACC schools are much better for travel (for existing members) than anyone in the PAC and they could make recruiting easier for an existing members.

    Arizona State is a possibility for the B1G.  Arizona's local HS recruiting turf has improved year over year for a while.  ASU is travel-friendly for the two L.A. schools - unlike Oregon and Washington.  ASU plays hockey.  But ASU has very little brand value or historical success in either revenue sport.  Maybe they'd be a backup plan if preferred ACC targets didn't work out.      

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 32 minutes ago, Lonestar88 said:

    Sure, but the point is there are considerations beyond good football matchups. And those other considerations aren’t in Utah’s favor.

    Yeah, the Big 12 gets 50% of the Holy War games without adding Utah.  Is getting the other 50% worth passing on a Top 15 basketball brand and Arizona's TV market?  I'd guess no.  I don't think that rivalry games moves the needle that much.

     

    But if I'm Utah, I'm reading the tea leaves and trying to get my Big 12 application in before the Wildcats do.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 13 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

    So….. now what? Who panics first? Are we going to see a stupid add for Pac12 expansion that fails to garner the votes to pass or a dumb attempt at ratifying an incomplete agreement tv deal/grant of rights that goes no where?

    How can you in good conscience as a remaining 4 corner school or UW/OU can you ratify any add without some serious concrete numbers and a long term plan? I bet we see a slow play for a week or so by the schools while they try to decide how fucked they really are…

    I think Arizona files its Big 12 paperwork in the next couple of weeks and then the Big 12 waits out Oregon and Washington.  If those two don't have a B1G invite, they're going to have to make the Big 12 move, too.  

    ASU and Utah might have to spend a long time in a rebuilt PAC.  It doesn't make a lot of sense for the Big 12 to go to 18 if #15/#16 are UO/UW.  

    The remaining 6 PAC schools probably end up adding SDSU, Boise, Colorado St, and SMU and sign a media rights deal with Apple streaming.      

  16. On 7/21/2023 at 12:52 PM, Frank Drebin said:

    The Big 12 got a decent TV deal basically as a payout to the left behind schools so Texas and OU could leave without litigation.  Next time they are up for a tv deal, they won't be getting that bump.  The disparity will only increase

    The Big 12 might have received a small bump for letting UT/OU leave a year early, but it wasn't much of a bump.  The concessions were probably more along the lines of marketing and exposure than payout.  

    The new Big 12 deal's per-team payout is $31M+ per (before NCAA and CFP money bumps that up close to around $50M per).  If you assume that everyone got an extra $2M per for letting UT/OU go, that adds up to $24M per year x the 6 years of the contract.  That's a LOT of money to get the Longhorns and Sooners in the SEC one year early when waiting was an option.  But even if you assume that's true, it still means the Big 12 was *actually* worth just shy of $30M per before NCAA tourney and CFP money get factored in.  At that number, they'd still have a good deal and be ahead of the PAC and ACC.      

  17. 11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    Complete sidebar, but those Big 12 tournaments in Dallas sucked.  If they ever occasionally rotate the basketball tournament in the future, I could see OKC and Des Moines being a lot of fun.  It's a pretty good time of year for me and my cousin lives in Tulsa (and is a huge Cyclone fan), so I could totally see making an OKC tourney.

    OKC is a Thunder town now, and didn't do a great job with the men's tourney the last time it hosted (hence it hasn't been back.)  Local interest was lacking.  It doesn't help that the two Oklahoma schools have steadily shown less interest in men's basketball since the early 2000s and now one of them is gone.  If the Big 12 tourney had to be in Oklahoma, the BOK Center in Tulsa would be a better host site than OKC.

    The best answer by far is to leave the tourney in KC.  

    • Like 1
  18. 20 minutes ago, Zeus said:

    Yep

    The committee is a front and the current system is pick the 4 best teams that also make the most money. I'm surprised TCU got in after losing the conference.

    The 12 team era will be the same thing, just with more options and ways to make more money.

    The Frogs were helped a lot by the lack of good alternative options a year ago.  That said, Texas is home to a few great CFB media markets, so if we assume the committee cares about viewership, then the committee is going to want the state of Texas to have a rooting interest in the CFP whenever possible.  TCU-Michigan had 21.7M viewers (for comparison, UGA-tOSU was only slightly higher at 22.45M.)  TCU-KSU had 9.41M viewers (not much behind the SEC and B1G CCGs.)  Casual fans in Texas usually turn the TV on when an in-state team is good.    

    The new Big 12 is going to be helped out, from time to time, by the strength of the viewership in Texas.   

  19. 6 minutes ago, AUinHsv said:

    Prior to early 1980's there were no minimum requirements for conference games. No idea why but there weren't. As an example Auburn played 5 or 6 in 1970 and 71 and then 8 in 1972. In 1972 the only loss was to LSU and Auburn only played LSU like once a decade back then. Alabama played nine that year.  There were no rules on how many or who you played.

    Yeah.  In 1970, LSU won the ten team SEC with a 5-0 conference record.  Tennessee finished 2nd and had a 4-1 league record.  Auburn was 3rd at 5-2.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_LSU_Tigers_football_team 

    My guess as to the "why" is all the conference realignment chaos in the South between the 20s and 60s.  Protecting bus-travel friendly / familiar opponents took priority over playing the rest of your league on a consistent basis.  It took a couple decades of stability to change the approach.  

  20. 58 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

    I'm just sick to fucking death of listening to assholes try and say it's somehow OSU's fault that Bedlam is being interrupted when OU is who left the goddamn conference.

    It's like one spouse leaving the other and then being like, "it's kind of shitty that you don't want to hang out with me as much any more" to the one who was left. 

    The reason OSU is being blamed at all is because everyone at OSU who addresses this publicly sounds like a jilted lover instead of a long-time opponent.  It's pretty obvious Oklahoma State doesn't want to play the football game anymore (or Gundy at least doesn't) and that's why we're getting the "they left us" answer instead of a "we're working on it" answer.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  21. 2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Branding starts at home.   ASU could be a powerhouse, but it isn't currently even in the same tier as the schools you mentioned.   It is potential, looking for an audience.

    You mean to say that just because FIU is in Miami-Dade, and has 45,000 undergrads enrolled, that they aren't highly valuable?  

    Baylor and TCU both outdrew ASU at the gate last year, by more than 2,000 fans per game each.  I love the Sparky logo, but as an athletics brand, they're "mid" at best.  Their football program hasn't been truly relevant ever, and hasn't been on the cusp of being relevant since Frank Kush left the HC job there in 1979.  Their hoops program has never done anything.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...