Jump to content

FloridaBig12Fan

New Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FloridaBig12Fan

  1. 23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    The Big 12 is garbage no matter how you spin it.

    It’s not, but if it’s been mediocre, it’s because Texas has been mediocre. That doesn’t change for UT by switching conferences, no matter how much you spin it. Conferences aren’t good or bad based on their mid or low tier programs.

    When you are the blueblood, standing in line for conference subsidies because you suck at hiring coaches is a fool’s errand. It risks you becoming the Nebraska of the southwest. 
     

    Now, if you’re saying Texas is no longer, or never was, a blueblood and hence why the Big 12 has a perception problem, then it would make sense to go to the SEC or Big 10. Live off the work their bluebloods have done. 

  2. I would think adding more institutions to the profit share that’s driven primarily by 20-30 programs is over. Contraction is more likely.
     

    I’m somewhat surprised the major players haven’t been able to use Covid as a natural accelerant in this regard, as they need to be careful in being too exclusionary too quickly.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 14 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

    A lot of this realignment nonsense would go away if they would just expand the CFP to at least 8.

    It won’t go away, just modified and/or slowed.

    The current conference structure is archaic and doesn’t utilize the regionalism of college football efficiently. There’s just too much money to be made by reorganizing college football into a more national entity of bundled groupings. 
     

    Regionalism should not be killed off- it’s the advantageous product differentiation- but reorganized into more effective bundling, facilitating a national product.
     

    Imo an example of this that the Pac12 is dying on its own. Not only does that hurt the Pac12, but it decreases the market for all. Get USC and company in the Big 12, subsidizing them with central and eastern relevancy.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  4. 1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    If UT were consistently better it would be a good thing for the league.  There's no doubt about that.

    Perception is a bitch. 

    No program has hurt the conference more the last 20 years than KSU. Despite being a top-20 program over the duration of my life, we can’t have them continuing to punch above their natural weight.

    Of course, Mississippi St having a good year is lauded as a strength in the SEC. We don’t get that benefit. Then again, i don’t think even the SEC would get it if Bama and LSU were consistently losing to the SEC free riders. Recall pre-Saban SEC. 




     

     

  5. 41 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    Jesus fucking Christ.  We aren't getting left out no matter how much a bunch of uninformed mouthbreathers stuck in 1995 want that to happen.  AAU.  Big state school.  Large, passionate fanbase.  Big facilities.  There is nothing about Iowa State that isn't P5 worthy other than your outdated opinion of Iowa State.

    The best thing for Iowa State, really all Big 12 schools that are not OU, maybe KU, is for UT to hire Urban. 
     

    Had UT hired Saban to replace Mack, things would be a lot different for both conferences. The SEC would still produce title contenders, but the historic dynasty would likely be in the Big 12, leaving UT satisfied. With UT elite, there wouldn’t have been a need for a 13th data point, thereby clearing the way for both UT and OU to both be in the playoffs.
     

    This would also have yielded a lot more social capital for the conference. Add to the chance the conference could have pulled a few ACC or Pac12 teams. UT would be king of college football 

  6. 2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Every day that aggy is in the SEC and Texas isn't is a good day for aggy.

    We should join the SEC out of spite.


    Conferences go as their bluebloods go, not the other way around. Also-rans go as their conference goes. What’s the Big 10 without OSU having elite success by not losing to the also-rans of that conference?

    Texas going to the SEC West, without changes to the college football postseason, isn’t likely to be an improvement in product differentiation with Texas A&M. 
     

    Conference affiliation is extremely secondary to UT’s problems in having elite seasons (granted it would help increase the budget). It’s nearly all about getting a good staff.


    Whatever success a new staff would have in the SEC, it would likely be even greater as the flagship of the Big 12. UT in the Big 12 with a good coach staff this year is in the playoffs. In the SEC? Likely at home with A&M. 
     

    The frustrating thing is the issue isn’t even UT is struggling to recruit, losing to more talented SEC teams in the postseason. Even with Herman and coming out of a horrible decade, UT beat UGa and gave LSU it’s best game. Good grief, just think what a UM or Saban would do in the Big 12 at UT. At the same time, also changing the image of the Big 12.

     

  7. 2 minutes ago, jinx said:

    Missouri doesn't fit in the SEC at all.  The fact that they are the 2nd westernmost school and play in the SEC East should tell you all you need to know about what the SEC thinks of them.

    Most SEC fans I know thought "Texas A&M - pretty good if you can't get Texas or OU; Mizzou - WTF????"

    They may be treated as an also-ran, but they fit imo. Just not as well as they do in the Big 12. What west team should the SEC have moved? Auburn? I don’t think that means anything.
     

    The state of Missouri is at the confluence of many cultural regions. As such their fit is an issue no matter what conference imo, but the Big 12 was as good as one could hope for in that regard. 

  8. 7 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

    I like most of this, I just don't think Colorado's a fit. But if we could get those other schools (and I'd have no qualms about booting Baylor), it just makes sense regionally speaking. But then I remain convinced that Texas fans would rather play Texas schools than Indiana and Purdue every year-- like, the Texas to the Big Ten stuff is attractive until you start talking about playing a bunch of schools that you have no history with, no regional ties to, and who don't take football seriously. 

    It’s not now, but it was.

    Nebraska is a conference-mate of Rutgers. Fit isn’t very important now, so based on that I’d take them.

    Im not a UT fan, but I give the previous UT leadership a lot of credit after NU’s butthurt brought this on the conference. The play was to get the football schools of the ACC once Maryland destabilized, taking the basketball ones too if needed. Unfortunately A&M and Missouri wanting new overlords, and now Clemson’s rise, derailed that. 
     

    Take the original 12, sans NU, CU, and Baylor, add Clemson, FSU, GT, UNC, Duke, UVa, and one more. Profit

  9. 1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

    Yes, I like playing Colorado but they don't fit in the B12 as well as they do in the Pac-12. Missouri, though, culturally is a way better fit for the Big 12. I don't know what we could really offer them to get them to switch back. 

    Now, but it was less so for nearly the entirety of the Big 8. 
     

    If purely based on last century regionalism, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, A&M and CU should all be in the Big 12. Sorry Baylor. That set of 12 then listens to Weinberg and is the first to start pool rights into a network, then going on the attack to add the ACC programs of choice in the mid-2000’s. Removing ACC sweetheart deals, and more desirable conference mates, maybe we even snag ND around 2020.

    Instead Arky, then Missouri are sucking hind tit in the SEC. Soon to be joined by Nebraska in the Big 10. CU is enjoying being surrounded by equitable disinterest in college athletics. 

  10. 5 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

    Speaking of building up teams, how is Tulane rarely on the build up list ? 

    Great road game, academic prowess, some decent history, and sits in the middle of a recruiting hotbed. If we're thinking investments this seems like a good one. 

    I'm not convinced we need more football power, we need re-use the fuckery of the SEC scheduling until it stops being an advantage to boost our numbers. 

    Well, the SEC could do it with their loyal lunacy. And the Big 10 could swing it with rust belt brute force. 
     

    For the Big 12, it would need to be a bridge institution. Like a bridge to the heart of the ACC. If you’ve lived in the other P4 conferences, adding Tulane, without P5’s on the other side, to Big 12 would more likely further the Big 12 to G5 status than Tulane to P4/5 status. Adding an athletic department that is second or third tier (in sports) in their area must have immediate on field appeal imo. Like TCU, I guess (sigh).

    My pipe dream will always be to add Clemson, FSU, ND, UNC, Duke, UVa to the Big 12 to rival the SEC. Drop Baylor, TCU, even KSU if needed. Maybe Tulane fits in continuity in that pipe dream. The ACC suffers from being coterminous with the most important conference. They’re the Auburn of conferences right now. But Clemson has single handily saved the ACC, as otherwise their assets may have been better off doing an A$M and running for the Big 10 or Big 12.


    Outside of OSU the Big 10 is a dying rust belt brand, but it will remain strong in sheer population and CFB having ingrained cultural importance. The brilliant move to have a revenue mechanism solely exploiting overall general population has given them an advantageous head start that will outlast cord cutting. 
     

    The SEC is the SEC. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 54 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    There are very valuable properties in the Pac 12, including UCLA, Oregon, and Washington.  Cal and Stanford are no slouches either.   

    The issue the Pac has isn't properties, outside the fact that they don't have any football powers at the moment, but that can be changed considering Cali pumps out talent.  The conference, though, is struggling with the ramifications of a few bad decisions and geography:

    rvvwwhggop111.jpg

    1 - While the west coast is populous and loaded, it is very spread out compared to the east coast and from the East Coast as well.    CFB eyeballs are driven by Eastern (47% of US population), Central (29%), Pacific (17%), and then Mountain time zones (7%), in that order.   Due to that, most Pac 12 games are played in front of a market of 80m instead of 250m.

    2 - The deal, part one:  That CBS 3:30 eastern time slot for the SEC is basically the start of nationwide viewing and it gives a shit ton of exposure for the teams within it.   The other Big 4 can play in the noon eastern slot and still be in front of 200m people, so their secondary slot is still very valuable.   The Pac 12's deal didn't get them into these windows, matter a fact most of their games are structured for west coast timing.   Which, can be smart if you leverage your own market and can get everyone (See Birmingham), but in this case they needed to get outside their market.  This is why you see Oregon, Washington and USC fly to the east coast for made for tv early season games.   So instead of getting a larger audience, they're trying to maximize a terribly small audience and ended up relegated to timing windows that were unused by the other conferences, e.g. after prime time eastern.   No eyeballs, no money.

    3 - The deal, part two:  The Pac12 Network was great in concept, terrible in execution.  Sports networks, outside ESPN, are inherently regional.   Even the best of them all, the Yes Network, is carved out of like 50 square miles.   Each non-football pro team goes with a small footprint around a major market and the NFL takes this to the max by carving up the US to show the games they think will be the highest rated in that specific metro area.  So the idea having 6 smaller networks instead of one big one, had some good stuff in it, but the issue became, "why do I need to pay for two channels?"   Creating a big Pac12Network and regional satellites meant they had to not only ask all the distributers to pony up twice, but they also had to feed that beast with inventory.   They made a very solid contract originally, but it was for 70-80% of their inventory and the rest was used to feed the PacN.   Since the PacN had no carriage, it made very little money, but had huge expenses, so very little made it back to the schools.   In reality, sports conferences (or teams for that matter), shouldn't really be in the distribution business.   When Larry got hard thinking he'd turn the Pac12 into a "media company" instead of a sports conference, they lost sight of, like, everything.

    TLDR - its not that they don't have value, its that they don't maximize their value nor even realize 100% of the value.    They're sort of in the same place the SWC and Big 8 were 25 years ago.   If they don't find a way to get out of their bubble, by more than playing ND, they aren't going to reverse their trend line.   And, quite simply, they need to focus on football more than they do.

    Raiding - you don't need them all.  One team in LA and one in SF is enough.   You don't need two from Oregon and Washington.   You likely don't need two from AZ either.  Matter a fact, none may work out because, to give Dodds some credit, he knew the money pointed east, not west.   Unless you could take select properties, enhance them to be world beaters again, AND only play them at 3:30 or PT against current Big 12, then you risk driving your own eyeballs west, instead of east.  

    Great post.
     

    First, let me say I’m a big Big 12 fan. But we do have a perception problem. This started with a lack of history facilitating losing assets, but more than anything because our bluebloods havent been as good as Bama, LSU, Ohio St, and Clemson. Had UT hired Saban, I firmly believe the scoreboard fans in other conferences would change their tune.

    Nevertheless, there are assets in the PAC 12 that would be more valuable if in the Big 12 (or any other central/East conference) imo. I’m not sure the reverse is true if UT went west. Your map shows why. The math on adding them may be better than adding their current value imo. Anecdotally, I have found people in Big 12/10/SEC areas know as much or more about the PAC 12 than the general population in the West. CFB matters more here.
     

    The central and east want to care about USC, UCLA, Oregon Stanford etc, but it’s tough when they’re effectively playing in their own world. Add them to the schedule in better kickoff times, and it would work imo. And just the act of adding those brands would help the Big 12’s perception problem. Adding more to the demographic diversity helps too. 

    The contention you can’t be successful with three time zones is amiss imo. It’s the fact that those other conferences were desperate and needed to span 3 time zones is why it struggled. Does anyone think the SEC would have faltered adding USC and Texas rather than Missouri and A$M? That said, there is something to be said for cultural continuity and a continuum, which correlates with geographical fit. That’s how you get mouth breathers chanting SEC SEC. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...