Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by panerd

Eh, as a Mizzou fan I don't think I am counting my chickens before they hatch. We are hardly high on the Big Ten's list, the SEC has several schools besides us dying to get in, and the Pac-10 would have to have a couple schools drop out before we get chosen. Obviously I want to end up in one of the three (actually outside of late tv I'm now hoping the Pac-10. Big Ten football bores me) but its less than a year since we were a "lock" for the Big Ten. (The first several hundred posts in this thread can refresh your memory on how that one went)

I think he is comparing what Texas wants to what Missouri wants. Missouri wants a conference. Texas wants certain things. Texas is in a better situation because they can go anywhere if they really wanted to, but hold a list of demands that complicate things

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Another article discussing UT's options now that OU/OSU are basically gone. Amazing that UT has overplayed their hand so far to the point where they are left with no really good options assuming the Pac-XX holds firm on 'no LHN'.

Sources: Texas has three viable realignment options

The pull quote without a doubt is the source from a conference schoohe saying the Big 12 is done.

You have to assume the sources for Brown and Bohls are all Texas athletics people. The ACC talk has to me always seemed like UT trying to use rumors to gain leverage -- it doesn't seem like a real threat.

Texas trying to save the Big 12 is real, to a degree. I've been curious why Texas wants to save the conference when it seems there are better deals elsewhere. Now I see why. Texas thinks $15 million for LHN and third tier rights is the tip of the iceberg. They think more money is to be made, and the Big 12 is the only place that can happen.

All accounts are that most of the Big 12 schools are negotiating with each other behind the scenes, with the exception of Baylor. No one wants anything do with Baylor. It does appear OU and A&M have been trying to orchestrate a departure that leaves everyone blame free.

As a Mizzou fan, I just fear that Mike Alden is getting played again -- that the Pac 12 is using Mizzou to get Texas, that the SEC is using Mizzou to get a 14th that they want. And by all accounts, even after last year, Mizzou fears embracing the PAC or SEC because they still want the Big Ten.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anyone that can't see how Mizzou is in a much better position than Texas right now simply isn't paying attention. Mizzou has three legitimate options as far as a destination. All three have a TV budget that meets or exceeds MU's current take in the Big 12. That's very important because it doesn't require any budget cuts.

Texas has put itself in a quandary with the LHN. Their only really good conference option is saying no at this point because of the LHN. Assuming that stays, the other two options are two conferences that both are not a geographic fit and both cannot replace the current budget needs that the LHN income + current conference revenue allows. Independent causes problems for the rest of the athletic programs at UT. I'm not crying for them in any way, but this has been an extreme mismanagement (and misjudgment) of the situation by UT brass.

My guess would be that they finally bail on the LHN and head to the Pac-XX in the end. That's their best choice of what's left with the least risk.

Let me get this straight. Mizzou is in a better position because ESPN deemed Texas worth about $300 million?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The point seems to be that Texas will have a hard time duplicating the deal they have now in terms of keeping the LHN and all the money it comes with. I don't see that as being too difficult to understand.

I suppose it's possible that a surviving Big-12 could land a huge new TV deal in the future that, combined with the existing 2nd tier rights deal, the Longhorn Network deal and the various concessions negotiated with the rest of the conference would provide Texas with more money than what they'd get as an equal revenue sharing partner in the Pac-16 (or Big Ten for that matter), but I have my doubts.

Texas will make a shit-ton of money in the Pac-16. The existing mega-deal plus the projected revenues of the wholly-owned Pac Networks are already projected to bring in $33-36M per school once the Pac Networks are in full swing. And that doesn't even take into account the potential for the conference to renegotiate their deal with Fox/ESPN after landing Oklahoma and Texas (and the Big-12 no longer being an entity) for even higher per-team takes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Let me get this straight. Mizzou is in a better position because ESPN deemed Texas worth about $300 million?

That's not what was stated. You could compare Mizzou to a mid-market in baseball and Texas to the Yankees. Texas managed to go from a position of power that they should be able to do anything to a position where they're somewhat limited on what they can do. Just because they have more wiggle room doesn't excuse the fact that Texas admins have handled this pretty poorly thus far. It may not hurt them financially, but they certainly have put some tarnish on their power base.

On the other side, Mizzou is going to be able to land in a position that likely improves their financial standing and security from a conference standpoint. Mizzou will be able to use that money on the football stadium expansion that's likely to take place and parlay that into more money. That's about as good as it gets given Mizzou's starting point.

[MrBug708]

Im not sure how Texas has handled this badly. Worst case scenario is that they pull in more money with the PAC-12 than they would have had they left things as status quo

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Im not sure how Texas has handled this badly. Worst case scenario is that they pull in more money with the PAC-12 than they would have had they left things as status quo

They're going to make $40-45M in the Pac-XX without the LHN? Link?

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They're going to make $40-45M in the Pac-XX without the LHN? Link?

They certainly might. The PAC already has a deal with the major cable players nationwide. Once you enter a new market you get on basic cable with higher sub fees PLUS your digital tier regional channel. Even if they can't renegotiate with FOX/ESPN on their first tier deal, they will have more inventory for the National channel, which frees up inventory for the regional channels. Live television is where the advertising revenue is.

Plus, people seem to forget that the PAC Network has reserved itself the rights to some first tier matchups. That's huge.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

They certainly might. The PAC already has a deal with the major cable players nationwide. Once you enter a new market you get on basic cable with higher sub fees PLUS your digital tier regional channel. Even if they can't renegotiate with FOX/ESPN on their first tier deal, they will have more inventory for the National channel, which frees up inventory for the regional channels. Live television is where the advertising revenue is.

Plus, people seem to forget that the PAC Network has reserved itself the rights to some first tier matchups. That's huge.

Fair enough. I haven't seen that number anywhere. We won't have to wait long to find out.

Gabe DeArmond said on radio that Mizzou officials are prepared to be the next team 'on the clock' next Tuesday (9/20/11). Said that OU/OSU departure on Monday is going to happen.

[cartman]

We didn't have long to wait last week. Or the week before that. Or three weeks ago. Or a month ago. Or last year when this all got started.

This is MBBF's version of "Live everyday as if it will be your last. One of these days you will be right."

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Another article discussing UT's options now that OU/OSU are basically gone. Amazing that UT has overplayed their hand so far to the point where they are left with no really good options assuming the Pac-XX holds firm on 'no LHN'.

Sources: Texas has three viable realignment options

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I suppose it's possible that a surviving Big-12 could land a huge new TV deal in the future that, combined with the existing 2nd tier rights deal, the Longhorn Network deal and the various concessions negotiated with the rest of the conference would provide Texas with more money than what they'd get as an equal revenue sharing partner in the Pac-16 (or Big Ten for that matter), but I have my doubts.

Texas will make a shit-ton of money in the Pac-16. The existing mega-deal plus the projected revenues of the wholly-owned Pac Networks are already projected to bring in $33-36M per school once the Pac Networks are in full swing. And that doesn't even take into account the potential for the conference to renegotiate their deal with Fox/ESPN after landing Oklahoma and Texas (and the Big-12 no longer being an entity) for even higher per-team takes.

It's possible, but I think those numbers are high, unless they are projections down the road. The deal with the cable companies will be somewhat limiting because they are really going to be counting on the rights fees rather than subscriber fee. The cable companies want the programming to add value and fight cord-cutting. It's not about getting subscriber fees, which is the BTN/LHN model.

Texas things they can blow past that number. I think they believe LHN can bring in $50 million a year and they don't want to share that revenue.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's not what was stated. You could compare Mizzou to a mid-market in baseball and Texas to the Yankees. Texas managed to go from a position of power that they should be able to do anything to a position where they're somewhat limited on what they can do. Just because they have more wiggle room doesn't excuse the fact that Texas admins have handled this pretty poorly thus far. It may not hurt them financially, but they certainly have put some tarnish on their power base.

I'm interested to hear more about how Texas is in between a rock and a hard place with all of these conferences coveting them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Texas things they can blow past that number. I think they believe LHN can bring in $50 million a year and they don't want to share that revenue.

Everything I've seen of late seems to indicate that ESPN would be happy to see UT break that contract. They're not seeing the revenue or programming that they thought they'd get out of the deal. But UT is happy with the contract and wants to keep it for obvious reasons ($$$).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I'm interested to hear more about how Texas is in between a rock and a hard place with all of these conferences coveting them.

Which ones? The B10 and ACC are just bluffs to try to get the Pac-XX to take UT with the LHN intact. The options are much more limited than what Texas media would lead you to believe. The Pac-XX is their only realistic option from a conference standpoint.

[MrBug708]

Why not? The PAC-12 isnt taking the LHN so if Texas isn't keeping that then other conferences would be interested either way

[MrBug708]

I was told by a Colorado fan that Larry Scott is replaceable and that he doesn't wield much power, at least more than any of the presidents do.

He also thinks that if there is a PAC-16 and it's E/W (which isn't really an option), that they would leave with the "mountain" schools and form a conference with the four Big-4 schools and add SDSU and Fresno State. THis was his "Mountain Schools have all of the leverage" speech

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which ones? The B10 and ACC are just bluffs to try to get the Pac-XX to take UT with the LHN intact. The options are much more limited than what Texas media would lead you to believe. The Pac-XX is their only realistic option from a conference standpoint.

I guess we won't have to wait long.

Man, I wish someone would start up a new sports news network to combat all this Texas media bias. It is getting so super old, I can't even tell you.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Everything I've seen of late seems to indicate that ESPN would be happy to see UT break that contract. They're not seeing the revenue or programming that they thought they'd get out of the deal. But UT is happy with the contract and wants to keep it for obvious reasons ($$$).

The network launched less than 3 weeks ago, on August 26th. Unless the HP execs that killed the Touchpad went to Bristol, there is no way that ESPN is already looking to pull the plug.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More chatter on the Pac-xx end of things. Actually discusses the same thing we've been discussing in this thread regarding Texas and their current situation.

Pac-12 football: The latest on expansion | College Hotline

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

Interesting sidenote to all of this chaos. The Big 12 Conference owns 'Big 13', 'Big 14', 'Big 15', and 'Big 16'. It'll be interesting to see how those names are redistributed or if a group of remaining schools hold on to the names.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's not what was stated. You could compare Mizzou to a mid-market in baseball and Texas to the Yankees. Texas managed to go from a position of power that they should be able to do anything to a position where they're somewhat limited on what they can do. Just because they have more wiggle room doesn't excuse the fact that Texas admins have handled this pretty poorly thus far. It may not hurt them financially, but they certainly have put some tarnish on their power base.

On the other side, Mizzou is going to be able to land in a position that likely improves their financial standing and security from a conference standpoint. Mizzou will be able to use that money on the football stadium expansion that's likely to take place and parlay that into more money. That's about as good as it gets given Mizzou's starting point.

Sorry I must have misunderstood when you typed anyone who can't see missouri is in a better position than Texas right now isn't paying attention. That or you changed your argument and took a giant step backwards in the process.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Sorry I must have misunderstood when you typed anyone who can't see missouri is in a better position than Texas right now isn't paying attention. That or you changed your argument and took a giant step backwards in the process.

Better position from a conference security standpoint was the point at hand. There's little question that Texas works from a bigger budget and a higher place of power to start, but they certainly have handled this quite poorly and have reduced their options significantly. There's absolutely no reason for Texas to be in this position. It should have options for all conferences given its standing in the NCAA world. The article in the Mercury that I posted makes similar comments in that regard, so I know I'm not the only one with that opinion of the situation.

[RedKingGold]

MBBF makes me hate Missouri and root against their teams.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

It's possible, but I think those numbers are high, unless they are projections down the road.

We know about the $21M per year/per team from the new Fox/ESPN deal:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/college...-deal-is-done/

The $12-$15M per year/per team take from the Pac-12 Network is definitely a down the road projection, but it comes from someone that does market research for a living:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ich_quick.html

If the Big-"12" implodes, that's one less major conference that TV networks can negotiate with, driving up the leverage of the remaining conferences, and if the Pac is able to add Oklahoma and Texas with the Big-"12" gone, I have little doubt the conference would be able to squeeze out a lot more money from their 1st tier TV rights deal.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They're going to make $40-45M in the Pac-XX without the LHN? Link?

You're saying Texas stands to make that much in their current set-up (assuming the Big-"12" were to survive intact)? That's quite a bit higher than I've seen reported...

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

MBBF makes me hate Missouri and root against their teams.

+1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

MBBF makes me hate Missouri and root against their teams.

When your one of only five programs in the nation to win 40 games over the last 4 years, most people hate you. Success is a beautiful thing. Keep hating. We'll just keep winning.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

MBBF makes me hate Missouri and root against their teams.

And RKG makes me hate Pennsylvania and root against their teams. Everybody's got an albatross to deal with.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're saying Texas stands to make that much in their current set-up (assuming the Big-"12" were to survive intact)? That's quite a bit higher than I've seen reported...

kcchief outlined the details a few pages back. $40M is a pretty accurate estimate when you put all the pieces together. It would have increased over the course of the contract another $4-5M.

[digamma]

OK, MBBF, let's put it this way.

I am DeLoss Dodds and you are Mike Alden and we each have our conference possibilities in the form of a poker hand. You have the option to switch hands with me. Your (or is it you're) move.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

OK, MBBF, let's put it this way.

I am DeLoss Dodds and you are Mike Alden and we each have our conference possibilities in the form of a poker hand. You have the option to switch hands with me. Your (or is it you're) move.

If you're ignoring overall budget, I'd take Mizzou. SEC or Pac-XX is better than ACC or Pac-XX IMO. The whole B10 isn't really relevant as both teams aren't going to end up there despite both having flirtations with that conference at various points.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

When your one of only five programs in the nation to win 40 games over the last 4 years, most people hate you. Success is a beautiful thing. Keep hating. We'll just keep winning.

Yeah. You can wrap yourself in all the banners from conference titles since World War 2. Be careful, though. If you wreck the one, there aren't any more.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you're ignoring overall budget, I'd take Mizzou. SEC or Pac-XX is better than ACC or Pac-XX IMO. The whole B10 isn't really relevant as both teams aren't going to end up there despite both having flirtations with that conference at various points.

Please. Missouri can only go to the Pac-12 if Texas says no and goes somewhere else. Missouri's only options right now are shit (Big X) or get off the pot (Big East).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Yeah. You can wrap yourself in all the banners from conference titles since World War 2. Be careful, though. If you wreck the one, there aren't any more.

Seriously? Only one conference football title in 65 years?!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Please. Missouri can only go to the Pac-12 if Texas says no. Missouri's only options are shit (Big X) or get off the pot (Big East).

Big 10 isn't even under consideration by MU. SEC is first, Pac-XX is second, and Big East is a distant third. I'm not even sure that's a secret at this point.

Chipper with some more Texas-based info........

Texas to the Atlantic Coast Conference is gaining some steam. Just posted more information at Orangebloods.com ($).

Texas would be the Hawaii of the ACC if this happened. Still likely that it's just PR from the admins to try to get concessions from the Pac-XX.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

FSU now looking at their options......

Trustee: FSU forming realignment committee - CBSSports.com

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Big 10 isn't even under consideration by MU. SEC is first, Pac-XX is second, and Big East is a distant third. I'm not even sure that's a secret at this point.

Chipper with some more Texas-based info........



Texas would be the Hawaii of the ACC if this happened. Still likely that it's just PR from the admins to try to get concessions from the Pac-XX.

I didn;'t say Big Ten. I said Big X, aka the conference you are currently in, aka the soon to be Big VIII.

[cartman]

In the interests of full disclosure:

National team titles by institution (for all sports)

School - Number - NCAA Championships
Oklahoma State - 50 - NCAA(50)
Texas - 48 - NCAA(40)
Oklahoma - 25 - NCAA(18)
Iowa State - 19 - NCAA(14)
Texas A&M - 14 - NCAA(13)
Kansas - 12 - NCAA(10)
Baylor - 2 - NCAA(2)
Missouri - 2 - NCAA(2)
Texas Tech - 1 - NCAA(1)
Kansas State - 0 - NCAA(0)

Big 12 Conference Titles by school (all sports)

Texas - 114 (121 including 7 football division championships)
Texas A&M - 53 (55 including 2 football division championships)
Baylor - 42
Oklahoma - 39 (47 including 8 football division championships)
Oklahoma State - 40 (41 including 1 football division championship)
Kansas - 24 (25 including 1 football division championship)
Iowa State - 11 (12 including 1 football division championship)
Texas Tech - 11 (12 including 1 football division championship)
Kansas State - 7 (11 including 4 football division championships)
Missouri - 7 (10 including 3 football division championships)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I didn;'t say Big Ten. I said Big X, aka the conference you are currently in, aka the soon to be Big VIII.

Conference member fans currently call it the Big 12-3 if you really want to keep tabs at home. There's 0% chance this conference stays intact.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

When your one of only five programs in the nation to win 40 games over the last 4 years, most people hate you. Success is a beautiful thing. Keep hating. We'll just keep winning.

This post is amazing on so many levels.

[cartman]

Texas is one of those teams with 40 wins over the past 4 seasons, even though they are awful because they went 5-7 last season.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

MBBF makes me hate Missouri and root against their teams.

""", except that guys like MizzouRah et all come to mind as more rational alternatives. Baghdad Ali looks at MBBF and thinks, "that's shameless".

[Crapshoot]

MBBF, do you really live in this fantasy land that anyone reading this thread thinks you're an epic homer is wrong ? Is it all a vast conspiracy against you, and you alone?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

MBBF, do you really live in this fantasy land that anyone reading this thread thinks you're an epic homer is wrong ? Is it all a vast conspiracy against you, and you alone?

Wait, did anyone ever imply that I wasn't a homer? That's news to me (and probably everyone else in this thread).

I take that as a compliment.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

kcchief outlined the details a few pages back. $40M is a pretty accurate estimate when you put all the pieces together. It would have increased over the course of the contract another $4-5M.

Big-"12" currently takes in $150M per year in their TV deals. I don't know how much more Texas gets than anyone else in those deals, but I recall talk they were getting ~$20M. They get $15M per year for the Longhorn Network. That's right in the same range as the projected revenues in the Pac-12 once the Pac-12 Network is rolling. Of course, if Texas joined the Pac-12, their mega-deal would be subject to re-negotiation. With one less major conference, and adding the Texas & Oklahoma brands, anyone want to bet that the Pac-16 wouldn't command a significant bump from their existing deal?

Meanwhile, a limping Big-"12" that has lost A&M and the Oklahoma schools would be able to command enough money in their next TV deal to provide Texas a match to that?

I don't think so.

[MrBug708]

The likely losses in football does not deter me from wanting Missouri in the PAC-12 now

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Meanwhile, a limping Big-"12" that has lost A&M and the Oklahoma schools would be able to command enough money in their next TV deal to provide Texas a match to that?

I don't think so.

That was not the comparison I made. I made a comparison of what Texas was making coming into this season vs. what they stand to make. Their total revenue is around $40M. They'd only make $15M the moment that OU/OSU/MU leaves because the league will disband at that point. No conference deal at all.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Big 10 isn't even under consideration by MU. SEC is first, Pac-XX is second, and Big East is a distant third. I'm not even sure that's a secret at this point.

Chipper with some more Texas-based info........



Texas would be the Hawaii of the ACC if this happened. Still likely that it's just PR from the admins to try to get concessions from the Pac-XX.

Except the only way ut comes to the ACC, is inthe proposed pod system.
4 - 4 team pods.

tobacco road - unc, ncst, wake, duke
South- Clemson, gt, Miami, fsu
North- md, UVA, vt, bc
Gulf - ut, x,y,z where x,y,z may equal tt, ou, osu.......

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

MBBF makes me hate Missouri and root against their teams.

+1000