Saving The Big XII...

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

I said a lot of things. However, I also dismissed every rumor and since none of the rumors turned out to be true, I win.

I didn't realize it was a contest.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

No it won't. If Texas goes undefeated, they're in the chip.

Not if a combination of two SEC/Big Ten/Pac 10 schools go undefeated. Without a conference championship game, and a widening gap between them and the bottom of the conference, they'll be left out in favor of undefeated teams from the stronger conferences with a Title Game. And there's no more margin for error. One loss, and they're probably out.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

How?

Less BCS berths for Texas and the conference as a whole means less money for Texas.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

There is no chance that Notre Dame would ever be left out. Any conference would take them.

Exactly. They'd have to join a conference. Which is still what I think all of this is about from the Big Ten side. They will continue to try and find a way to make joining the Big Ten the most appealing option, and if they have to do super conferences to do it, then they will.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Because, exactly as I said when the first "16 team Big 10!!!!" thing was brought up, every conference wants 12 so they can have a chip game. More than 12 and money per school drops unless Texas or Notre Dame are included (or TAMU/OU to the SEC).

I've honestly never understood what A&M really would add to the SEC. They're second fiddle in their own region, and aren't what I'd call among the top class of college football (though still a very good program overall). Oklahoma isn't going to bring in a top dollar either. I still think that potential move was purely reactionary by the SEC.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Oklahoma will be making more money since they can shake down the remaining Big XII schools for a higher percent of money than before.

They're making more than they did before, but the gap between them in Texas is widening, and A&M has quickly caught up. Oklahoma is slated to make about $20mil, while the SEC pays out $17 mil, and the Big Ten will probably be $20mil (I think?).

I think the year to look at is 2016, when the Big Ten will be eligible to negotiate a new TV deal. It doesn't make sense to add more teams, since they will take more than they give, but in new television negotiations, more teams could get you more money on that next contract. A new tv deal is, after all, why the Pac 10 expanded.

[rspencer86]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Because, exactly as I said when the first "16 team Big 10!!!!" thing was brought up, every conference wants 12 so they can have a chip game. More than 12 and money per school drops unless Texas or Notre Dame are included (or TAMU/OU to the SEC).

This is assuming what's left of the Big XII survives. If the Big XII dissolved, where do you think all that TV contract money would go? It would make the superconference contracts worth much, much more, making it likely that it would be more lucrative than the current setup.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

Not if a combination of two SEC/Big Ten/Pac 10 schools go undefeated.

The only possible chance an undefeated Texas team gets left out is if there's an undefeated SEC team and an undefeated Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, or Nebraska and even then Texas would probably get the nod over the Big 10.

The only thing the Big XII lost with respect to Texas is the championship game. Texas only played Nebraska and Colorado so often.

Quote:

Less BCS berths for Texas and the conference as a whole means less money for Texas.

How will there be fewer BCS berths for Texas and the Big XII?

Nebraska and Colorado haven't had a BCS appearance since 2001. Again, if anything Texas benefits because they're dividing by 10 instead of 12.

Quote:

Exactly. They'd have to join a conference. Which is still what I think all of this is about from the Big Ten side. They will continue to try and find a way to make joining the Big Ten the most appealing option, and if they have to do super conferences to do it, then they will.

But there's no likely scenario where they'd "have to join a conference" in the future. Hell, the Big 10's obsession with a stupid parade is the biggest impediment to a playoff which is the only way Notre Dame even thinks about joining a conference.

Quote:

I've honestly never understood what A&M really would add to the SEC. They're second fiddle in their own region, and aren't what I'd call among the top class of college football (though still a very good program overall). Oklahoma isn't going to bring in a top dollar either. I still think that potential move was purely reactionary by the SEC.

Of course it was reactionary.

However, you significantly underestimate TAMU and Oklahoma. Of all non-SEC and Big 10 teams, they're the third and fourth most valuable football programs.

Quote:

They're making more than they did before, but the gap between them in Texas is widening, and A&M has quickly caught up. Oklahoma is slated to make about $20mil, while the SEC pays out $17 mil, and the Big Ten will probably be $20mil (I think?). I think the year to look at is 2016, when the Big Ten will be eligible to negotiate a new TV deal. It doesn't make sense to add more teams, since they will take more than they give, but in new television negotiations, more teams could get you more money on that next contract. A new tv deal is, after all, why the Pac 10 expanded.

Much like super conferences, I'd hold off on proclaiming these mega-TV deals until one actually occurs.

The biggest problem for the conferences not named the SEC is that ESPN has basically given the SEC every prime time spot and the Big 10 the early spots. Short of doing a disastrous move like the PAC 10 did and going to Fox, I don't think there's much more money to be made in the contracts. They'll be bigger, but they aren't going to be insane.

Quote:

If the Big XII dissolved

That's an unbelievably huge if. At this point, it's about as likely as "If Vanderbilt wins the next 5 national championships then..."

[DonkeyJote]

When I say the Big XII is worse off on the field, I mean long term. All the teams other than the big three will be falling even farther behind because they aren't making any money. And I believe an undefeated Pac 12 Champion gets in over an undefeated Texas team a good amount of the time. It happened to USC. I think losing the conference title game is more harmful to any title chances than people realize.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

All the teams other than the big three will be falling even farther behind because they aren't making any money.

1. How in the world can they fall "even farther behind"? Kansas, Missouri, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St have been as good as they've ever been recently and Kansas St is still far better than their historic place. The only three programs performing worse than their historic averages are TAMU, Nebraska, and Colorado.

2. How will they not "making any money"? They're making less than Texas (as is every football program in the country) but they're far from broke.

Quote:

And I believe an undefeated Pac 12 Champion gets in over an undefeated Texas team a good amount of the time.

Then you don't know how college football chooses its national champion. The only PAC 12 team who would even be a toss up with Texas would be USC but between the probation and Kiffin, they won't be in that position for a while.

If you think Oregon, Utah, or Cal are getting ranked above Texas then you live in an alternate universe.

Quote:

It happened to USC.

The only two BCS programs to be left out from the chip game while undefeated were Auburn and Cincinnati. They were left out for USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and Alabama.

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

The only two BCS programs to be left out from the chip game while undefeated were Auburn and Cincinnati. They were left out for USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and Alabama.

They weren't undefeated, but they did miss out to Oklahoma who also had 1-loss, and had lost it's conference championship game, but USC was left out because the Pac 10 was regarded as the lesser conference.

The computer's don't care about the name of your school, but they do care about your conference. I think you're underestimating how much the loss of a Conference Championship game is going to hurt Texas.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

They weren't undefeated, but they did miss out to Oklahoma who also had 1-loss, and had lost it's conference championship game, but USC was left out because the Pac 10 was regarded as the lesser conference.

1. Losses are completely different than going undefeated. Oregon (or any PAC 12 team) can jump Texas if Texas loses. They have almost no chance of jumping Texas if Texas is undefeated. And since you believe the Big XII is going to turn into a joke of a conference, why would Texas or Oklahoma lose to teams other than themselves?

2. USC's schedule was significantly worse than LSU or Oklahoma's.

3. But that doesn't matter because...

Quote:

The computer's don't care about the name of your school, but they do care about your conference.

...the BCS has changed significantly since 2003. The computers are more or less irrelevant if the polls agree on the top 2 teams.

What was once a formula with several parts has turned into a simple average of three numbers. Two of those numbers are polls. Thus, if the polls agree on the #1 and #2 teams, the #3 team would have to be ranked unanimously #1 by the computers and the #2 team would have to be ranked at best third unanimously. That's pretty unlikely.