If UNLV gets its football stadium, should the Pac-12 add them?

[Buffnik]

If we believe message posters drive a profitable conference structure, then we should listen to them.

Seriously, BuffNik - I am not in on these secondary conference members at all. Wake me up when we talk about someone that adds per member TV revenue. On second thought, don't wake me up for that discussion, 'cause I don't want to see 10k Sacky posts on why it is a bad idea to add UT, just because he believes it is a bad idea.

I'm not in favor of this either. I think that even if we try to expand the conference within the western footprint, the better approach is to add major metros/ states instead of doubling down where we already have distribution. I think UNLV and New Mexico are much better targets than CSU for that reason, and they have a lot of question marks with whether they'd really add any value. Unfortunately for sports fans, the schools that add the most value in our region seem to be non-starters for political and/or academic reasons: BYU, SDSU and Boise State. But is it really the "Pac-12" if we expand into OK and TX? Will we even have that opportunity anyway?

 

[Highlander]

I'm not in favor of this either. I think that even if we try to expand the conference within the western footprint, the better approach is to add major metros/ states instead of doubling down where we already have distribution. I think UNLV and New Mexico are much better targets than CSU for that reason, and they have a lot of question marks with whether they'd really add any value. Unfortunately for sports fans, the schools that add the most value in our region seem to be non-starters for political and/or academic reasons: BYU, SDSU and Boise State. But is it really the "Pac-12" if we expand into OK and TX? Will we even have that opportunity anyway?

I sort of get the forward thinking in regards to Vegas and ABQ. I also believe "we" (the Pac 12) don't need to pay it forward to add them. If the Big 12 did an analysis and didn't add Cincinnati or Louisville, what in the world would the PAC 12 be doing adding Vegas or ABQ? Let's talk in 20 years and maybe this is a real conversation.

The question about whether or not the Pac 12 loses its identity by adding OU or UT ended the moment the Big 12 added West Virginia, the SEC added aTm, and the Big 10 added Rutgers and Maryland.

 

[sackman]

The question about whether or not the Pac 12 loses its identity by adding OU or UT ended the moment the Big 12 added West Virginia, the SEC added aTm, and the Big 10 added Rutgers and Maryland.

How so? Because other conferences did stupid things that means we should, too?

 

[Highlander]

How so? Because other conferences did stupid things that means we should, too?

No, because the other conferences stacked the deck in terms of TV revenue, the Pac 12 needs to strategically evaluate its options in the face of a changing landscape and position itselt the best it can.

I prefer this option over sticking its head in the sand and shouting "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" Over and over and over and over again.

 

[sackman]

TV money is not going to be the driver it once was.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

No, because the other conferences stacked the deck in terms of TV revenue, the Pac 12 needs to strategically evaluate its options in the face of a changing landscape and position itselt the best it can.

I prefer this option over sticking its head in the sand and shouting "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" Over and over and over and over again.

Sacky's new thing seems to be yelling that TV $$ isn't going to matter to justify not expanding.

 

[Duff Man]

Even if TV money is not going to be the driver it once was down the road, there is still an issue of exposure that the Pac-12 is going to have to address sooner rather than later. Of course, the money gap will have already created issues well before then, but it must be nice to believe that the Pac-12 is just going to be fine.

 

[sackman]

I honestly have no worries about the viability of the PAC 12.

None.

 

[Buffarino]

yup. as nik mentioned above...

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...itta-unlv-football-donation-10-million-091316

someone else told me that the brothers' dad owned a casino and that is where they got the initial millions to buy the ufc.

Yep. They were very wealthy before they bought the UFC, but they weren't billionaires like they are now.

 

[Buffnik]

TV money is not going to be the driver it once was.

That's a good point. I'm not sure where it's going, though. Might be that regional/local becomes more important again. Might be that creating PPV events becomes king (which would drive to 16-team conferences and a semi-final round to the football championship for those 2 "event" games). Might be a mix of both.

On that note: as much as CU and the Utes might bitch about their in-state "rivalries", both schools know damn well that playing CSU or BYU is pretty much the only guaranteed sellout they can put on the schedule regardless of the season results. And that's no small thing.

 

[CUFan]

Even if TV money is not going to be the driver it once was down the road, there is still an issue of exposure that the Pac-12 is going to have to address sooner rather than later. Of course, the money gap will have already created issues well before then, but it must be nice to believe that the Pac-12 is just going to be fine.

Exposure is the main problem. Poor network distribution and bad game times. I think we gain quite a bit if we can get a hold of some Big 12 footprint schools - Houston, OU, KU, etc. I'd even take Texas if they come on equal terms to the rest of the PAC.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

If we believe message posters drive a profitable conference structure, then we should listen to them.

Seriously, BuffNik - I am not in on these secondary conference members at all. Wake me up when we talk about someone that adds per member TV revenue. On second thought, don't wake me up for that discussion, 'cause I don't want to see 10k Sacky posts on why it is a bad idea to add UT, just because he believes it is a bad idea.

1. None of the teams Buffnik is talking about lead to renegotiating the conferences TV contract early for a new huge payday.
2. Thus, we would have to go to our TV partners and ask them, a la the Big12, to pay an additional $X to each of the 2 or 4 new teams.

Fox said NO to B12 when they asked.​

3. The Presidents would have to vote to divide the TV money pot by 14 or 16 (decrease each schools revenue)

None of the above moves the needle with the draconian DTV people or does much to change P12N distribution.

And its not like UNLV really has better options if we dont take them?

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I'm not in favor of this either. I think that even if we try to expand the conference within the western footprint, the better approach is to add major metros/ states instead of doubling down where we already have distribution. I think UNLV and New Mexico are much better targets than CSU for that reason, and they have a lot of question marks with whether they'd really add any value. Unfortunately for sports fans, the schools that add the most value in our region seem to be non-starters for political and/or academic reasons: BYU, SDSU and Boise State. But is it really the "Pac-12" if we expand into OK and TX? Will we even have that opportunity anyway?

Theoretically our TV market is divided because 2 teams are in the MWC and one team is in the Pac12. Versus ALL eyes being on the Pac12 affiliates. In the days of our multi stream distribution I am not sure how much that matters.

 

[CVBuff]

On that note: as much as CU and the Utes might bitch about their in-state "rivalries", both schools know damn well that playing CSU or BYU is pretty much the only guaranteed sellout they can put on the schedule regardless of the season results. And that's no small thing.

Utah sells out RES with or without BYU on the schedule, has for years. CU needs to start a similar tradition. As for CU/CSU, the CSU game hasn't been sold out for years.

 

[MtnBuff]

1. None of the teams Buffnik is talking about lead to renegotiating the conferences TV contract early for a new huge payday.
2. Thus, we would have to go to our TV partners and ask them, a la the Big12, to pay an additional $X to each of the 2 or 4 new teams.

Fox said NO to B12 when they asked.​

3. The Presidents would have to vote to divide the TV money pot by 14 or 16 (decrease each schools revenue)

None of the above moves the needle with the draconian DTV people or does much to change P12N distribution.

And its not like UNLV really has better options if we dont take them?

The only way that we add teams that add enough revenue potential to balance their share of conference revenue is if those teams come from the B12 or from further east.

UNLV looks to be closer to SDSU in support than it does to UCLA. Boise is a big no. As well as they have done they don't sell out a small stadium and they don't draw significant TV viewers. BYU is the exception with their national LDS audience but they are have no chance with the PAC presidents.

Financially Texas is the big prize but unfortunately they are like dating the supermodel with antibiotic resistant syphilis. You don't want what comes with spending time with them.

If you are forced to expand, and that is still an issue you can argue, the best bets may be an Oklahoma and Kansas or a Texas school. Still not convinced that Houston is a good deal.

The other potential, and it would have to be without compromises which probably kills any chance but Notre Dame has a long history with PAC schools. Their biggest rival is USC and they regularly play UCLA, Stanford, and other PAC schools already. I hate them but if you want to make an impact in terms of national interest they would be it.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I'd like Houston, Oklahoma, Norte Dame and either Mizzou or Nebraska. Yes, I miss playing the children of the corn.

ND would certainly push us over time zones and add to prestige. But I think they play everyone that want to anyway in the PAC 12 so not much reason for them to join.

I don't know what will happen. I like poking Sacky with a stick just for fun. SDSU, Boise, UNLV, NM certainly don't move the needle for the P12 at all. We gotta go east if we do something to get earlier games on TV.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

If you are forced to expand, and that is still an issue you can argue, the best bets may be an Oklahoma and Kansas or a Texas school. Still not convinced that Houston is a good deal.

I hope CU votes and argues against this. It would place us in a pod that doesnt have us in California, Washington, or Arizona as often.

Financially Texas is the big prize but unfortunately they are like dating the supermodel with antibiotic resistant syphilis. You don't want what comes with spending time with them.

The other potential, and it would have to be without compromises which probably kills any chance but Notre Dame has a long history with PAC schools. Their biggest rival is USC and they regularly play UCLA, Stanford, and other PAC schools already. I hate them but if you want to make an impact in terms of national interest they would be it.

Expansion has to include Texas for it be financially viable. To make it really worth it including another Texas school or OU can help get more of those large TV markets. But again, CU, by way of geography, would be in that pod with "them" which would suck. I would note that our recruiting of Texas is more effective when aTm and UT are in the dumps as they are now.

Notre Dame is without question as big a prize as there is. You take them for sure.

 

[Buffnik]

1. None of the teams Buffnik is talking about lead to renegotiating the conferences TV contract early for a new huge payday.
2. Thus, we would have to go to our TV partners and ask them, a la the Big12, to pay an additional $X to each of the 2 or 4 new teams.

Fox said NO to B12 when they asked.​

3. The Presidents would have to vote to divide the TV money pot by 14 or 16 (decrease each schools revenue)

None of the above moves the needle with the draconian DTV people or does much to change P12N distribution.

And its not like UNLV really has better options if we dont take them?

I think the TV deals were a bubble that's going to burst. Cable and satellite companies are seeing the end of their run. Live programming (sporting events and awards shows) got overvalued because they provide content people don't record to watch later while skipping through commercials - so advertisers love them. But that was a short-term patch on a model that is breaking. They will need a better package of "events" to sell their channel a la carte.

What I think will happen is that college football revenues will move in structure toward what we have with college basketball where the NCAA tournament drives things. Creating "events" is going to be the main driver for national media contracts and maximizing Tier 2 (conference cable networks and their distribution, mostly) and Tier 3 (paid streaming for non-televised conference games driven by local markets & interest)

With that, I think that the conference playoffs will become a much bigger deal. I look at the NFL with 32 teams. They've got 12 teams in the playoff with that format and there's no arguing the success. FBS college football has 128 teams and only 4 teams in the playoff (3 games). But we do have conference championship games that are very similar "events" to a playoff so those can be counted. That's 10 conferences (P5 & G5), so that puts us at 23 "playoff" type games... sort of. The 5 games for the G5 conferences don't draw much interest. However, there's also the "New Year's 6" bowl games, with 4 of those games being outside the playoff but still big "event" games.

So, we're really looking at the highest value games for 2017 that could be compared to the NFL playoff at 3 playoff + 5 P5 championships + 4 major bowls. That's 12 playoff/event games. It's not enough in the future broadcast reality with 128 splitting the money. The NFL has 11 of these games (4 wildcard, 4 divisional, 2 conference, 1 Super Bowl) with only 32 teams splitting the financial pie.

Most of you will want to stop reading here, because I'm going off on this topic (slow work week) with what I think it means for realignment of conferences and restructuring of the post-season.
***************************************************
Considering the success of the NFL Playoffs and the NCAA Basketball Tournament points to future realignment and post-season structure of FBS Football. And I think that 2025 is about where this happens.

1. I think the Big 12 collapses.
2. I think that all P4 conferences go to 16 teams (64 Power Conference teams).
3. I think that the G5 remains as 5 conferences (64 teams).
4. With 16 team P4 conferences, a semi-final round gets added to P4 conference championships. This adds 8 "event" games to the college football slate (2 semis per P4) with a loss of 1 from the elimination of the Big 12, raising the post-season "event" volume from 12 games to 19.
5. College Football Playoff becomes either 6 teams (P4 champions + highest ranked G5 + wildcard) or 8 teams if 3 wildcard teams are invited. That bumps the number of Playoff games from 3 to either 5 or 7. That puts our total number of college football post-season "events" at 24 or 26, doubling or more what we currently have (12). With that, we probably are converting 2 or 4 more bowl games into playoff games, which reduces the bowl volume from 35 non-playoff bowls to 33 or 31 - which could be made up with new bowls if there was a market.

That's a lot of new money that is going to be necessary to offset the cord cutting hit that college football is staring at in the next decade when the current media deals expire.

Within that framework, we've got the ACC, SEC and B1G each needing 2 teams, and the Pac-12 needing 4 teams. That's Notre Dame joining a conference, 10 teams from the Big 12 looking for homes, plus current G5s to fill the 10 spots.

Assuming that the pecking order is Notre Dame and then picking based on conference revenues with the Pac-12 picking last, I would assume that what we're looking at is as follows:

1. ACC has Notre Dame rights locked up, so they get the Irish.
2. Big Ten wants AAU schools. They take Kansas, especially since they're in position to take a basketball school. Their best match for a 2nd school is Missouri (another AAU that has rivalries with Illinois, KU and Nebraska) if they would leave the SEC - no grant of rights there and they wanted the B1G when they left the Big 12 before settling for SEC. Let's assume that happens since it fits the map better and it opens up better options for the SEC anyway.
3. SEC is up next and now needs 3 teams. They're in position to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas. This pushes Alabama & Auburn to the East, which better balances the divisions while also taking the SEC to a crazy high level.
4. ACC needs a 2nd team to go with Notre Dame. The best fit for geography and existing rivalries is West Virginia (Pitt's main rival and a geographic bridge to Louisville & Notre Dame). Strength in both football that is needed, too.
5. Where does that now leave the Pac-12? Remaining Big 12 schools: Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. Clones are too far away and the university presidents don't seem willing to add a religious school. So I think that we'd take KSU (R1 on Carnegie research classification) and make them the CU rival. We'd take Texas Tech (R1) and probably pair them with Houston (R1) for a rival and to have two major public TX universities in the conference. 4th program is probably a MWC grab to pair with Utah as its rival and UNLV is probably the best choice considering the size/growth of Nevada with 75% of the population in that metro, the proximity to Salt Lake City, and all the other factors with facilities, hoops prestige and academic investment (on path to R1 by 2020) happening at UNLV which should make it a very good looking bet in 2025.

Pac-16 Divisions & Pods:
Either (A):
East Division
Pod 1: CU, KSU, TTU, UH
Pod 2: UA, ASU, UU, UNLV
West Division
Pod 1: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
Pod 2: UO, OSU, UW, WSU

Or (B):
South Division
Pod 1: USC, UCLA, UA, ASU
Pod 2: CU, KSU, TTU, UH
North Division
Pod 1: Stanford, Cal, UU, UNLV
Pod 2: UO, OSU, UW, WSU

I prefer the North/South configuration, but suspect that the original Pac-8 will demand to be together as one division.

6. What about the G5 that's left? AAC needs to replace Houston and takes the opportunity to add 3 for 14 teams out of the Big 12 leftovers: Iowa State, TCU and Baylor. MWC replaces UNLV with BYU to get back to 12 teams, but expands to 14 by going back into Texas with UTEP and UTSA. C-USA just lost 2 but stays at 12. Sun Belt stays at 12. MAC goes to 14 by adding Army and UMass. The real opportunity here (and I think it's a real possibility, which is why I'm bothering with the G5) is that the AAC and MWC become the only two that can really compete. If their conference champions played each other for an auto-bid to the Playoff, that would add another "post-season event" game and bring that total up to 25 or 27 from the current 12.

This realignment and reconfiguration of the post-season is what will be necessary to drive media revenue and the networks will drive this to happening.

 

[sackman]

My God Nik has a lot of time on his hands.

 

[hokiehead]

We've never in history had a situation where all the conferences had the same number of schools. I'm failing to see why that would change.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I think the TV deals were a bubble that's going to burst. Cable and satellite companies are seeing the end of their run. Live programming (sporting events and awards shows) got overvalued because they provide content people don't record to watch later while skipping through commercials - so advertisers love them. But that was a short-term patch on a model that is breaking. They will need a better package of "events" to sell their channel a la carte.

What I think will happen is that college football revenues will move in structure toward what we have with college basketball where the NCAA tournament drives things. Creating "events" is going to be the main driver for national media contracts and maximizing Tier 2 (conference cable networks and their distribution, mostly) and Tier 3 (paid streaming for non-televised conference games driven by local markets & interest)

With that, I think that the conference playoffs will become a much bigger deal. I look at the NFL with 32 teams. They've got 12 teams in the playoff with that format and there's no arguing the success. FBS college football has 128 teams and only 4 teams in the playoff (3 games). But we do have conference championship games that are very similar "events" to a playoff so those can be counted. That's 10 conferences (P5 & G5), so that puts us at 23 "playoff" type games... sort of. The 5 games for the G5 conferences don't draw much interest. However, there's also the "New Year's 6" bowl games, with 4 of those games being outside the playoff but still big "event" games.

So, we're really looking at the highest value games for 2017 that could be compared to the NFL playoff at 3 playoff + 5 P5 championships + 4 major bowls. That's 12 playoff/event games. It's not enough in the future broadcast reality with 128 splitting the money. The NFL has 11 of these games (4 wildcard, 4 divisional, 2 conference, 1 Super Bowl) with only 32 teams splitting the financial pie.

Most of you will want to stop reading here, because I'm going off on this topic (slow work week) with what I think it means for realignment of conferences and restructuring of the post-season.
***************************************************
Considering the success of the NFL Playoffs and the NCAA Basketball Tournament points to future realignment and post-season structure of FBS Football. And I think that 2025 is about where this happens.

1. I think the Big 12 collapses.
2. I think that all P4 conferences go to 16 teams (64 Power Conference teams).
3. I think that the G5 remains as 5 conferences (64 teams).
4. With 16 team P4 conferences, a semi-final round gets added to P4 conference championships. This adds 8 "event" games to the college football slate (2 semis per P4) with a loss of 1 from the elimination of the Big 12, raising the post-season "event" volume from 12 games to 19.
5. College Football Playoff becomes either 6 teams (P4 champions + highest ranked G5 + wildcard) or 8 teams if 3 wildcard teams are invited. That bumps the number of Playoff games from 3 to either 5 or 7. That puts our total number of college football post-season "events" at 24 or 26, doubling or more what we currently have (12). With that, we probably are converting 2 or 4 more bowl games into playoff games, which reduces the bowl volume from 35 non-playoff bowls to 33 or 31 - which could be made up with new bowls if there was a market.

That's a lot of new money that is going to be necessary to offset the cord cutting hit that college football is staring at in the next decade when the current media deals expire.

Within that framework, we've got the ACC, SEC and B1G each needing 2 teams, and the Pac-12 needing 4 teams. That's Notre Dame joining a conference, 10 teams from the Big 12 looking for homes, plus current G5s to fill the 10 spots.

Assuming that the pecking order is Notre Dame and then picking based on conference revenues with the Pac-12 picking last, I would assume that what we're looking at is as follows:

1. ACC has Notre Dame rights locked up, so they get the Irish.
2. Big Ten wants AAU schools. They take Kansas, especially since they're in position to take a basketball school. Their best match for a 2nd school is Missouri (another AAU that has rivalries with Illinois, KU and Nebraska) if they would leave the SEC - no grant of rights there and they wanted the B1G when they left the Big 12 before settling for SEC. Let's assume that happens since it fits the map better and it opens up better options for the SEC anyway.
3. SEC is up next and now needs 3 teams. They're in position to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas. This pushes Alabama & Auburn to the East, which better balances the divisions while also taking the SEC to a crazy high level.
4. ACC needs a 2nd team to go with Notre Dame. The best fit for geography and existing rivalries is West Virginia (Pitt's main rival and a geographic bridge to Louisville & Notre Dame). Strength in both football that is needed, too.
5. Where does that now leave the Pac-12? Remaining Big 12 schools: Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. Clones are too far away and the university presidents don't seem willing to add a religious school. So I think that we'd take KSU (R1 on Carnegie research classification) and make them the CU rival. We'd take Texas Tech (R1) and probably pair them with Houston (R1) for a rival and to have two major public TX universities in the conference. 4th program is probably a MWC grab to pair with Utah as its rival and UNLV is probably the best choice considering the size/growth of Nevada with 75% of the population in that metro, the proximity to Salt Lake City, and all the other factors with facilities, hoops prestige and academic investment (on path to R1 by 2020) happening at UNLV which should make it a very good looking bet in 2025.

Pac-16 Divisions & Pods:
Either (A):
East Division
Pod 1: CU, KSU, TTU, UH
Pod 2: UA, ASU, UU, UNLV
West Division
Pod 1: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
Pod 2: UO, OSU, UW, WSU

Or (B):
South Division
Pod 1: USC, UCLA, UA, ASU
Pod 2: CU, KSU, TTU, UH
North Division
Pod 1: Stanford, Cal, UU, UNLV
Pod 2: UO, OSU, UW, WSU

I prefer the North/South configuration, but suspect that the original Pac-8 will demand to be together as one division.

6. What about the G5 that's left? AAC needs to replace Houston and takes the opportunity to add 3 for 14 teams out of the Big 12 leftovers: Iowa State, TCU and Baylor. MWC replaces UNLV with BYU to get back to 12 teams, but expands to 14 by going back into Texas with UTEP and UTSA. C-USA just lost 2 but stays at 12. Sun Belt stays at 12. MAC goes to 14 by adding Army and UMass. The real opportunity here (and I think it's a real possibility, which is why I'm bothering with the G5) is that the AAC and MWC become the only two that can really compete. If their conference champions played each other for an auto-bid to the Playoff, that would add another "post-season event" game and bring that total up to 25 or 27 from the current 12.

This realignment and reconfiguration of the post-season is what will be necessary to drive media revenue and the networks will drive this to happening.

I think you are right on some of that and wrong on other parts.

Whats clear is that TV is changing and what it will look like then is still not really clear. What they will pay for in the future and what they will get rid of is the big question.

I think tier 1 rights will stay pretty much the same and stay with the broadcasters who will farm some of them down to their cable networks. I think tier 2 and 3 is where the future is much more murky because people are cutting cable and satellite and thats where tier 2 and 3's revenue is. Its pretty much alums watching those tier 3 garbage can games. Tier 3 could die but maybe makes it streaming? pure PPV? Or just dropped all together?

Conference Expansion is driven totally by TV revenue. So, where I think your wrong, is that there will be more expansion and that the BigXII explodes. What I think happens is actually minimal contract increases and even possibly some declines in offers. Yes, there will be teams in the BigXII desperate to escape that cycle. But there will not be anyone that truly wants any of them. Thus, I think its going to be stuck like this for awhile.

So, given revenue uncertainty I think your point about creating "events" will become a bigger deal. An 8 team, really a 16 team playoff, has much more intrigue and TV/Conference Revenue value than the current 4 team one. In my mind CCGs, Bowls, and the 12 game season are obstacles to this. I think you really need an 11 game season and no CCG. If you think about an 8 team event youll end up with both sides of the existing CCG in the playoffs. Leading to potential rematches. If you have a 16 team event you'll like 3-4 teams from each conference and even more rematches. Most importantly you'll have a few Cinderella's. But also probably a final 4 that features 4 SEC teams. Who owns that runs that will decide a lot of winners and losers in terms of conferences.

 

[Highlander]

I actually think UT would look at competition in the SEC and believe the Pac12 is a "better fit".

 

[onealcd]

Other than the current football prestige of SEC football, Texas seems like an awful fit for that conference as a whole.

 

[Buffnik]

Other than the current football prestige of SEC football, Texas seems like an awful fit for that conference as a whole.

They are opposed to the academic prestige, allegedly. But that hasn't seemed to push them to leave the Big 12 after 4 AAU members left (CU, MU, NU & aTm) and were replaced by 2 non-AAU schools (West Virginia and a TCU that isn't even R1). I think what they really want is a dominant seat at the conference table, so UT wants the Big 12 to stay together. They'd consider being independent. They'd look at the ACC with its unequal revenue sharing model. They'd look at the B1G money and academic prestige. But at the end of the day, it would be hard for them to turn down top money from the SEC to go along with annual games against OU, aTm and Arkansas. Pac-12 wouldn't even be on the table unless they could drive it as a "merger" with new, favorable, bylaws in the way UT joined the Big 8.

 

[onealcd]

They are opposed to the academic prestige, allegedly. But that hasn't seemed to push them to leave the Big 12 after 4 AAU members left (CU, MU, NU & aTm) and were replaced by 2 non-AAU schools (West Virginia and a TCU that isn't even R1). I think what they really want is a dominant seat at the conference table, so UT wants the Big 12 to stay together. They'd consider being independent. They'd look at the ACC with its unequal revenue sharing model. They'd look at the B1G money and academic prestige. But at the end of the day, it would be hard for them to turn down top money from the SEC to go along with annual games against OU, aTm and Arkansas. Pac-12 wouldn't even be on the table unless they could drive it as a "merger" with new, favorable, bylaws in the way UT joined the Big 8.

But their payday is essentially the same as the big 10 and sec so what would they gain by doing that. If they really want to be the top dog then joining the SEC and leveling he playing field with the rest of the conference and hurting their chances to win the conference by a ton seems like the opposite of something Texas would do but I obviously haven't been around very long to truly understand that school.

 

[Buffnik]

But their payday is essentially the same as the big 10 and sec so what would they gain by doing that. If they really want to be the top dog then joining the SEC and leveling he playing field with the rest of the conference and hurting their chances to win the conference by a ton seems like the opposite of something Texas would do but I obviously haven't been around very long to truly understand that school.

That would be the biggest hang-up. SEC bought the Tier 3 rights back from IMG, Learfield et al for its conference members. UT maintains its own and gets a huge annual payment from ESPN for LHN with that. UT won't simply walk away from that money.

 

[onealcd]

That would be the biggest hang-up. SEC bought the Tier 3 rights back from IMG, Learfield et al for its conference members. UT maintains its own and gets a huge annual payment from ESPN for LHN with that. UT won't simply walk away from that money.

Yeah and I could be looking at this the completely wrong way but I would think that Texas wants 1) big 10 west with Oklahoma, the academic prestige and an equal pay day to what they get now 2) ACC with their academic prestige and the unequal revenues (although this will be gone if the network ever gets launched) 3) PAC with OU and two Texas schools for academics and a flexible tv contract poised for growth with those additions and then 4) joining the SEC with OU.

 

[Buffnik]

Yeah and I could be looking at this the completely wrong way but I would think that Texas wants 1) big 10 west with Oklahoma, the academic prestige and an equal pay day to what they get now 2) ACC with their academic prestige and the unequal revenues (although this will be gone if the network ever gets launched) 3) PAC with OU and two Texas schools for academics and a flexible tv contract poised for growth with those additions and then 4) joining the SEC with OU.

What Texas wants is to keep the Big 12. And they probably believe they can do it if they've got 4 or 5 other TX (or OK) schools with them to form half the conference. For example, if OU and OSU left for the SEC, UT's first move would be to see if the conference media deal would continue with Houston and Cincinnati as replacements. If it would, they'd probably keep the conference together.

 

[hokiehead]

They are opposed to the academic prestige, allegedly. But that hasn't seemed to push them to leave the Big 12 after 4 AAU members left (CU, MU, NU & aTm) and were replaced by 2 non-AAU schools (West Virginia and a TCU that isn't even R1). I think what they really want is a dominant seat at the conference table, so UT wants the Big 12 to stay together. They'd consider being independent. They'd look at the ACC with its unequal revenue sharing model. They'd look at the B1G money and academic prestige. But at the end of the day, it would be hard for them to turn down top money from the SEC to go along with annual games against OU, aTm and Arkansas. Pac-12 wouldn't even be on the table unless they could drive it as a "merger" with new, favorable, bylaws in the way UT joined the Big 8.

What's this "ACC unequal revenue sharing model" you speak of?

 

[Buffnik]

What's this "ACC unequal revenue sharing model" you speak of?

Did the ACC roll in all its tier 3 media revenue rights when it did the ACCN deal with ESPN?
I actually didn't realize ACC was equal distribution on bowl and tourney money rather than by contribution. Thanks for quoting me or I wouldn't have looked it up. UT won't like that equality. But if they could keep their Tier 3 rights, they would listen.