IF there is Big 12 Expansion | Page 7 | The Boneyard

IF there is Big 12 Expansion

Status
Not open for further replies.
1husky said:
The question should not be about which school is closer geographically, but which schools stabilize the conference for the long-term. If I'm Texas Tech, Baylor, IA St., Kansas State who are in danger of being left behind I want UConn, Cincy, BYU, UCF before I want Houston, Memphis, Boise, Conf USA III et al. IF however, Texas, OK, KS have no intention of staying in the Big12 then the question is moot. So we should be building a consensus with those schools who are worried about being left behind to force the issue, as well as working relationships with the bigger schools who could potentially include us in a move to B1G.
Expand ...

I actually think you are close to reality here in terms of Oklahoma's sabre rattling. If Texas was gone, they would then assume the de facto lead of the conference. Adios Texas. They may very well be representing all of the existing b12 teams at this point, and would be willing to part ways with them to keep the rest of their core group together.
 
junglehusky said:
If 2 of them are MWC / BYU, and the other 2 added from the AAC are not Cincy or UCF, I think so. If they add BYU, Boise, Memphis and Houston it means they were never going to go east of WV in the first place.
Expand ...

UConn doesn't have 10 years at this spending/revenue relationship. UConn needs to improve its conference situation NOW. If and when the Big 12 expands, they are done, possibly forever. There are not a lot of catalysts left to expansion, particularly with the cable industry in free fall and unlikely to match the current rights fees ever again.

This round of expansion, if it happens, is our last, best hope. And 90% of this board seems to be OK with Warde failing.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
UConn doesn't have 10 years at this spending/revenue relationship. UConn needs to improve its conference situation NOW. If and when the Big 12 expands, they are done, possibly forever. There are not a lot of catalysts left to expansion, particularly with the cable industry in free fall and unlikely to match the current rights fees ever again.

This round of expansion, if it happens, is our last, best hope. And 90% of this board seems to be OK with Warde failing.
Expand ...

Nobody is OK with Warde failing. Warde isn't out there doing this by himself. The BOT and the President have a point of view. They may or may not want to join the Big 12. I have no inside knowledge and have no idea. If they tell Warde to go make it happen, and he doesn't, then it is on him, assuming there is actually something we can do to convince the Big 12 to take us. Which there might not be.
 
J187Money said:
Nobody is OK with Warde failing. Warde isn't out there doing this by himself. The BOT and the President have a point of view. They may or may not want to join the Big 12. I have no inside knowledge and have no idea. If they tell Warde to go make it happen, and he doesn't, then it is on him, assuming there is actually something we can do to convince the Big 12 to take us. Which there might not be.
Expand ...
VERY good points.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
UConn doesn't have 10 years at this spending/revenue relationship. UConn needs to improve its conference situation NOW. If and when the Big 12 expands, they are done, possibly forever. There are not a lot of catalysts left to expansion, particularly with the cable industry in free fall and unlikely to match the current rights fees ever again.

This round of expansion, if it happens, is our last, best hope. And 90% of this board seems to be OK with Warde failing.
Expand ...
By any non-insane definition Warde is not failing. 10 years out is hard to see. I think we have at least 5 years in survival mode. Nobody truly knows whether expansion is done or not, least of all you or I. You can stand on your soapbox and say the end is coming, but you can't say when. The GORs are long term but every year that goes by is one year closer to the end of the term. Probably nobody will challenge the GOR in court but a school might just decide to forfeit a year's portion of their TV money if it benefits them to move to another conference in the long term. Yes - needing to subsizide athletics is risky and not a sustainable path over 10+ years. But it's worth doing for 5 years, maybe a few more or so just so that we don't close the door.
 
http://www.raisinghale.com/2014/03/28/uconn-raises-tuition-while-subsidizing-sports/

UConn revenue: $63.3 million, rank 48

UConn Athletics revenue sources

1. NCAA and conference: $13.6 million
2. Licensing: $10.5 million
3. Student fees: $9.7 million
4. University subsidy: $9.1 million
5. Ticket sales: $8.9 million
6. Donations: $7.2 million
7. Media rights: $1.7 million
8. Away game payments: $1 million

Total subsidy (student fees plus university subsidy): $18.9 million, rank 12

Unsubsidized revenue: $44.5 million, rank 50

Coaching expenses: $15.2 million, rank 25

Return on coaching (unsubsidized revenue divided by coaching expenses): 2.9, rank 70

--------------------

Assuming this data is right, the state is spending $9M/year on athletics (I don't count the student fees). It is real money, but not a fortune. Even if the state wanted to cut that in half, I'm confident that Newton and the Foundation can find the money. And it isn't like our media rights fees are going to go down, because they are almost at $0 anyway. I just don't think it is as dire as Nelson is saying.
 
.-.
Why are media rights so low?

Third tier rights (like Learfield-IMG contracts for radio, coaches shows, etc) should be higher given UConn's branding in the northeast.

UNC's Learfield contract has an average guaranteed value of $7.5 million.
 
billybud said:
Why are media rights so low?

Third tier rights (like Learfield-IMG contracts for radio, coaches shows, etc) should be higher given UConn's branding in the northeast.

UNC's Learfield contract has an average guaranteed value of $7.5 million.
Expand ...

I thought the same thing
 
billybud said:
Why are media rights so low?

Third tier rights (like Learfield-IMG contracts for radio, coaches shows, etc) should be higher given UConn's branding in the northeast.

UNC's Learfield contract has an average guaranteed value of $7.5 million.
Expand ...
I think that UCONN's media right's are included in their IMG contract. In 2008 they signed a 10 yr media rights deal with IMG for $80 Million...$8 Million/yr
http://www.imgcollege.com/news/2008/uconn-and-img-college-form-athletics-multi-media-r
http://www.newstimes.com/uconn/article/UConn-in-good-hands-with-IMG-deal-5027.php
 
I'm sure that we'd all like to be a fly on the wall to see what goes on behind closed doors. I, for one, would like to know if West Virginia is lobbying in UConn's behalf for admission to the XII due to former conference affiliation. I'd also like to know the XII's decision makers' modus operandi in grading candidates.
 
coachcap said:
I'm sure that we'd all like to be a fly on the wall to see what goes on behind closed doors. I, for one, would like to know if West Virginia is lobbying in UConn's behalf for admission to the XII due to former conference affiliation. I'd also like to know the XII's decision makers' modus operandi in grading candidates.
Expand ...
The question is how does our admission add value to WVU? Marginally reduced travel?
I don't know that they'd oppose us, but I don't see them being hugely motivated to support us.
 
CL82 said:
The question is how does our admission add value to WVU? Marginally reduced travel?
I don't know that they'd oppose us, but I don't see them being hugely motivated to support us.
Expand ...
Hate to say it but I think you're probably right. UConn brings better value as an addition to Pitt/SU/BC. Hopefully those schools will get over their fear of having to compete against UConn, Boeheim retiring should help that.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
The question is how does our admission add value to WVU? Marginally reduced travel?
I don't know that they'd oppose us, but I don't see them being hugely motivated to support us.
Expand ...
The biggest thing we do for WVA is open up the NE including NYC recruiting in BB.
I might also mention that taking us would really hurt the ACC. Even their biggest rival left them to die. Then they took Louisville just to rub it in.
In addition to their self interest
We expose the entire B12 to the biggest Market in the country.
The eyeball exposure doubles.
Yes being so far removed hurts ,but we're the last available team with any kind of claim on that market.
Plus we won't embarrass the remaining academic oriented schools in that conference. Iowa State Kansas, Oklahoma,and Texas are all very good schools.
Now if our football team gets ove 500 this year that will help the cause immensely.
Those are my talking points
 
FDNY99 said:
I think that UCONN's media right's are included in their IMG contract. In 2008 they signed a 10 yr media rights deal with IMG for $80 Million...$8 Million/yr
http://www.imgcollege.com/news/2008/uconn-and-img-college-form-athletics-multi-media-r
http://www.newstimes.com/uconn/article/UConn-in-good-hands-with-IMG-deal-5027.php
Expand ...

I was just about to post this. UConn's T3 rights were/are right in line with P5 member schools. In addition, our current apparel contract with Nike was/is right in line with P5 member schools. Both deals were signed during the collapse of the dying Big East. One can only speculate that UConn's brand would be worth more as a P5 member.

UConn's brand is absolutely P5 quality. Anyone who says differently is simply not paying attention.
 
CL82 said:
The question is how does our admission add value to WVU? Marginally reduced travel?
I don't know that they'd oppose us, but I don't see them being hugely motivated to support us.
Expand ...

I tend to agree. Aside from being former conference mates and co-signers of the ACC lawsuit, I don't really think WVU would go to bat for us. Then again, I don't think WVU has that kind of pull inside the B12. I don't see WVU pulling a BC/Fruit boots quaking deal either.

The B12 is in direct competition with the ACC to maintain its long-term "power" status. It should be thinking about a large expansion that would include several of the top potential future targets of the ACC. Those would include: UConn, Cincinnati, UCF and possibly USF. If you take those 3 or 4 off the table, the ACC is forced to wish upon a lucky star that Notre Dame will commit to its conference and they can find a 16th member from a diluted talent pool. If the B12 expands by 6 teams, they make the ultimate survivor move (the largest since the ACC attacked/killed the Big East). But this time, it would all come in one fell swoop. UConn, Cincinnati, UCF + BYU, Boise and Houston/USF would address football, basketball, markets, conference TV network, and football/basketball recruiting territories. Best of all, as I said before, it leaves the ACC with no quality candidates to pair with ND if/when they ever decide that they need to join full-time. Who would be left? Memphis? Temple? ECU? No school from the SEC or B1G would leave to go to the ACC, that's for sure. If the B12 took all of the top G5 targets from the list, then ACC members would likely look to jump ship. The ACCN is no closer to being launched than it was on the day that the GoR was signed. Once you start the ACC exodus, the B12 remains as a long-term viable power conference that spreads across 3 time zones.

But, as we all know, the B12 isn't as forward-thinking. They will likely add the minimum 2 schools just to get a CG added. One school will be someone that Texas demands and the other school will be someone that everyone else collectively can agree upon. They'll tread water until the GoR expires then fold when its top tier schools jump towards more lucrative conferences with larger payouts. And one has to wonder if WVU will even be able to find a home when all of their B12 counterparts are whoring themselves for a seat.
 
If the Big 12 was concerned about beating the ACC - it would be efforting to take teams from
the ACC not beating them to schools like USF that nobody wants and have zero utility.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
If the Big 12 was concerned about beating the ACC - it would be efforting to take teams from
the ACC not beating them to schools like USF that nobody wants and have zero utility.
Expand ...

GoR + $52M exit fee. No school is going to leave one nervous wreck for another. You take the top G5 targets (UConn, Cinci, UCF, BYU, Boise...) and add more attractive power schools once they become more readily available.

Anyway, that's what makes the most sense for the B12. That isn't what the B12 will do.
 
Dooley said:
GoR + $52M exit fee. No school is going to leave one nervous wreck for another. You take the top G5 targets (UConn, Cinci, UCF, BYU, Boise...) and add more attractive power schools once they become more readily available.

Anyway, that's what makes the most sense for the B12. That isn't what the B12 will do.
Expand ...

What makes sense for the Big 12 is BYU and BSU as football onlies.

That at least shuts their football coaches up.

There is nobody available who adds any stability and Texas isn't going to yield on the LHN.
 
That depends on what is your definition of "best for the B12". To get a CG soon and tread water for the time being, I agree, BYU and Boise as football only makes the most sense. But if the conference wants long-term stability and a place in the power world, they can't stop there.
 
Dooley said:
That depends on what is your definition of "best for the B12". To get a CG soon and tread water for the time being, I agree, BYU and Boise as football only makes the most sense. But if the conference wants long-term stability and a place in the power world, they can't stop there.
Expand ...
Nobody available gives them that level of stability. The names they needed most, Missouri and Nebraska, have already left. UConn /Cincinnati /UCF not be enough to keep UT / OU from bailing if that is what they really want.
 
Dooley said:
That depends on what is your definition of "best for the B12". To get a CG soon and tread water for the time being, I agree, BYU and Boise as football only makes the most sense. But if the conference wants long-term stability and a place in the power world, they can't stop there.
Expand ...

I guess my definition is what can they do today that is realistic.

The conference will never be stable because Texas doesn't give a damn about the conference.
 
junglehusky said:
Nobody available gives them that level of stability. The names they needed most, Missouri and Nebraska, have already left. UConn /Cincinnati /UCF not be enough to keep UT / OU from bailing if that is what they really want.
Expand ...

I'm not disagreeing about the UT/OU part. Hey, I don't think they'll make a strong, large addition either. I think they'll do the bare minimum to get a CG in the short-term (during the duration of their GoR), but likely fold once the GoR expires and the top tier members (UT, OU, KU) leave for greener pastures.

All I'm saying is that the GoR is long-term. Can it be challenged and negotiated out? Maybe. I have a hard time thinking that Texas wouldn't sign something that they felt they couldn't get negotiate out of. But that's the risky approach. The no-risk power play for the B12 is to add all of the top G5 schools left. UConn and BYU are the two biggest brands, BY FAR. You add those two along with a few more football recruiting areas and good programs (Boise, Cinci, UCF) and a 6th TBD member (probably Houston on orders from Texas) and see what happens as your GoR is in place. When it expires, everyone can decide where they want to go (or stay). It will likely depend on what kind of TV money this new, larger league would generate but adding Orlando, Hartford/New Haven, Cincinnati, NYC, and BYU's national brand is a big step towards a TV media contract that would Trump the ACC. Games that span 3 time zones. And not Tulsa vs Temple games. Good games with Texas, OU, BYU, Boise, etc.

But, again, I know full well they won't consider something like this. This is a dead conference walking.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
I guess my definition is what can they do today that is realistic.

The conference will never be stable because Texas doesn't give a damn about the conference.
Expand ...

Oklahoma doesn't either. They want what's best for them and it's either a conference network or its in a different conference. Kansas is in the same boat, but don't have the same pull. The other 7 need the Big12 to survive.
 
whaler11 said:
I guess my definition is what can they do today that is realistic.

The conference will never be stable because Texas doesn't give a damn about the conference.
Expand ...

Agree with this.
 
dayooper said:
Oklahoma doesn't either. They want what's best for them and it's either a conference network or its in a different conference. Kansas is in the same boat, but don't have the same pull. The other 7 need the Big12 to survive.
Expand ...

I think Oklahoma has been given no choice. If Texas played nice they would be happy to stay.

The Big 12 and ACC aren't getting networks. That ship has sailed - they have some opportunity in that they have flexibility to be in front of where TV/streaming is going but neither has the leadership that would put them ahead of the curve.
 
whaler11 said:
I think Oklahoma has been given no choice. If Texas played nice they would be happy to stay.

The Big 12 and ACC aren't getting networks. That ship has sailed - they have some opportunity in that they have flexibility to be in front of where TV/streaming is going but neither has the leadership that would put them ahead of the curve.
Expand ...
The one difference though between the B-12 and ACC is that the schools in the B-12 still own their own 2nd and 3rd tier rights...the ACC sold those rights it Raycom. Setting up a B-12 network would be much easier than a ACC Network because of that (this has been constantly mentioned as the hold up for a ACCN in the past). At least the B-12 schools do have a revenue stream they can tap...ACC schools are stuck.
 
Dooley said:
I'm not disagreeing about the UT/OU part. Hey, I don't think they'll make a strong, large addition either. I think they'll do the bare minimum to get a CG in the short-term (during the duration of their GoR), but likely fold once the GoR expires and the top tier members (UT, OU, KU) leave for greener pastures.

All I'm saying is that the GoR is long-term. Can it be challenged and negotiated out? Maybe. I have a hard time thinking that Texas wouldn't sign something that they felt they couldn't get negotiate out of. But that's the risky approach. The no-risk power play for the B12 is to add all of the top G5 schools left. UConn and BYU are the two biggest brands, BY FAR. You add those two along with a few more football recruiting areas and good programs (Boise, Cinci, UCF) and a 6th TBD member (probably Houston on orders from Texas) and see what happens as your GoR is in place. When it expires, everyone can decide where they want to go (or stay). It will likely depend on what kind of TV money this new, larger league would generate but adding Orlando, Hartford/New Haven, Cincinnati, NYC, and BYU's national brand is a big step towards a TV media contract that would Trump the ACC. Games that span 3 time zones. And not Tulsa vs Temple games. Good games with Texas, OU, BYU, Boise, etc.

But, again, I know full well they won't consider something like this. This is a dead conference walking.
Expand ...

Texas and Oklahoma aren't in dire straights like the G5. They have no need for the G5 schools.

The schools that would benefit from the G5 teams don't have a hammer.

Their TV deal goes through 2025 - the television rights world is going to be completely different in a decade - there is no reason to add schools now that aren't going anywhere. BSU, BYU, UCF, USF and Cincinnati have zero outs.

There is no reason to dilute the league with a bunch of schools that have marginal value a decade before they negoitate anything. None of those schools change the calculus on Oklahoma or Texas staying which is the entire premise the league is built on.
 
FDNY99 said:
The one difference though between the B-12 and ACC is that the schools in the B-12 still own their own 2nd and 3rd tier rights...the ACC sold those rights it Raycom. Setting up a B-12 network would be much easier than a ACC Network because of that (this has been constantly mentioned as the hold up for a ACCN in the past). At least the B-12 schools do have a revenue stream they can tap...ACC schools are stuck.
Expand ...

There is zero market for a Big 12 network and no media partner who is willing to spend the money to build it.

It doesn't even make any sense for a school like Kansas to lose/share their T3 money with TCUs, Baylors and Iowa States of the world.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,259
Messages
4,560,187
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom