Commentary Thread for Premium Top-Shelf Tweets | Page 44 | The Boneyard

Commentary Thread for Premium Top-Shelf Tweets

Re: Jake Trotter article: The latest in Big 12 expansion where

Ralph D. Russo ‏@ralphDrussoAP 28m 28 minutes ago
For Big 12 schools NOT Texas/Oklahoma expansion is about what do we need to do to bring stability, which means keeping UT/OU happy. ...

Ralph D. Russo ‏@ralphDrussoAP 27m 27 minutes ago
But it is unclear that expansion will make UT/OU happy and make them commit to the conference longer. Then why expand... short-term money?

Ralph D. Russo ‏@ralphDrussoAP 24m24 minutes ago
Was suggested to me maybe ESPN/Fox could save money by giving TV deal/GOR extension to B12 to forego expansion. But why would UT/OU sign?
 
from Trotter (top shelf tweet)

Quick take: ESPN not saying 'only 2', seems like more of an opening, but.... they are totally confused and of different minds. DISFUCTIONAL.
 
@huskymedic it will be interesting to see what happens to the schools not named Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State when B-12 GOR expires if a extension isn't signed. The B-12 is a dead conference walking if they don't sign that GOR extension....and there won't be much of a landing spot for those schools in TX...the AAC seems about the only place for them to go. I can see WVU and UConn ending up in the ACC.
 
D/$$$ said:
from Trotter (top shelf tweet)

Quick take: ESPN not saying 'only 2', seems like more of an opening, but.... they are totally confused and of different minds. DISFUCTIONAL.
Expand ...

I missed that in the article- the part saying "ESPN not saying only 2", where did you see that?
 
CardiffGiant said:
I missed that in the article- the part saying "ESPN not saying only 2", where did you see that?
Expand ...


in prior reporting, ESPN referred to 'probably down to two' . since they seem to know the most among the news folks, the fact that they didn't refer to 'only two' felt notable to me. capeche?
 
.-.
What I don't understand about conferences is how, as pudge arbitrague hints at, is how the marque teams settle for the same payout as the crummy teams. Why FSU and Clemson would tie them selves up getting paid the sqme amount as BCU, Wake and Pitt is mystifying. Yet apparently it happened.

Any way, onto UConn and the Texas conference. Dollars to donuts nothing drastic will happen in 2024 when their deal matures. So what makes them better now to get the same/better cash in 2024. If ambitious they will go to 14 and try to portray a national conference. If this is their plan, knowing that streaming will be in vogue, it has to be BYU, UConn, USF (or UCF), and UC. But how about UH - well they don't add much if the conference wants to portray itself as National. If they want to stay kind of semi relevant, knowing that total dollars get split by number of teams, and they are too afraid to think long game, then I guess its two teams UH and UC. That would amplify mediocrity. So that may be their choice.

The talk of the Big 12 being dead is kind of nonsense, a year and a half ago it was the ACC. Actually, looking at results its the PAC that should be worried.

So I like the Big 12's chances, much better with BYU, UConn, USF (or UCF), and UC but the networks may say one pool of money and a 14 team spilt is less than a 12 team split.

Its just unfair, but we encounter that everyday.

So do we have control over our future? Beat Cuse, beat UH. Hope it happens but it doesn't really mean much. What's at stake is does the Big 12 have onions to make a play.

Hate to say it, but forget about the ACC that's gone. One pot of money split amounst a lot of teams. Foret about the SEC, they stay South. Maybe the B1G solidifies the NE and crushes the ACC - that may be our bst hope. But there really are no long range expertise heading the conferences, sans the B1G.

Is Swafford smart? Not really, he should get down on his knees (I think he's been there before) and thank God that the NCAA has not crushed UNC and UL. If they had he would be toast.
 
Last edited:
NEforceUConn said:
What I don't understand about conferences is how, as pudge arbitrague hints at, is how the marque teams settle for the same payout as the crummy teams. Why FSU and Clemson would tie them selves up getting paid the sqme amount as BCU, Wake and Pitt is mystifying. Yet apparently it happened.

Any way, onto UConn and the Texas conference. Dollars to donuts nothing drastic will happen in 2024 when their deal matures. So what makes them better now to get the same/better cash in 2024. If ambitious they will go to 14 and try to portray a national conference. If this is their plan, knowing that streaming will be in vogue, it has to be BYU, UConn, USF (or UCF), and UC. But how about UH - well they don't add much if the conference wants to portray itself as National. If they want to stay kind of semi relevant, knowing that total dollars get split by number of teams, and they are too afraid to think long game, then I guess its two teams UH and UC. That would amplify mediocrity. So that may be their choice.

The talk of the Big 12 being dead is kind of nonsense, a year and a half ago it was the ACC. Actually, looking at results its the PAC that should be worried.

So I like the Big 12's chances, much better with BYU, UConn, USF (or UCF), and UC but the networks may say one pool of money and a 14 team spilt is less than a 12 team split.

Its just unfair, but we encounter that everyday.

So do we have control over our fute? Beat Cuse, beat UH. Hope it happens but it doesn't really mean much. What's at stake is does the Big 12 have onions to make a play.

Hate to say it, but forget about the ACC that's gone. One pot of money split amounst a lot of teams. Foret about the SEC, they stay South. Maybe the B1G solidifies the NE and crushes the ACC - that may be our bst hope. But there really are no long range expertise heading the conferences, sans the B1G.
Expand ...

Here is the thing that seems to be lost here:

If Texas leaves - it does not matter when the Big 12 expands. They can expand tomorrow or they can expand after Texas leaves. They end up in the same position. Nobody they can expand with today isn't going to be available in the future.

The benefit to not expanding is clear - and it's much of the basis of your posts. As money shrinks the last thing you want is more mouths to feed. Your chances of putting together a competitive package to keep Texas is higher if your denominator is lower.

Oklahoma as a property is so wildly overrated on this board it's hard to believe. Everything they do makes it clear - they have nowhere to go now - nevermind in 2024.

Edit: If you doubt Swofford at this point... I don't know what to tell you. That guy pulled a rabbit out of his hat.
 
Whaler - You are right, but I think Texas would prefer a Big 12 (with 10 or 12 member) and the LHN plodding on in 2024. They really should have no interest in moving unless their football kicks it up 2 knotches. Sad thing, if UConn football kicks it up 2 knotches we would be the king of the northest above PSU and the others.....but apparently noone else understands that.

In reality UConn could be the new PSU = think 1980'2 1990's. I do strongly believe that and am semi sober.

If we don't have 36k watching Cuse then who can we blame.
 
whaler11 said:
Here is the thing that seems to be lost here:

If Texas leaves - it does not matter when the Big 12 expands. They can expand tomorrow or they can expand after Texas leaves. They end up in the same position. Nobody they can expand with today isn't going to be available in the future.

The benefit to not expanding is clear - and it's much of the basis of your posts. As money shrinks the last thing you want is more mouths to feed. Your chances of putting together a competitive package to keep Texas is higher if your denominator is lower.

Oklahoma as a property is so wildly overrated on this board it's hard to believe. Everything they do makes it clear - they have nowhere to go now - nevermind in 2024.

Edit: If you doubt Swofford at this point... I don't know what to tell you. That guy pulled a rabbit out of his hat.
Expand ...

I thought the whole expansion thing is based on the current B12 contract which gives more money to the conference for the next 8 years.

That is incentive enough in an uncertain situation. That, and the playoff.
 
upstater said:
I thought the whole expansion thing is based on the current B12 contract which gives more money to the conference for the next 8 years.

That is incentive enough in an uncertain situation. That, and the playoff.
Expand ...

Yeah, but if you look at the per school rake even if they cut the new schools back by half it's not that much money. It looks big if you look at 7 years in total. When you divide it by 70 (7 years x 10 schools) it doesn't exactly compel you to add schools you don't want to play and lose schools you want on your schedule.

Note the money wasn't enough the first to around - and clearly it isn't really motivating anyone this time around.
 
whaler11 said:
Yeah, but if you look at the per school rake even if they cut the new schools back by half it's not that much money. It looks big if you look at 7 years in total. When you divide it by 70 (7 years x 10 schools) it doesn't exactly compel you to add schools you don't want to play and lose schools you want on your schedule.

Note the money wasn't enough the first to around - and clearly it isn't really motivating anyone this time around.
Expand ...

I assume the hit would be more than that. The B1G hit Rutgers and PSU a lot harder than that. It started at 25% and ramped up slowly. In fact, it used to be that schools like PSU paid their way in. Heck, UConn was supposed to pay its way into Big East football.
 
.-.
upstater said:
I assume the hit would be more than that. The B1G hit Rutgers and PSU a lot harder than that. It started at 25% and ramped up slowly. In fact, it used to be that schools like PSU paid their way in. Heck, UConn was supposed to pay its way into Big East football.
Expand ...

UConn played some of their free road games. It fell apart before they could finish the tour.

I'd have to look it up but I'm pretty sure that Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska weren't taking 25%.

In theory I'm sure the schools would join the Big 12 for 25% - but you still don't see them motivated to do anything.
 
whaler11 said:
Oklahoma as a property is so wildly overrated on this board it's hard to believe. Everything they do makes it clear - they have nowhere to go now - nevermind in 2024.
Expand ...

Oklahoma's value is different in contexts of a network vs. no network.

They bring eyeballs, but they're in a medium market so they don't bring a ton of subscribers. In a league without a network they are very valuable because of the eyeballs and the blueblood football prestige.

If they wanted to get into a new conference, they would get in easily, mostly due to the prestige. Presidents want prestige. It's like a drug to them.
 
NEforceUConn said:
What I don't understand about conferences is how, as pudge arbitrague hints at, is how the marque teams settle for the same payout as the crummy teams. Why FSU and Clemson would tie them selves up getting paid the sqme amount as BCU, Wake and Pitt is mystifying. Yet apparently it happened.

Any way, onto UConn and the Texas conference. Dollars to donuts nothing drastic will happen in 2024 when their deal matures. So what makes them better now to get the same/better cash in 2024. If ambitious they will go to 14 and try to portray a national conference. If this is their plan, knowing that streaming will be in vogue, it has to be BYU, UConn, USF (or UCF), and UC. But how about UH - well they don't add much if the conference wants to portray itself as National. If they want to stay kind of semi relevant, knowing that total dollars get split by number of teams, and they are too afraid to think long game, then I guess its two teams UH and UC. That would amplify mediocrity. So that may be their choice.

The talk of the Big 12 being dead is kind of nonsense, a year and a half ago it was the ACC. Actually, looking at results its the PAC that should be worried.

So I like the Big 12's chances, much better with BYU, UConn, USF (or UCF), and UC but the networks may say one pool of money and a 14 team spilt is less than a 12 team split.

Its just unfair, but we encounter that everyday.

So do we have control over our future? Beat Cuse, beat UH. Hope it happens but it doesn't really mean much. What's at stake is does the Big 12 have onions to make a play.

Hate to say it, but forget about the ACC that's gone. One pot of money split amounst a lot of teams. Foret about the SEC, they stay South. Maybe the B1G solidifies the NE and crushes the ACC - that may be our bst hope. But there really are no long range expertise heading the conferences, sans the B1G.

Is Swafford smart? Not really, he should get down on his knees (I think he's been there before) and thank God that the NCAA has not crushed UNC and UL. If they had he would be toast.
Expand ...

Schools all used to be free agents, selling their own tv rights. They all made much less money in that model and would again. Conference expansion started not long after the conferences started selling the rights for all the schools.

The smart schools, Michigan, tOSU, Alabama, all realize they make more money in this model than they do if they try to screw the Purdues and Mississippi States. Texas evidently didn't get the memo.
 
whaler11 said:
Here is the thing that seems to be lost here:

Oklahoma as a property is so wildly overrated on this board it's hard to believe. Everything they do makes it clear - they have nowhere to go now - nevermind in 2024.

.
Expand ...

OU is likely one of the top 10 valuable schools in all of realignment. Very similar to Nebraska but with a better location and more in state population. I believe they would be valued by every p-5 conference at this point.

I can't stand most Okies or the state for that matter but I have to give them credit for being college football fans and having one of the best programs of all time. Living in Dallas I realized they have as big of a following there as anyone not named UT. Many OU graduates get the hell out of that state when they graduate and most go to Texas especially DFW and Houston.
 
auror said:
Oklahoma's value is different in contexts of a network vs. no network.

They bring eyeballs, but they're in a medium market so they don't bring a ton of subscribers. In a league without a network they are very valuable because of the eyeballs and the blueblood football prestige.

If they wanted to get into a new conference, they would get in easily, mostly due to the prestige. Presidents want prestige. It's like a drug to them.
Expand ...

I agree but I do think the Big 10 would look down upon them much like they do the Huskers as a second rate academic school in the conference that got in on football prestige instead of academics.
 
There are many programs that would be invited to join P5s regardless of BC's opinion. ND, OU, UT, Alabama to name a few. There are obviously many others.
 
.-.
if Big 12 expansion is truly dead, wonder if Aresco uses this opportunity to bolster the AAC from a position of strength instead of desperation? I doubt BYU would be added, but could Boise and maybe or another school be added to bolster the ranks (ie TV revenue).
 
If expansion is dead, the top AAC teams need to band together with the top MWC teams to form a football only conference. The bottom half of the AAC is not tenable for the likes of UConn and Cincinnati in the long term. A football only conference of UConn, UC, UH, BYU, Boise, Air Force, Navy, CSU, USF, UCF, and maybe Memphis could serve as a legitimate sixth league option. It would also afford the opportunity for UConn and UC to bring olympic sports back to the Big East, immediately bolster the basketball conference there and create one of the best BB leagues in the country. This would position UConn best to prove itself for down the road P5 expansion. Staying in the AAC and battling it out against ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, Temple, and SMU in all sports will further devalue our brand across the board. When the AAC was formed, of course there was the 12-team conference championship rule, but the addition of these bottom-feeding schools that have no value, few fans, and have no football or basketball cache whatsoever significantly bring down the league from a branding and revenue standpoint.

I get the sense UConn knows this and from some of the tea leaves out there, UConn is not content to stay in the AAC if they don't get a B12 bid, or if they decide not to expand.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
If expansion is dead, the top AAC teams need to band together with the top MWC teams to form a football only conference. The bottom half of the AAC is not tenable for the likes of UConn and Cincinnati in the long term. A football only conference of UConn, UC, UH, BYU, Boise, Air Force, Navy, CSU, USF, UCF, and maybe Memphis could serve as a legitimate sixth league option. It would also afford the opportunity for UConn and UC to bring olympic sports back to the Big East, immediately bolster the basketball conference there and create one of the best BB leagues in the country. This would position UConn best to prove itself for down the road P5 expansion. Staying in the AAC and battling it out against ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, Temple, and SMU in all sports will further devalue our brand across the board. When the AAC was formed, of course there was the 12-team conference championship rule, but the addition of these bottom-feeding schools that have no value, few fans, and have no football or basketball cache whatsoever significantly bring down the league from a branding and revenue standpoint.

I get the sense UConn knows this and from some of the tea leaves out there, UConn is not content to stay in the AAC if they don't get a B12 bid, or if they decide not to expand.
Expand ...
Sounds great for UConn and Cincinnati, but where are the other schools park their other sports?
 
The next best option is an east-west all sports conference that is far more discriminating for admission than the AAC. My big regret with the American is that they weren't more careful about who they invited and that old friendships had something to do with it.

If I could get BYU into my new conference, I'd seriously consider passing on Boise State. Between the better eastern schools, the military academies, BYU and the western state schools like Colorado State, Nevada and San Diego State University, you can make a pretty good conference for all sports that is solid academically as well. You can also marginalize a competitor like Boise that plays kids that could never play at UConn. I don't like marginalizing schools, we know how it feels, but school's that take kids that have no business being admitted to college irk me. I'd make Boise clean up their act if offered admission.
 
noeynox said:
Sounds great for UConn and Cincinnati, but where are the other schools park their other sports?
Expand ...
Of course that's something that would be a hiccup, but it also doesn't mean the possibility can't be thrown out the window. Unequivocally, this would be a better position for the football programs of all schools involved.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
Of course that's something that would be a hiccup, but it also doesn't mean the possibility can't be thrown out the window. Unequivocally, this would be a better position for the football programs of all schools involved.
Expand ...
I think you're looking at it from the standpoint of what is best for UCONN which as a fan I get. I can't believe the other schools, some of which have it much better in The American than they would anywhere else, would play along.
 
.-.
noeynox said:
I think you're looking at it from the standpoint of what is best for UCONN which as a fan I get. I can't believe the other schools, some of which have it much better in The American than they would anywhere else, would play along.
Expand ...
I see your point, it makes sense. But there's also the perspective that the AAC teams I listed, particularly UC, UConn, and UH, have a position of power from which to negotiate with the rest of the AAC members. That's not to say some compromise wouldn't be necessary, but it's become increasingly clear that the best path for the top AAC and MWC schools, and BYU, is to form their own league if they all want to be relevant nationally. At some point, we have to not give two craps how Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU feel. Those schools need us more than we need them. There has to be some agreement that can be reached, the AAC as constituted now, is not a tenable home for the top of the league.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
I see your point, it makes sense. But there's also the perspective that the AAC teams I listed, particularly UC, UConn, and UH, have a position of power from which to negotiate with the rest of the AAC members. That's not to say some compromise wouldn't be necessary, but it's become increasingly clear that the best path for the top AAC and MWC schools, and BYU, is to form their own league if they all want to be relevant nationally. At some point, we have to not give two craps how Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU feel. Those schools need us more than we need them. There has to be some agreement that can be reached, the AAC as constituted now, is not a tenable home for the top of the league.
Expand ...

Position of power?
 
bobbyinaz said:
Position of power?
Expand ...
The cost of competing in football is so high and the need to remain in a conference just for scheduling purposes so great that I see football as dictating everything UConn and others do at this time. If we have nowhere to park our football program we may as well pull the plug. So a fantasy that we can play in the BE while the AAC teams respect our "position of power" and allow us to keep football only with them is just that, a fantasy.
 
I don't think the Mountain West schools have any motivation to partner with the top of the American. They've just been given concrete proof via the Big 12 that any expansion coming down the road will come from one of six schools. Five are in the American and one is BYU - why would the MW want to set themselves up for a fall?

Nor does the top of the American have any leverage over SMU, Tulane, etc. We're not going anywhere and they know it. And if we do, nothing they do now will have any impact.
 
Fishy said:
I don't think the Mountain West schools have any motivation to partner with the top of the American. They've just been given concrete proof via the Big 12 that any expansion coming down the road will come from one of six schools. Five are in the American and one is BYU - why would the MW want to set themselves up for a fall?

Nor does the top of the American have any leverage over SMU, Tulane, etc. We're not going anywhere and they know it. And if we do, nothing they do now will have any impact.
Expand ...

If the G5 schools don't come up with a viable system for themselves, none of them will be viable candidates for expansion.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,350
Messages
4,566,553
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom