I don't like the guy and he is usually wrong, but he was first to report Edsall to Maryland back in December.
Expansion/realignment chatter post TAMU
- Thread starter jpm25
- Start date
- Status
I don't like the guy and he is usually wrong, but he was first to report Edsall to Maryland back in December.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,883
- Reaction Score
- 18,162
I'm just thinking that once the season starts some of this scramble will fade a little to the back-burner. The SEC will keep entertaining offers and some other conferences may "accidentally" flirt with a few teams, but those teams are unlikely to seriously consider the upheaval of a move controversy in mid-season. And as the season comes to a close with a new contract in sight for the BE, then we will start to see who's desperate and who's in a position of strength. Time is on our side after next week, but February 2012 is another story.
BTW, being a consideration, or the top consideration, or whatever might very well be factually correct. Pitt and L'ville do not have to accept any invitation or ovetures for this to be absolutly correct, and why shouldn't it be?
unfortunatly, this is the story for the next couple of months. The timing sucks and I think will detract from the season but it would be hard to imagine Oklahoma playing Texas A&M without every other comment being about conference realignment.
RS9999X
There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,626
- Reaction Score
- 562
The Big-12 doesn't have much in the way of options, its either stay put or raid the Big East.
We know those who play fantasy league think a Big-12/Big East merger is inevitable. Otherwise the cannibalization will continue
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Missouri or Kansas or Cincy depending on who else the SEC takes and the Kansas/Kansas State lockup
and'
VVU
Pitt
SU
LU
RU
UConn
Leaving Kansas State, Idaho State, USF, and Cincy high and dry
Basketball would include St John's, Nova, Notre Dame. and Georgetown.
leaving PC, Depaul, Marquette, and Seton Hall high and dry.
Part of the problem in Providence: The Big East represents all the teams and officials want to preserve their jobs. The Big-12 has the same conflcit-of-interest between the league and the teams. It's much like union politics between bargaining units.
Putting the logical best 12 teams (for TV sets) together won't happen for that reason. The other reason: BCS money. Such an arrangement would cost the teams BCS money. They'd only get 1 seat at the table guaranteed split 1/12 rather than 1/9.
The Big East isn't the weaker player in this but they could be. If ESPN throws a small bucket of money at the Big-12 to go to 12 or 14 teams (and the SEC goes to 14) it may be cheaper (a lot cheaper) for ESPN to do exactly that.
If ESPN throw another $30 million a year at the Big-12 plus a championship game to add 3 teams, between that $30 million and TAMU exit fees and 'transition to full share' agreements it woulodn't cost much more than that.
What remains of the BE if the 4 most marketable football teams are lost in tne ensuing shuffle? The remainders will settle for chicken feed. What's not mentioned is the Big-12 going to 14 teams (losing 6 teams in conference shuffle) which also dooms the BE as we know it.
As easy argument could be made that UConn is not one of the 4 most desirable Television properties in the BE but the branding and success is there. Pitt and SU and RU would be gone under most any football market-size scenarios leaving Cincy (Ohio), LU (Kentucky). and UConn in a battle with newbie TCU.
Put it this way: ESPN could easily write a deal that dooms the BE for a lot less money than paying though the nose for both conferences. A 12 or 14 team Big-12 gives them the time-zones and superconference they want.
Even 14 teams and bring GU, SJU, ND and Nova in for basketball.
We know those who play fantasy league think a Big-12/Big East merger is inevitable. Otherwise the cannibalization will continue
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Missouri or Kansas or Cincy depending on who else the SEC takes and the Kansas/Kansas State lockup
and'
VVU
Pitt
SU
LU
RU
UConn
Leaving Kansas State, Idaho State, USF, and Cincy high and dry
Basketball would include St John's, Nova, Notre Dame. and Georgetown.
leaving PC, Depaul, Marquette, and Seton Hall high and dry.
Part of the problem in Providence: The Big East represents all the teams and officials want to preserve their jobs. The Big-12 has the same conflcit-of-interest between the league and the teams. It's much like union politics between bargaining units.
Putting the logical best 12 teams (for TV sets) together won't happen for that reason. The other reason: BCS money. Such an arrangement would cost the teams BCS money. They'd only get 1 seat at the table guaranteed split 1/12 rather than 1/9.
The Big East isn't the weaker player in this but they could be. If ESPN throws a small bucket of money at the Big-12 to go to 12 or 14 teams (and the SEC goes to 14) it may be cheaper (a lot cheaper) for ESPN to do exactly that.
If ESPN throw another $30 million a year at the Big-12 plus a championship game to add 3 teams, between that $30 million and TAMU exit fees and 'transition to full share' agreements it woulodn't cost much more than that.
What remains of the BE if the 4 most marketable football teams are lost in tne ensuing shuffle? The remainders will settle for chicken feed. What's not mentioned is the Big-12 going to 14 teams (losing 6 teams in conference shuffle) which also dooms the BE as we know it.
As easy argument could be made that UConn is not one of the 4 most desirable Television properties in the BE but the branding and success is there. Pitt and SU and RU would be gone under most any football market-size scenarios leaving Cincy (Ohio), LU (Kentucky). and UConn in a battle with newbie TCU.
Put it this way: ESPN could easily write a deal that dooms the BE for a lot less money than paying though the nose for both conferences. A 12 or 14 team Big-12 gives them the time-zones and superconference they want.
Even 14 teams and bring GU, SJU, ND and Nova in for basketball.
I don't think this will happen. Much more likely Pac 12 takes 4 from Oklahoma and Texas and the Big East picks up a few of the remaining pieces (Kansas, K-State, Mizzou).
.-.
RS9999X
There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,626
- Reaction Score
- 562
The Big-12 is fighting for survival. The Pac-16 isn't.
The Big East has limited flexibility to expand and raid and to pay $20 million a team. Don't count out the Big-12 in this. Or ESPN which stands to reap a windfall if the BE contract can be cut down to size.
The Big East has limited flexibility to expand and raid and to pay $20 million a team. Don't count out the Big-12 in this. Or ESPN which stands to reap a windfall if the BE contract can be cut down to size.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,520
- Reaction Score
- 12,472
Could be, but Waylon's might argue that was then, or some other foolishness, implying a dramatic change in conference members would have no impact on a media contract.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,958
- Reaction Score
- 20,877
Every motivation that ESPN has "to cut the Big East down to size" is a stronger motivation for those who want to compete with ESPN for sports content to not let that happen.
Anything is possible, but I'm not pessimistic about the Big East's position.
Anything is possible, but I'm not pessimistic about the Big East's position.
I completely agree. If we lose teams to the B1G, we can still replace the teams lost with remaining Big XII teams and some ACC teams using a larger payout as bait. At the same time, we are also a candidate for B1G expansion as long as they can overlook the lack of AAU affiliation. UConn will probably get the AAU affiliation in a matter of time. One thing we have that just about every other Big East schools doesn't have: hockey!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,370
- Reaction Score
- 16,540
Let us NOT forget a Key feature of these contracts. They OPEN up if the conference's alignment changes. That's both for the positive and the negative. So, the fact that the BE is in line next Sept for the next great contract ... is meaningless IF the ACC grabs a few of our teams. Cause, at that point, they go mark to market.
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,758
- Reaction Score
- 39,930
not true. CNBC had an article covering this a couple of days ago that I linked somewhere on the board. Basically, adding teams would result in an assessment of whether the contract was more valuable with the teams than it was before. It sounded like the dispute resolution would be arbitration, although it was not explicit. If the benchmark of that negotiation is the ACC's current lousy contract at $13MM/year/team, adding Syracuse and Rutgers isn't going to make it a $20MM/year/team deal.
.-.
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,758
- Reaction Score
- 39,930
You, Pudge and a few others keep making the same point that you think any league can reopen a contract anytime they want. You are a lawyer, and I have been involved in some meaningful business negotiations. How many long-term contracts have you have seen that have a unilateral cancellation or renegotiation clause for the supplier?
The Big East was literally getting strangled by its contract, and it had schools throwing themselves at the conference. Why didn't the Big East simply exercise the "Excalibur Clause" that you believe exists in every deal, add UCF or someone, and triple the per team take to get us more in-line with market?
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,063
- Reaction Score
- 21,906
You're somehow translating "open negotiations" into "unilaterally amend the contract". All I'm saying is that the clause that we both agree exists is leverage to open negotiations, and the argument that two established BCS programs add value is a lot more compelling than the argument that directional Florida or the sisters of the poor . You seem to think that a clause that dictates an assessment of the value of additional teams is a roadblock, which I can understand since you're including the unsubstantiated assumption that the benchmark is the original contract, even for the additional team. We don't know what the benchmark is, particularly for the determining the value of the additional teams.
Your position 12 months ago that any contract can be opened for discussions was more accurate that your current position, which appears to be that a contract with a clause that actually allows a re-opening of the contract, albeit with conditions, is somehow an iron-clad prohibition.
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,758
- Reaction Score
- 39,930
My position 12 months ago was out of desperation. I was proposing dissolving the league or splitting or doing something creative to try and break it. On the other hand, if it was easy to re-open these deals, it would have already been done. The conference commissioners may fall down on some matters, but everyone pays attention to the TV contract.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,370
- Reaction Score
- 16,540
You are forgetting a simple basic rule: 2 parties can "allow" a contract to re-open. The clause gives leverage. But, I think there are compelling reasons for ESPN and/or a conference to simply morph into a new paradigm. The fact that the BE has the "next" contract that comes open ... gives me little to no confidence that we are OK.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,958
- Reaction Score
- 20,877
Pudge -- doesn't the fact that ESPN made an offer to give us a different level of money give you some confidence?
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,758
- Reaction Score
- 39,930
What leverage? Even if ESPN reopens the deal, they would never let another network enter the picture, so the deal becomes a bilateral negotiation without competition. How do those typically work out?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,370
- Reaction Score
- 16,540
Remember ... I AM only interested in HOW WE do.
From the UConn perspective, I would like to know that we have a Payday next September (2012). The multiple contracts that are out there effect our (meaning the BE conference) ability to hammer home a solid economic deal & stability for this Program. The fact that the ACC could (might be incentivized) to go grab a few BE schools to ... once again ... change their market appeal & raise their profile & earn more per ACC program ... gives me the willies. I'd like to see OUR conference dominant after a long slog of work. But, I think that we are not positioned to do that.
From the UConn perspective, I would like to know that we have a Payday next September (2012). The multiple contracts that are out there effect our (meaning the BE conference) ability to hammer home a solid economic deal & stability for this Program. The fact that the ACC could (might be incentivized) to go grab a few BE schools to ... once again ... change their market appeal & raise their profile & earn more per ACC program ... gives me the willies. I'd like to see OUR conference dominant after a long slog of work. But, I think that we are not positioned to do that.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 13,905
- Reaction Score
- 25,921
And the reason we are not positioned to dominate, the reason it is very difficult to get the Big East football teams in position to cooperate frankly, is the hybrid nature of the conference. When you have to placate both the football schools and the basketball schools, major athletic programs and modest ones, it becomes exceedingly difficult to get anything done. There are size limtiations as well. You can't add 5 teams from the B-12 if they become available, because a 22 team basketball league is impossible. You can't go to a 16 team football league if the SEC, PAC-howevermany do because you can't have 24 basketball teams. And then you add the fact the fact that there isn't unanimity of views on which is more important, football or basketball, among the football members, and you just have a mess that can't be solved. While I would love to see the Big East come out of this as a solid long term propositon, I continue to be concerned that as a basketball first league, it will never be able to take the needed steps.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,370
- Reaction Score
- 16,540
I agree freescooter. And a lot of it is pure sentimentality. The Prime Movers just don't want to upset the lowly small time hoop schools. But, that is precisely why OUR hated enemy BC got on their uppity horse & moved on. My view is that the New Regime, led by Oliver Luck & Tom Jurich, is here. I am not overly confident that a good thing is coming ... just expectant that some of the folks in key position know what has to happen.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 13,905
- Reaction Score
- 25,921
That is my view, too. I think for the first time with the Villanova situation, the football side said "ENOUGH" though if the reports are accurate, it was a minority that stopped that move. And you're absolutely right about the sentimentality of things...how else do you explain the "keep Villanova, St Johns and Georgetown" setiments. It will be interesting to see how things progress, but I don't have high hopes that the big East as currently constituted can pull it off.
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 15,469
- Reaction Score
- 61,450
A minority was vocal but there were a couple of football members who for many reasons could not public support the decision to stop the Villanova upgrade (even if they did privately support it). I believe that the decision was pretty close to being unanimous, even if public perception was that three members were driving the bus on the decision (and that two charter BE members remained in support of VU).
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 15,469
- Reaction Score
- 61,450
NY Post (Lenn Robbins, whose credibility is open for interpretation) chimes in on potential 12/20 BE.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_east_thinking_big_ou8JdQKJUhWEeCUtGv7dNP
Only a couple of new items:
1 - He claims (although it defies logic) that Missouri would prefer the BE to the SEC if it received an offer for both.
2 - Interesting quote form Swofford who both affirms his statement that they are not looking to expand yet also leaves the door open for the possibility of adding a member (UT) who would cause a revenue disparity within the conference.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_east_thinking_big_ou8JdQKJUhWEeCUtGv7dNP
Only a couple of new items:
1 - He claims (although it defies logic) that Missouri would prefer the BE to the SEC if it received an offer for both.
2 - Interesting quote form Swofford who both affirms his statement that they are not looking to expand yet also leaves the door open for the possibility of adding a member (UT) who would cause a revenue disparity within the conference.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,958
- Reaction Score
- 20,877
1. Surely, no one here is giving any credibility whatsoever to what Swofford says, are they? Because they shouldn't.
2. I can see Mizzou picking the Big East over the SEC (assuming that the financial disparity lessens considerably, which there is every reason to think it will). At some point, someone about to join one of these superconferences is going to ask the following question: "Wouldn't it be good for my career if I put our teams in a league we can compete in, and occasionally win, as opposed to being Vanderbilt or Duke in football?" Maybe the Mizzou President or AD is asking that question.
2. I can see Mizzou picking the Big East over the SEC (assuming that the financial disparity lessens considerably, which there is every reason to think it will). At some point, someone about to join one of these superconferences is going to ask the following question: "Wouldn't it be good for my career if I put our teams in a league we can compete in, and occasionally win, as opposed to being Vanderbilt or Duke in football?" Maybe the Mizzou President or AD is asking that question.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,552
- Reaction Score
- 52,762
Does Mizzou sell out? Does it have a lot of fans? If so, then the SEC is the place to make more $$$. Someone might crunch numbers and figure out that they can draw more fans to home games by joining the BE, however, and the extra ticket sales may make up for lost SEC revs. But, I doubt any AD would be that brave.
.-.
- Status