Yet they still seem pleased with their additions. The SEC certainly got a mixed bag with A&M and Missouri, didn't they? So did the ACC with all of their additions from the Big East. Has any conference expanded with teams that just come in and totally kick ***?
Yet they still seem pleased with their additions. The SEC certainly got a mixed bag with A&M and Missouri, didn't they? So did the ACC with all of their additions from the Big East. Has any conference expanded with teams that just come in and totally kick ***?
In TCU's first two seasons in the Big 12 they were 4 - 5 and 2 - 7 in conference games. Since then you are right. But if the Big 12 would have had 12 teams with eight conference games and a CCG in 2014 TCU and Baylor would have had a 50 - 50 chance of making the playoffs. Provided of course they had beaten a couple of power five teams in OOC games. I realize the ESPN contract requires nine conference games, but I'll bet they would wave that in exchange for a mandatory power five OOC game.
10 Teams, 9 games, Total 45 games. 12 Teams, 8 games, Total 48 games. I wouldn't call that a significant growth, particularly if you water down the strength of the conference as a whole.The reason the Big-12 plays 9 conference games is to give the TV package the best mix of opportunities to pull 23 games for broadcast annually. If the Big-12 expands to 12 teams then the number of conference games grows significantly even if each member only plays 8 conference games.
While no one can speak for what ESPN would consider acceptable in their contract, it is logical if the supply grows with 12 teams in the conference the need for 9 conference games for each of them would be reduced.
10 Teams, 9 games, Total 45 games. 12 Teams, 8 games, Total 48 games. I wouldn't call that a significant growth, particularly if you water down the strength of the conference as a whole.
It is that the number of games meet the requirement and with two additional teams the mix of games also expands and that is at the heart for a limit of conference games. Content is what the tv package is after, not a set number of games and the best mix comes from having more teams in the mix, especially if they do not meet every year.
Houston is about to become 3rd largest city in America. Of course you add Houston University very good Football and Basketball tradition. This is actually the only guaranteed no brainier choice.
Cincinnati (Ohio Big Ten area)
Houston ( Texas isolate SEC/ Texas A&M)
Memphis (Tennessee SEC area)
BYU (Utah Pac12 area)
For the same reasons Texas likes the current conference size and strong arms TT and TCU into following suit in a ten-member league, Texas is never going to get the needed votes by any member not in Texas to add Houston just to be another Texas stooge. Houston is DOA.
Regardless of whether the big 12 expands or not it won't make the conference any more stable. If Oklahoma gets an invite to the sec or big ten they will most likely jump on it when the Gor expires. If the big 12 is worried about getting left out of the college football playoff then the conference needs to start playing better football. It needs to stop getting smoked in bowl games the fact that the conference hasn't had a winning bowl season in 5 years and the outright conference champion hasn't won a bowl game in that time span doesn't help its case in front of the selection committee. The only people that should be happy with the Big 12's on field performance lately are fans in ACC country we have given them someone to point the finger at
More teams that start out in the middle of the pack will indeed make the conference more stable by giving additional opportunities to expand income, viewers and bowl odds. Oklahoma can't go anywhere without OSU and that is the albatross around their neck. Texas would currently be a cellar dweller in the SEC as well as nearly there in the B1G and would NOT have the LHN.
The playoff is a 'what have you done this year?' committee and does not consider past years. Every year everyone starts from scratch. It would help the image of the Big 12 if they would get out of the bakery shop during the beginning of the season. Having cupcakes to pad your record does not impress the selection committee. Games against FCS teams are nothing more than formal scrimmage games meant to buy an extra win. I'd like to see the conference require each member two play at least two OOC games against power 5 opponents.
The pac 12 is probably the biggest threat to the big 12 overall they tried to get to 16 once and with 4 spots available they could offer both ok and okie state
Maybe, but that's several years down the road. GOR for the Big 12 doesn't expire until June 30 2025 at 11:59 pm. Besides, how would membership in the PAC help any power 5 team? The biggest threat to the Big 12 that I see is the members of the Big 12 being stupid and doing nothing, choking on the dust of the B1G and SEC as they run off and leave them behind.
Who would have ever predicted Stanford, Oregon and kind of Washington State would be the big dogs with USC and UCLA as also rans of the PAC?
Well, the athletic directors and head coaches have finished their Spring meetings and received all the data regarding the issues in question. ESPN and CBS reporters seem to believe expansion will likely occur and Dennis Dodd was there interviewing everyone he could. His opinion is that the conference will expand to 12 and the prime candidates are Cincinnati and UCF.
The Big 12 staff in attendance were told the conference currently has a 62% chance of making the playoffs in any given year. That sounds pretty good until you find out that is the lowest chance of any power 5 conference. The only way to even the odds is with an expanded number of members and a CCG.
The consensus seemed to be that the financial gain of adding members would be small even with the Ohio and Florida markets. However I cannot imagine two additions going from a conference payout of $3.6 million to over $20 million overnight. I would expect them to receive incremental payouts much like WVU and TCU did. WVU is finally receiving a full share for 2016.
No one knows what the conference presidents will decide in late May and early June, but the odds at this time seem to favor being proactive in remaining competitive with the other power 5 conferences. In my opinion that means expansion as well as a CCG are likely. JMHO
TexAss is strong arming TCU and TT to not vote, keeping them 1 vote short. We will see how things change with the new information. It will still come down to the $$ and LHNI saw an article today claiming that the big 12 was only 1 school short. Not sure what to think but im skeptical about expansion I'll believe it when I see it
TexAss is strong arming TCU and TT to not vote, keeping them 1 vote short. We will see how things change with the new information. It will still come down to the $$ and LHN
Some interesting info--haven't seen some of this in articles or elsewhere--can you provide links to some of this such as the conference having a 62% chance and that being the lowest of any conference, and or Dennis Dodd giving a positive opinion on expansion and naming candidates? Thanks.
The B12 could have 16 teams and two championship games with a super championship game and you would still have 5 conference champions seeking 4 slots.
There will never be a clear cut path to the playoff because one conference will always be left out.
Even as stubborn and self minded as officials at UT have a reputation for being, they have no incentive to sabotage the Big 12's odds of reaching the playoffs and falling further behind because of a small broadcast footprint.
If UT moved to any other conference they will lose the LHN and be a middle of the pack school at best. That sounds self destructive to me.
They actually do. Dennis Dodd also reported that expansion is not expected to bring in much money. (He said "minimal at best.") If that's true, then how does this solve anything? Money is the main reason for doing this in the first place. From the point of view of Texas, it really wouldn't make sense to add teams that don't bring in new revenue.
Although the short term monetary increase would be small, the long term effect of expanding the broadcast footprint to tens of millions of more TV sets could be substantial. As I pointed out earlier, any new teams would very likely receive incremental shares as WVU and TCU did. There is another strong incentive besides money which would strengthen the conference. Substantially increasing the odds of placing a team in the playoffs by 10 - 15 percent.
Tiger, it would actually benefit Texas to play games in Ohio and Florida. Although the games would not be part of the LHN, the exposure for recruiting would be there and the games would certainly be heavily attended. Texas would also benefit from the added TV audience on the LHN when the teams played in Austin.
This is all prefaced on Dodd's quotes being accurate. That said, it still doesn't make sense. I get what you are saying about the long term, but here's the thing. If ESPN and Fox aren't going to boost up the contract much now with the bigger footprint (again, taking Dodd's quotes as accurate), then it doesn't make sense that they would boost up the contract later, for the same footprint.
I also don't think a reduced share is going to make that big of an impact. West Virginia and TCU started out getting something like 85% (not sure of the exact figure) when they joined. That's not going to give that much of a boost to the other schools. Plus, that partial share will increase every year, and then become a permanent full share. You seem to indicate that the new teams will start out with a really low payout (like $3-4 million or something), but there isn't any indication that they will start out that low. The only evidence we have is what TCU and West Virginia got, which wasn't too far off the full payout to begin with. Also remember, TCU was a mid-major when they joined the Big 12, and they didn't get the super-low payouts. I don't think the evidence is there to suggest the new schools will get a different deal than TCU and West Virginia.
To some extent, but it's not that big of a benefit. Texas will always make its bread and butter recruiting in state. Maybe grab a few players from Ohio, but again not that big of a benefit. Attendance at away games doesn't help Texas. Not a factor. Expansion isn't really going to impact the TV audience for the LHN. The LNH doesn't work like a conference network. LHN doesn't get an increased subscription fee or more distribution in conference states, like a conference network would. You might argue that more people in Ohio who already have the LHN would start watching it, but that's again a minimal increase.
I get your points, but WVU started out with a 50% share and only reached 85% in 2015. As far as Texas playing in front of several tens of thousands of new people and on millions of TV sets, it gets the Longhorn brand (pun intended) out there. There are many younger fans who don't remember Texas being a national powerhouse. As far as the home games against presumably (according to Dodd's take) UC and UCF, is it not the nature of the 'Hook-em horns' fans to want to see UT put these newcomers in their place? They would certainly draw more fans for Texas home games than Kansas and Iowa State.
The per team increase likely barely covers the additional conference payout, but enhancing the opportunity for Big 12 teams to participate in the playoffs and possibly the NC game increases the opportunity for additional revenue for the entire conference.