Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
Field of 68
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
MegaBoard
Trending
Michigan Hot Board
Hot
All-America Team
Field of 68
Message Boards
Where Michigan, QB Bryce Underwood stand following Sherrone Moore firing
Skeptics cast doubt on College Sports Commission's participation agreement
College Football Playoff predictions: J.D. PicKell reveals his picks for entire bracket
Michigan Head Coach Hot Board: Top candidates to replace Sherrone Moore
College Football Playoff: Predicting who will win the national title?
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Buckaineer" data-source="post: 129494557" data-attributes="member: 1428007"><p><em><strong>B:Here you go-my answers are bold with B: in front-----</strong></em></p><p></p><p>I will get to your question at the end</p><p></p><p>I am not arguing for or against expansion now or in the future. It probably does not seem like it, but I agree with many of your points <strong>for </strong>expansion. My argument has always been that the BIG12 won't expand because in the short run the per team payout will be less (an areas we disagree strongly on).</p><p></p><p><em><strong>B: No we dont agree. I am certain that the BIG 12 schools including Texas will fall behind the Big Ten and SEC by 2025 financially and competitively. Expansion is the only way to change that, and can put the BIG 12 ahead of both . If not some may seek new homes at that time.</strong></em></p><p></p><p>My thoughts and where we agree and disagree</p><p></p><p><strong>Money: </strong>You and I are in total disagreement here.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I am positive, total revenue for each team is going to take a hit or be less (short term).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B: the opposite is true. Without expansion the BIG 12 will fall behind in revenues ans have a difficult time getting more in their next contract. With expansion member revenues will increase as high as anyone.</strong></em></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Yes the TV revenue stays the same, but everything else is going to go down.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B: TV revenue stays same unless they negotiate for increases. Even if not the other money isnt substantial. At worse the league would break even with a greater shot at playoff money and conference network money.</strong></em></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Assuming a 10 team CCG is played my projects is 3-5 million less per team.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B: I will do the numbers later, there will not be any loss per school.</strong></em></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less money and LHN are the two main reason the conference won't expand now.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B:The reason some dont want to expand now is some dont want to not see others every year, some are afraid of a CCG, and some have their noses in the air over schools to be added. Money is not the reason- expansion is one of the only ways they can ensure more of that.</strong></em></li> </ul><p></p><p><strong>10 team CCG:</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We both agree having a 10 team CCG takes away the disadvantage of not having the 13 data point</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B: A 10 team CCG increases odds of knocking yourself out- that isnt good.</strong></em></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I believe the disadvantage of a 10 team CCG is less severe than you.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: the conference understands a guaranteed rematch is dangerous and that is why Boren wants expansion first. Otherwise the conference is still disadvantaged. No disadvantage is acceptable if preventable.</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Having a 10 team CCG makes more money per school per year</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: A CCG makes more money for everyone in an expanded conference and you have no disadvantage of more teams with more losses or a guaranteed rematch.</em></strong></li> </ul><p><strong>BIG12 Network </strong>Other area I think we totally disagree</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Expanding with G5 programs without BIG12 Network is pointless</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B:Not pointless at all. Expansion brings new revenues such as NCAA and new bowls and sponsorships. Makes it more likely to participate in playoffs and extra NY 6 bowls which means everything in cfb. Means more teams with fewer losses possible.</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Creating a BIG12 Network without Texas isn't worth the effort</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: the league agrees</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Texas is not going to give up LHN, therefore a BIG12 Network isn't worth the effort, therefore expansion with G5 programs now is useless.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: Texas will be better off long term with a successful BIG 12. The plan as Boren stated includes making sure UT doesnt lose revenues. Conversely each year there isnt a conference network the other schools are missing out on $4-$6 million each per year. That is not sustainable</em></strong></li> </ul><p><strong>The votes are not there</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Again I am not for or against expansion, I just want it done for the right reasons. When I say the conference is not going to expand I mean there are not enough votes.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: the conference hasnt been thoroughly addressed by the expansion committee on what candidates will offer. No vote on schools has been taken because the conversation never gets that far. This is why Boren is speaking out- to unstall the situation and get leaders discussing it from a scientific position rather than dismissing without consideration based on emotion.</em></strong></li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Until something is done Everything said by ADs, presidents, or Commissioner is just smoke</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B: not everything is smoke, some things are straightforward and others represent one side or the other.</strong></em></li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When Bowlsby talks about expansion you have to read between the lines.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When he says the 'conference does not want to expand', he is saying the votes are not there</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: he is putting forth one side only because without that side a vote isn't necessary. They havent gotten to the voting stage, they are down to the "who will be in the running" stage.</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When he says I have not spoken to programs about expansion, he means officially. He currently knows exactly how each program will vote and that the votes are not there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: the conference meeting structure is formal, they meet and vote based on their legal structure- He knows certain schools don't want expansion or aren't sure and until they do he states interest isn't there and he doesn/t poll the rest because the "nays" are more than enough to keep a vote from happening at this point</em></strong></li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Boren, knows the votes are not thee and is why he presented his case in public.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: Boren presented his case because the conversation has stalled and he knows it's time to restart it and take action. Without that bold move comprehensive action couldn't happen and the league might vote to play a damaging 10 team CCG which will hurt the conference maybe more than a 13th data point</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I believe the manner in which Boren presented his argument was major mistake and it backfired a bit.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: Only thing that could be done. He sees the bigger picture- the future of the conference is at stake. Now things will be discussed and action taken</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Even Gee who agrees with Boren, thinks his message was not presented well.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: not sure where that came from but 100% incorrect. It's expected Gee will also address the members to push for pro-active developments</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Pressure from the league has Boren backing away from some of those comments.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: Not only has Boren not backed off his comments, he has added details. He has clarified the situation for the conference and been frank about those things requiring action be taken by the BIG 12.</em></strong></li> </ul><p>Now to answer your question.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The same G5 programs will be available now and in the future.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Why add G5 now when there is the possibility the BIG will raid the ACC and better P5 programs are available. (We can discuss the larger reason why I think the ACC is more vulnerable to a raid then the BIG12, later.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: And there it is. Once again, whether people like it or not, the ACC has a grant of rights extending through 2027. That is 2 full years AFTER the BIG 12 will have renewed its contracts. The Big Ten will be under a new contract by that time and not be able financially in 2025 to add anyone under a grant of rights or with an enormous buyout of two full years conference operating costs. The BIG 12 isn't likely to acquire a good enough contract in 2024-when its redone- in order to attract a P5 school in 2027. In 2027 its unlikely they'll redo a contract just a couple of years old either. More importantly lack of success from lower viewers, diminishing recruiting, smaller footprint, less success in playoffs- none of that will be attractive to anyone to want to join what may be if nothing is done between now and then. If on the other hand a comprehensive plan is implemented now , there's a chance in 2027 you might lure bigger names</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think the impact of waiting is minimal . There has always been a separation from what is now P5 programs and G5 and there have always been candidates that might be worth selecting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: Impact of waiting is enormous. It means lack of increased finances for a decade while others grow. No change or even diminished fans and viewers. Continued recruiting drop off. Years of bad press and lack of political clout as the smallest league. Since a better tv deal is unlikely under those circumstances in 2025 and everyone in the BIG 12 will have fallen behind (the SEC and B10, departures are highly probable. As for the potential adds, by then the financial divide will have destroyed success for most and kept them from facility, coaching snd other improvements and success. They'll be far less attractive as candidates to network partners by then.</em></strong></li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There has to be a super majority for the BIG12 to expand.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The BIG12 as a whole is short sighted (meaning a super majority) or too selfish to understand that the long term benefits of expanding to 12.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: they are only looking at emotion- mostly fear and misinformation dumped on them from the grass roots level and carried up the chain. Once they listen and understand the facts that will change. Some have no long range thinking.</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Texas is not giving up LHN, and for now that means more money per team to be made short term with just 10 teams.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: this is not a done deal, talks haven't begun on that.</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Just like the BIG12 waited to see the impact of not having a CCG game played out toin Playoff selection, so will they evaluate the impact of 10 team CCG.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: they aren't likely going to implement a damaging 10 team CCG</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Evaluating the impact of a 10 team CCG will take several years for enough data to make a determination.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: they aren't likely to implement- the risk is too high</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think it is safe to assume the CCG game does not start until 2017.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: they've said this is most likely for logistics</em></strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It will be 2020 before enough data is gathered evaluate the situation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">By 2020 they will be feeling the effects of new contracts for others and years out of playoffs and be coming under threat of poaching as the grant of rights gets closer. Theyll also have missed bowl opportunities in 2019-renewal year</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Assuming 10 team CCG is deemed a disadvantage, it will take at least a year to vote to for expansion and hash out which program to bring in. I believe agreeing on which program is going to be as difficult as agreeing to expand.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><em><strong>B: the committee has this information now. By 2020 they would need a new list and study of candidates as g5 schools will be severely feeling the brunt of lack of revenues</strong></em></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It will take at least 1 year for for a program to leave current conference.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">So at the earliest we looking at 2022.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At that point there is no reason to add teams until new deals (whatever format) is ready for bid. I am not saying you wait until the bidding is done, but that the bidding takes place knowing what programs are being added.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong><em>B: if they wait until then it would be too late. Candidates need years to get out of current situations and years to integrate into the league. No development on a network will see too many schools struggling to keep up financially and lead to departures before a new contract can be sought. Lack of playoff success, recruiting declines, low viewership numbers, etc. will not make a strong league or one that could attract teams or get strong tv contracts compared to other major leagues.</em></strong></li> </ul><p>Long winded answer to a short question.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129494557, member: 1428007"] [I][B]B:Here you go-my answers are bold with B: in front-----[/B][/I] I will get to your question at the end I am not arguing for or against expansion now or in the future. It probably does not seem like it, but I agree with many of your points [B]for [/B]expansion. My argument has always been that the BIG12 won't expand because in the short run the per team payout will be less (an areas we disagree strongly on). [I][B]B: No we dont agree. I am certain that the BIG 12 schools including Texas will fall behind the Big Ten and SEC by 2025 financially and competitively. Expansion is the only way to change that, and can put the BIG 12 ahead of both . If not some may seek new homes at that time.[/B][/I] My thoughts and where we agree and disagree [B]Money: [/B]You and I are in total disagreement here. [LIST] [*]I am positive, total revenue for each team is going to take a hit or be less (short term). [*][I][B]B: the opposite is true. Without expansion the BIG 12 will fall behind in revenues ans have a difficult time getting more in their next contract. With expansion member revenues will increase as high as anyone.[/B][/I] [*]Yes the TV revenue stays the same, but everything else is going to go down. [*][I][B]B: TV revenue stays same unless they negotiate for increases. Even if not the other money isnt substantial. At worse the league would break even with a greater shot at playoff money and conference network money.[/B][/I] [*]Assuming a 10 team CCG is played my projects is 3-5 million less per team. [*][I][B]B: I will do the numbers later, there will not be any loss per school.[/B][/I] [*]Less money and LHN are the two main reason the conference won't expand now. [*][I][B]B:The reason some dont want to expand now is some dont want to not see others every year, some are afraid of a CCG, and some have their noses in the air over schools to be added. Money is not the reason- expansion is one of the only ways they can ensure more of that.[/B][/I] [/LIST] [B]10 team CCG:[/B] [LIST] [*]We both agree having a 10 team CCG takes away the disadvantage of not having the 13 data point [*][I][B]B: A 10 team CCG increases odds of knocking yourself out- that isnt good.[/B][/I] [*]I believe the disadvantage of a 10 team CCG is less severe than you. [*][B][I]B: the conference understands a guaranteed rematch is dangerous and that is why Boren wants expansion first. Otherwise the conference is still disadvantaged. No disadvantage is acceptable if preventable.[/I][/B] [*]Having a 10 team CCG makes more money per school per year [*][B][I]B: A CCG makes more money for everyone in an expanded conference and you have no disadvantage of more teams with more losses or a guaranteed rematch.[/I][/B] [/LIST] [B]BIG12 Network [/B]Other area I think we totally disagree [LIST] [*]Expanding with G5 programs without BIG12 Network is pointless [*][B][I]B:Not pointless at all. Expansion brings new revenues such as NCAA and new bowls and sponsorships. Makes it more likely to participate in playoffs and extra NY 6 bowls which means everything in cfb. Means more teams with fewer losses possible.[/I][/B] [*]Creating a BIG12 Network without Texas isn't worth the effort [*][B][I]B: the league agrees[/I][/B] [*]Texas is not going to give up LHN, therefore a BIG12 Network isn't worth the effort, therefore expansion with G5 programs now is useless. [*][B][I]B: Texas will be better off long term with a successful BIG 12. The plan as Boren stated includes making sure UT doesnt lose revenues. Conversely each year there isnt a conference network the other schools are missing out on $4-$6 million each per year. That is not sustainable[/I][/B] [/LIST] [B]The votes are not there[/B] [LIST] [*]Again I am not for or against expansion, I just want it done for the right reasons. When I say the conference is not going to expand I mean there are not enough votes. [*][B][I]B: the conference hasnt been thoroughly addressed by the expansion committee on what candidates will offer. No vote on schools has been taken because the conversation never gets that far. This is why Boren is speaking out- to unstall the situation and get leaders discussing it from a scientific position rather than dismissing without consideration based on emotion.[/I][/B] [/LIST] [LIST] [*]Until something is done Everything said by ADs, presidents, or Commissioner is just smoke [*][I][B]B: not everything is smoke, some things are straightforward and others represent one side or the other.[/B][/I] [/LIST] [LIST] [*]When Bowlsby talks about expansion you have to read between the lines. [LIST] [*]When he says the 'conference does not want to expand', he is saying the votes are not there [*][B][I]B: he is putting forth one side only because without that side a vote isn't necessary. They havent gotten to the voting stage, they are down to the "who will be in the running" stage.[/I][/B] [*]When he says I have not spoken to programs about expansion, he means officially. He currently knows exactly how each program will vote and that the votes are not there. [*][B][I]B: the conference meeting structure is formal, they meet and vote based on their legal structure- He knows certain schools don't want expansion or aren't sure and until they do he states interest isn't there and he doesn/t poll the rest because the "nays" are more than enough to keep a vote from happening at this point[/I][/B] [/LIST] [*]Boren, knows the votes are not thee and is why he presented his case in public. [*][B][I]B: Boren presented his case because the conversation has stalled and he knows it's time to restart it and take action. Without that bold move comprehensive action couldn't happen and the league might vote to play a damaging 10 team CCG which will hurt the conference maybe more than a 13th data point[/I][/B] [*]I believe the manner in which Boren presented his argument was major mistake and it backfired a bit. [*][B][I]B: Only thing that could be done. He sees the bigger picture- the future of the conference is at stake. Now things will be discussed and action taken[/I][/B] [*]Even Gee who agrees with Boren, thinks his message was not presented well. [*][B][I]B: not sure where that came from but 100% incorrect. It's expected Gee will also address the members to push for pro-active developments[/I][/B] [*]Pressure from the league has Boren backing away from some of those comments. [*][B][I]B: Not only has Boren not backed off his comments, he has added details. He has clarified the situation for the conference and been frank about those things requiring action be taken by the BIG 12.[/I][/B] [/LIST] Now to answer your question. [LIST] [*]The same G5 programs will be available now and in the future. [*]Why add G5 now when there is the possibility the BIG will raid the ACC and better P5 programs are available. (We can discuss the larger reason why I think the ACC is more vulnerable to a raid then the BIG12, later.) [*][B][I]B: And there it is. Once again, whether people like it or not, the ACC has a grant of rights extending through 2027. That is 2 full years AFTER the BIG 12 will have renewed its contracts. The Big Ten will be under a new contract by that time and not be able financially in 2025 to add anyone under a grant of rights or with an enormous buyout of two full years conference operating costs. The BIG 12 isn't likely to acquire a good enough contract in 2024-when its redone- in order to attract a P5 school in 2027. In 2027 its unlikely they'll redo a contract just a couple of years old either. More importantly lack of success from lower viewers, diminishing recruiting, smaller footprint, less success in playoffs- none of that will be attractive to anyone to want to join what may be if nothing is done between now and then. If on the other hand a comprehensive plan is implemented now , there's a chance in 2027 you might lure bigger names[/I][/B] [*]I think the impact of waiting is minimal . There has always been a separation from what is now P5 programs and G5 and there have always been candidates that might be worth selecting. [*][B][I]B: Impact of waiting is enormous. It means lack of increased finances for a decade while others grow. No change or even diminished fans and viewers. Continued recruiting drop off. Years of bad press and lack of political clout as the smallest league. Since a better tv deal is unlikely under those circumstances in 2025 and everyone in the BIG 12 will have fallen behind (the SEC and B10, departures are highly probable. As for the potential adds, by then the financial divide will have destroyed success for most and kept them from facility, coaching snd other improvements and success. They'll be far less attractive as candidates to network partners by then.[/I][/B] [/LIST] [LIST] [*]There has to be a super majority for the BIG12 to expand. [*]The BIG12 as a whole is short sighted (meaning a super majority) or too selfish to understand that the long term benefits of expanding to 12. [*][B][I]B: they are only looking at emotion- mostly fear and misinformation dumped on them from the grass roots level and carried up the chain. Once they listen and understand the facts that will change. Some have no long range thinking.[/I][/B] [*]Texas is not giving up LHN, and for now that means more money per team to be made short term with just 10 teams. [*][B][I]B: this is not a done deal, talks haven't begun on that.[/I][/B] [*]Just like the BIG12 waited to see the impact of not having a CCG game played out toin Playoff selection, so will they evaluate the impact of 10 team CCG. [*][B][I]B: they aren't likely going to implement a damaging 10 team CCG[/I][/B] [*]Evaluating the impact of a 10 team CCG will take several years for enough data to make a determination. [*][B][I]B: they aren't likely to implement- the risk is too high[/I][/B] [*]I think it is safe to assume the CCG game does not start until 2017. [*][B][I]B: they've said this is most likely for logistics[/I][/B] [*]It will be 2020 before enough data is gathered evaluate the situation. [*]By 2020 they will be feeling the effects of new contracts for others and years out of playoffs and be coming under threat of poaching as the grant of rights gets closer. Theyll also have missed bowl opportunities in 2019-renewal year [*]Assuming 10 team CCG is deemed a disadvantage, it will take at least a year to vote to for expansion and hash out which program to bring in. I believe agreeing on which program is going to be as difficult as agreeing to expand. [*][I][B]B: the committee has this information now. By 2020 they would need a new list and study of candidates as g5 schools will be severely feeling the brunt of lack of revenues[/B][/I] [*]It will take at least 1 year for for a program to leave current conference. [*]So at the earliest we looking at 2022. [*]At that point there is no reason to add teams until new deals (whatever format) is ready for bid. I am not saying you wait until the bidding is done, but that the bidding takes place knowing what programs are being added. [*][B][I]B: if they wait until then it would be too late. Candidates need years to get out of current situations and years to integrate into the league. No development on a network will see too many schools struggling to keep up financially and lead to departures before a new contract can be sought. Lack of playoff success, recruiting declines, low viewership numbers, etc. will not make a strong league or one that could attract teams or get strong tv contracts compared to other major leagues.[/I][/B] [/LIST] Long winded answer to a short question. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
Top
Bottom