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
Hot
Michigan FIRES Sherrone Moore
New
Michigan Hot Board
Trending
All-America Team
MegaBoard
Message Boards
Michigan Head Coach Hot Board: Top candidates to replace Sherrone Moore
2025 On3 College Football All-America Team
Marcus Freeman's elite 2026 recruiting class is a reminder Notre Dame's pain is merely temporary
College Football Playoff: Predicting who will win the national title?
Rising Florida RB Connail Jackson scores four touchdowns in state championship game
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: 129518201" data-attributes="member: 1428007"><p>to Mountaineer Steve:</p><p></p><p>B:This is an opinion piece, not a fact filled article.</p><p></p><p>The writer accuses the BIG 12 of creating its "psychological disadvantage" while proclaiming the BIG 12 can't do this, that or the other as other conferences have done, not based on fact, but the writers opinion. That is EXACTLY what Boren was referring to in the first place.</p><p></p><p><strong>To say the BIG12 is or is not "psychological disadvantage" is just an opinion. Boren's claim that it is, is just his opinion. To say otherwise is disingenuous. </strong></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>B response: no its not "just an opinion" Boren lives and works in the BIG 12. He is directly affected by negativity that disadvantages the BIG 12. He witnessed TCU and Baylor left out of the playoffs and witness OU drop on the last day. He sees the negative press and the insinuation by others that the BIG 12 is "lesser" because its smaller. He also saw the conference have less representation in the playoff committee among other things than bigger conferences. When he says there are disadvantages he is speaking about things he has personal knowledge of not just guessing like the reporters.</strong></span></p><p></p><p>B:He again makes the claim of the BIG 12 being $9 million behind the SEC(based on an error filled CBS article) when in reality we don't know the numbers for SEC schools from tax reports, just what they reported--and the writer dismisses BIG 12 tier 3 revenues. Also left out is what BIG 12 schools were paid in NCAA revenues, while the SEC numbers included that. Again, this type of yellow journalism is exactly the sort of psychological disadvanatage Boren referenced. </p><p><strong>I don't get your argument. If he left out BIG12 tier 3 revenue that is just shows BIG12 is not as far behind the SEC as some think. The bigger picture which you may or may not be grasping is the BIG12's per team payout is 3rd behind the BIG and the SEC and ahead of the ACC and PAC. The big question is just how far behind will the BIG12 fall behind the leaders. </strong></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>B Response: The argument is that to a national audience writers are proving Boren's "psychological disadvantage by misrepresenting the BIG 12 to the public at large. This impacts the schools and the conference negatively. They write articles like "BIG 12 makes xx less than others" rather than "BIG 12 makes most ever in conference history--but they don't do that to other conferences. For example in the two previous years the BIG 12 made more per school, there wasn't an article titled "SEC doesn't make as much as BIG 12" now was there. The BIG 12s payout is different than others because different schools make different amounts due to different tier 3 deals. Texas makes more than Big Ten and SEC schools. OU, KU and WVU make a similar amount. Schools like Kansas State are just behind and schools like Iowa State are further behind in media rights payouts for tiers 1,2 and 3. The gap is going to widen between what B10 and SEC schools make and the BIG 12 as time goes on-which is why Boren and the conference are now looking at the issues.</strong></span></p><p></p><p></p><p>B: The writer speculates the BIG 12 won't be able to get a network going because decades ago as the first one the Big Ten took a couple of years to get theirs up and running. That doesn't mean the BIG 12 TODAY won't be able to do exactly what the SEC did with theirs. </p><p><strong>It is just speculation, but it is based on the facts of where the networks are today. The BIG and SEC created a network when things were going well, and they were able to build a foundation before the looming collapse of current content distribution. If the BIG12 wants to create a network they will have to invest heavily up front like the BIG did. Overall the BIG has better leadership, foresight and less Dysfunctionalism to get this done. I have a hard time thinking the BIG12 can or will agree to anything regarding BIG12 network. Again the BIG invested up front to pay HUGE dividends down the road. Will the BIG12 be forward thinking enough to do this? My opinion is no. </strong></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>B Response: Its speculation that isn't based on anything, while the BIG 12 has had analysts looking at the situation for awhile. Any "collapse of the current system is years away at best--cable subscriptions </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>are still expected to be in the 90 million range in the 2020's. The BIG 12 has looked at the issue and determined it is feasible and now they are looking into in more detail to get a better picture of specific situations with specific schools. However to claim the BIG 12 would have to go back to a situation from two decades ago when the "conference network" industry has greatly changed is baseless--and the writer provided 0 evidence to support his claim anyway.</strong></span></p><p>B: He claims certain schools don't bring this or that--not based on real numbers, but again on his OPINION. Where's the data that backs up his claim of households they "bring". It's all just made up opinion with not one piece of evidence to back it up.</p><p><strong>Until the research companies come back with data we won't know either way. You claim Boren has the numbers, but I yet to see any facts or documents that prove this. Until this is done, it is just an opinion. Even if the research comes back positive that it could be beneficial, it won't actually be <strong>beneficial until there is network or medium agreement to help develop BIG12N. ESPN told the ACC they would help develop a network and keeps getting delayed. So unless there is a contract in place everything else is just speculation. Hopefully there won't be any teams physically added unless the network is slated to kickoff at the same time.</strong></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: #0000b3">B Response: Boren has researched this for well over a year and there were research committees prior to the current one. You haven't seen articles where Boren stated they've identified schools that would be additive? He's on video discussing the same. The analysts are providing more details because the conference hasn't decided on anyone, but that doesn't mean they haven't identified candidates-he states they have several that meet the requirements and has no reason to mislead anyone. Gee also on the committee agrees with the need to expand and that there are viable candidates. You can't claim expansion won't be beneficial without the network, because it would immediately be valuable to making the playoffs--and that is worth $6 million plus per year, not to mention even the linked CBS article states that schools could get an additional $3 million per school with expansion with these schools. Its not speculation if someone on the expansion committee is telling you they have identified candidates, the only speculation is which ones they'll select to expand with if that's what they do. But there are reasons to expand other than a network-that just makes it much more profitable.</span></strong></p><p></p><p>B:One must keep in mind that CBS LOVES the SEC and carries virtually 0 BIG 12 product. They obviously see an expanded, networked BIG 12 as a threat and are trying to stop that in its tracks. Next time rather than giving their opinion perhaps they should present some facts along with that. The BIG 12s leaders are doing just that--and aren't going to be swayed by anti BIG 12 rhetoric and opinion from someone that doesn't use facts and figures.</p><p><strong>And here is a point we can both agree on.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129518201, member: 1428007"] to Mountaineer Steve: B:This is an opinion piece, not a fact filled article. The writer accuses the BIG 12 of creating its "psychological disadvantage" while proclaiming the BIG 12 can't do this, that or the other as other conferences have done, not based on fact, but the writers opinion. That is EXACTLY what Boren was referring to in the first place. [B]To say the BIG12 is or is not "psychological disadvantage" is just an opinion. Boren's claim that it is, is just his opinion. To say otherwise is disingenuous. [/B] [COLOR=#0000b3][B]B response: no its not "just an opinion" Boren lives and works in the BIG 12. He is directly affected by negativity that disadvantages the BIG 12. He witnessed TCU and Baylor left out of the playoffs and witness OU drop on the last day. He sees the negative press and the insinuation by others that the BIG 12 is "lesser" because its smaller. He also saw the conference have less representation in the playoff committee among other things than bigger conferences. When he says there are disadvantages he is speaking about things he has personal knowledge of not just guessing like the reporters.[/B][/COLOR] B:He again makes the claim of the BIG 12 being $9 million behind the SEC(based on an error filled CBS article) when in reality we don't know the numbers for SEC schools from tax reports, just what they reported--and the writer dismisses BIG 12 tier 3 revenues. Also left out is what BIG 12 schools were paid in NCAA revenues, while the SEC numbers included that. Again, this type of yellow journalism is exactly the sort of psychological disadvanatage Boren referenced. [B]I don't get your argument. If he left out BIG12 tier 3 revenue that is just shows BIG12 is not as far behind the SEC as some think. The bigger picture which you may or may not be grasping is the BIG12's per team payout is 3rd behind the BIG and the SEC and ahead of the ACC and PAC. The big question is just how far behind will the BIG12 fall behind the leaders. [/B] [COLOR=#0000b3][B]B Response: The argument is that to a national audience writers are proving Boren's "psychological disadvantage by misrepresenting the BIG 12 to the public at large. This impacts the schools and the conference negatively. They write articles like "BIG 12 makes xx less than others" rather than "BIG 12 makes most ever in conference history--but they don't do that to other conferences. For example in the two previous years the BIG 12 made more per school, there wasn't an article titled "SEC doesn't make as much as BIG 12" now was there. The BIG 12s payout is different than others because different schools make different amounts due to different tier 3 deals. Texas makes more than Big Ten and SEC schools. OU, KU and WVU make a similar amount. Schools like Kansas State are just behind and schools like Iowa State are further behind in media rights payouts for tiers 1,2 and 3. The gap is going to widen between what B10 and SEC schools make and the BIG 12 as time goes on-which is why Boren and the conference are now looking at the issues.[/B][/COLOR] B: The writer speculates the BIG 12 won't be able to get a network going because decades ago as the first one the Big Ten took a couple of years to get theirs up and running. That doesn't mean the BIG 12 TODAY won't be able to do exactly what the SEC did with theirs. [B]It is just speculation, but it is based on the facts of where the networks are today. The BIG and SEC created a network when things were going well, and they were able to build a foundation before the looming collapse of current content distribution. If the BIG12 wants to create a network they will have to invest heavily up front like the BIG did. Overall the BIG has better leadership, foresight and less Dysfunctionalism to get this done. I have a hard time thinking the BIG12 can or will agree to anything regarding BIG12 network. Again the BIG invested up front to pay HUGE dividends down the road. Will the BIG12 be forward thinking enough to do this? My opinion is no. [/B] [COLOR=#0000b3][B]B Response: Its speculation that isn't based on anything, while the BIG 12 has had analysts looking at the situation for awhile. Any "collapse of the current system is years away at best--cable subscriptions [/B] [B]are still expected to be in the 90 million range in the 2020's. The BIG 12 has looked at the issue and determined it is feasible and now they are looking into in more detail to get a better picture of specific situations with specific schools. However to claim the BIG 12 would have to go back to a situation from two decades ago when the "conference network" industry has greatly changed is baseless--and the writer provided 0 evidence to support his claim anyway.[/B][/COLOR] B: He claims certain schools don't bring this or that--not based on real numbers, but again on his OPINION. Where's the data that backs up his claim of households they "bring". It's all just made up opinion with not one piece of evidence to back it up. [B]Until the research companies come back with data we won't know either way. You claim Boren has the numbers, but I yet to see any facts or documents that prove this. Until this is done, it is just an opinion. Even if the research comes back positive that it could be beneficial, it won't actually be [B]beneficial until there is network or medium agreement to help develop BIG12N. ESPN told the ACC they would help develop a network and keeps getting delayed. So unless there is a contract in place everything else is just speculation. Hopefully there won't be any teams physically added unless the network is slated to kickoff at the same time.[/B][/B] [B][COLOR=#0000b3]B Response: Boren has researched this for well over a year and there were research committees prior to the current one. You haven't seen articles where Boren stated they've identified schools that would be additive? He's on video discussing the same. The analysts are providing more details because the conference hasn't decided on anyone, but that doesn't mean they haven't identified candidates-he states they have several that meet the requirements and has no reason to mislead anyone. Gee also on the committee agrees with the need to expand and that there are viable candidates. You can't claim expansion won't be beneficial without the network, because it would immediately be valuable to making the playoffs--and that is worth $6 million plus per year, not to mention even the linked CBS article states that schools could get an additional $3 million per school with expansion with these schools. Its not speculation if someone on the expansion committee is telling you they have identified candidates, the only speculation is which ones they'll select to expand with if that's what they do. But there are reasons to expand other than a network-that just makes it much more profitable.[/COLOR][/B] B:One must keep in mind that CBS LOVES the SEC and carries virtually 0 BIG 12 product. They obviously see an expanded, networked BIG 12 as a threat and are trying to stop that in its tracks. Next time rather than giving their opinion perhaps they should present some facts along with that. The BIG 12s leaders are doing just that--and aren't going to be swayed by anti BIG 12 rhetoric and opinion from someone that doesn't use facts and figures. [B]And here is a point we can both agree on.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
Top
Bottom