Big 12 North?

[CrossCyed]

Content is the biggest problem. Even 16 hours of content with 8 hours of paid programming would be extremely difficult.

[Mizzoulander]

I really think you sell ISU short, cyman05. First, remember: Kansas brings in $10M a year in its Tier 3 basketball revenue. Yes, Kansas is an elite basketball school, but the Kansas fanbase -- Is it any larger than the ISU fanbase? Ten million dollars per year is a lot of money for any university.

If ISU set up a nice, professional school network (you have the know-how to do it at Iowa State University), I bet you would watch it, cyman05. As would a lot of Iowa, South Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas high school kids and potential recruits. I think a Cyclone Network would be a bonanza for ISU, not just financially, but also in recruiting your state footprint and surrounding areas. That's how you could eclipse Iowa. And Missouri.

Look, I'm not here to shill the LHN to you -- I know ISU fans could care less about the LHN -- but this coming weekend (Fri 6 thru Sunday), ESPN is providing the LHN over the internet for free (trying to drum up Texas' fan interest to influence the big carriers). Why don't you tune into the LHN for a few minutes this weekend, and then extrapolate all the Longhorn programming into Cyclone programming? I guarantee you, you will immediately perceive the possibilities for ISU. Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/longhornnetwork/

Watch only 30 minutes, and you'll see what I mean. Practice reports, game highlights, coaches' comments, etc., etc. It's really, really cool. No other conference allows school programming in the way the Big 12 does. Watch 30 minutes and then tell me you don't think an ISU network would be a big deal. Tell me that big-time QB over in Mason City or Souix Falls isn't going to tune into a Cyclone Network his senior year just because he can. But you have to set up the network if you want the kids to tune into it.

Another thing: While ISU may be average in sports in most years, you guys are absolutely not average in academics. You are full-scale AAU, and have been for years and years. ISU, Kansas, and Texas are the only schools that are keeping the Big 12 Conference from becoming the Big Dummy Conference. As a university with research prestige, ISU really is not replaceable, at least not easily. Texas likes Tulane as a potential conference member precisely because it is AAU (ok, ok, trips to the Big Easy may have something to do with it as well).

You know, maybe someday you guys will get that offer from the B1G, I don't know, and nobody will begrudge you for going to the B1G if and when that day comes. Until then, any thinking fan of the Big 12 is damn glad you guys are a part of the Big 12 conference, and I hope ISU takes advantage of the benefits available in our conference.

I think you're GROSSLY underestimating the cost, time, and complexity of setting up a dedicated cable/satellite network with content focused on just one team. There is a reason the BTN partnered with Fox Sports, and the LHN partnered with ESPN to develop their networks: putting together a high-quality engaging television product is REALLY, REALLY hard!

MU owns the NBC affiliate for central Missouri, and even with that resource, nobody seriously entertained the notion of a Mizzou-only network. Anything locally developed by a single school would have "Boom Goes the Dynamite" talent and production quality.

There's no proven model that ANY single team has the resources, visibility, and regional or national fanbase to make the economics of a single-team network viable...UT included. If it as simple as you describe, it would have been tried prior to the LHN.

CONFERENCES have those elements, and that's why you're seeing more of them follow the BTN model of pooling Tier 3 content and packaging it with other sports and analysis, distributed at a higher per subscriber cost within the conference's region.

I just can't see how the ability to lose a bunch of money trying to market your own Tier 3 content is a selling point for other teams to join the Big 12?

What's more, when did academics become a key component of this conference? The Big 12 was never set up to be a collection of top-quality academic institutions - it was set up to match the eyeball-rich, regionally-weak SWAC refugees with the regionally-solid, eyeball-poor Big 8, in the hopes of creating some lucrative football matchups.

To be fair, neither the SEC nor the Big East was, either. Only the Big 10 and the Pac 12 claim to be academically superior. (a claim that might be in doubt with the additions of Nebraska and Utah, respectively)

[IowaSTATCyclone]

Heck, I'm just happy that, with the N-S divisions gone, it is now much easier to see that the Big 8 continues its run of dominating the top 3 slots in the conference, even without Nebraska or the once-good Colorado (i.e., only the "Big 6" remain).

The interesting thing about re-alignment's impact on the old conference is that it really hasn't been that big of a deal.

CU going away was a trifle: they were as much of an outlier as West Virginia - just on the other side of the "Midwest." Plus they had gotten annoyingly bad.

I would have thought that the loss of Nebraska would have hurt the conference more, but, in exchange for one "extra" solid opponent, we instead "enjoy" the benefits of a rigorous round-robin.

TCU is a lateral replacement for A&M, if not an on-field upgrade.

If it makes economic sense, I am really enjoying the structure of the 10-team conference. It actually hearkens back to the old Big 8 in surprising ways, but without the quality issues you can run into in some years with too small of a conference.