I really hope we get a national network, but then if we ate just out for eye balls, then we go grab Cincy unfortunately. State of Ohio is 11+ mil.
Texas is one of the reasons that schools want into the Big 12.
Texas is one of the reasons that schools don't want into the Big 12.
A couple interesting, speculative posts from the WVU board:
Originally Posted by OhioStateFan
So the obvious question is why would the SEC allow FSU to fall into the hands of the B1G. I asked and the answer was that the B1G already recruit Florida. The B1G network is carried in Florida and the SEC already recruits against everyone in Florida.
Do they have concern? Yes, but not enough concern to offset the financial implications of duplicating markets they already have.
The same source tells me the SEC is focused on UNC/Duke. I found it hard to believe in the beginning and it was explained to me the SEC would love to have the UNC/Duke rivalry for the upcoming network and the immediate boast to the SEC's basketball product they would add.
The SEC isn't going to move and put the wammy on the ACC. They will wait until the B1G acts and then pick up UNC/Duke in the aftermath.
Is FSU trying to leverage a possible B1G invite to get an SEC invite? Barron would be stupid if he didn't try.
The one thing I'm fairly certain of, and everyone I talk to in the ACC, agrees, is that the ACC will implode.
There will be only 4 and as long as FSU refuses to sign a grant-of-rights the ACC will be the outcast.
You do realize the Big 12 is also susceptible to ala carte cable? Just because we are inefficient in using forced carriage fees to generate revenue, does not mean our revenue is much more resistant. Our TV money is largely tied to ESPN and FOX being able to charge large carriage fees (especially ESPN) due to no ala carte cable.
Conversely, the ACC is arguably worse-off in terms of stability after adding traditional powerhouses Florida State, Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech.
I just don't see any evidence to suggest that only having 2 traditional powerhouses out of 10 is a problem, or that adding more of them will somehow lead to greater stability.
Nevertheless, it does matter when one considers the difference in revenue models and fundamentals. The other conferences either have, or are looking to have, higher populations in their footprint, with revenue models that capitalize on this. The Big 12's natural audience is rather small, and its revenue more dependent on quality of inventory. In other words, it is (and has been) more important for the Big 12 to have powers than other conferences.
The Big 12 has 5-6 teams who have all outperformed Michigan for quite some time, but they're still Michigan.
Florida State and Miami would be teams like that regardless of if they're actually winning. Even with luke warm fan support and not in their glory years, Miami vs. big 12 team with a pulse is a national draw. Obviously FSU is and has more traditional fan support as well. We'd have four of those "names" in addition to all the teams that play just as well as the big names.
My point is that there's no evidence suggesting that the ratio of "powerhouse" schools by itself has any effect on the stability of a conference.
If the PAC loses 3 or 4 of the Cali schools, they rest of the schools scramble.
If the B12 loses TX and OU, the rest scramble.
If the ACC loses FSU and UNC, the rest scramble.
If the B10 loses the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State combo, the rest scramble.
If the SEC loses Florida, Bama, Georgia, and LSU the rest scramble.
You have to keep your anchors in place. Just my opinion though.