So the rest of the Big 12 teams will get 14M per year?
Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks
- Thread starter cyIclSoneU
- Start date
Slight correction, per Hocutt’s quote it is President Wintersteen on the expansion committee, not Pollard. Don’t ask me what difference it makes. Also KU’s president is on it, but that makes sense because their AD is so green on the job.
Luck is the best sports business guy the big 12 could have hired. He was WVU's AD, graduated from UT's law school. Knows the Big 12 inside and out, plus he has had successful sports ventures outside of college football.
Luck was hired, IMHO, to best position the Big 8 going forward. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. The worst is the big 8 have no landing spot after 2025. Luck needs to make sure the big 8 adds 2-4 of the best teams it can add to get the maximum amount of streaming money.
I also think a big 12 with BYU, UCF, Cinn, and either houston or Memphis would get an auto invite to the 12 team playoff which will eventually pass.
Sure we all hope we end up in the ACC, BIG, and PAC, but we better be prepared if it doesnt happen.
Luck was hired, IMHO, to best position the Big 8 going forward. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. The worst is the big 8 have no landing spot after 2025. Luck needs to make sure the big 8 adds 2-4 of the best teams it can add to get the maximum amount of streaming money.
I also think a big 12 with BYU, UCF, Cinn, and either houston or Memphis would get an auto invite to the 12 team playoff which will eventually pass.
Sure we all hope we end up in the ACC, BIG, and PAC, but we better be prepared if it doesnt happen.
Mac Engel: To avoid a funeral, Big 12 must add best of the rest starting with this school (msn.com)
"Adding Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati and Central Florida would make the Big 12 relevant, and give the league a chance for national relevancy.
It will give the Big 12 a chance to remain as a "power league" for as long as that moniker exists."
If Big 12 expands, would someone again remind why/why not Boise State? I don't get it. Wouldn't maybe Houston be better and more 'geographic'.
"College football will eventually consolidate to one or two leagues that will be comprised of only the power brands; ESPN executives will map out that paradigm with the "cooperation" of league commissioners and nervous college presidents whose job security will depend on being a part of that new world."
Do sensible people really believe this? One or two leagues comprised of only the power brands? Is this guy on acid or will that happen? College football is dead if that happens. [The article is from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, so I guess there's that, Texas]
"Adding Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati and Central Florida would make the Big 12 relevant, and give the league a chance for national relevancy.
It will give the Big 12 a chance to remain as a "power league" for as long as that moniker exists."
If Big 12 expands, would someone again remind why/why not Boise State? I don't get it. Wouldn't maybe Houston be better and more 'geographic'.
"College football will eventually consolidate to one or two leagues that will be comprised of only the power brands; ESPN executives will map out that paradigm with the "cooperation" of league commissioners and nervous college presidents whose job security will depend on being a part of that new world."
Do sensible people really believe this? One or two leagues comprised of only the power brands? Is this guy on acid or will that happen? College football is dead if that happens. [The article is from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, so I guess there's that, Texas]
Right now we are in a pause about the future of college football, the powers that be are trying to figure out which way to go.
Do they go with 30 to 40 team super conference built around the SEC and Big 10, if they go down that path, they start with 30 teams, add ND, USC, Clemson, Florida St., Oregon and you are at 35 and still have Washington, NC, Stanford, UCLA and many other teams wanting those last 5 spots. No way if they chose this path are they going to take a every team in both the Big 10 and SEC. Way to many Rutgers, Maryland and Illinois get their way into the league, leaving out better teams.
The other path, the one I think they will chose is to bring all the conferences up to 16, adding the best of the rest to the current conferences and then breaking away from the NCAA.
If they go down the first path, they run the issue with leaving large blocks of the country not caring about college football because their team is not in the highest level.
I guess we will find out in the next 2 to 4 years. Which is fine.
Do they go with 30 to 40 team super conference built around the SEC and Big 10, if they go down that path, they start with 30 teams, add ND, USC, Clemson, Florida St., Oregon and you are at 35 and still have Washington, NC, Stanford, UCLA and many other teams wanting those last 5 spots. No way if they chose this path are they going to take a every team in both the Big 10 and SEC. Way to many Rutgers, Maryland and Illinois get their way into the league, leaving out better teams.
The other path, the one I think they will chose is to bring all the conferences up to 16, adding the best of the rest to the current conferences and then breaking away from the NCAA.
If they go down the first path, they run the issue with leaving large blocks of the country not caring about college football because their team is not in the highest level.
I guess we will find out in the next 2 to 4 years. Which is fine.
I don't know if it will be this media contract cycle or the next, but a new emphasis on streaming media at some point along the line means schools will all be paid for what they bring to the table. It won't matter if you are in the B1G or SEC, or a former AAC team playing in a reformed Big 12. You will have to show your worth. ISU can do well with a system like that. But until it arrives they will have to hold on to what they can of this old TV based system to keep themselves afloat.
Maybe I'm way too naive, but do college presidents' jobs depend on what league their sports teams play in? As in getting fired?
Maybe if Texas got demoted to the Mountain West. Can't see it otherwise.
Boise State is starting to grow on me actually. I could get behind adding BYU, Boise St, Cincy, and Central Florida.
I would be happy to demote them. Who do I talk to?
I might have the Texas Confederate Army after me. I will recruit Iowa regulars.
Hopefully it won't come to that, unless they do something for a couple of years. OK with that for option, as if I matter. We all hope for eventual Power conference of course.
The SEC and the Big 10 are going to pull in $80 million each, ACC, Pac at $40 million, Big 12 $25 million, AAC $10 million. The gaps will continue to grow. The conferences will then grow and add until eventually there will be 2 leagues of 16 - 20 each. It may take 40 years from now, but college football will be doomed.
Something drastic has to change this path. The answer: nationwide media revenue sharing. I am not talking Arkansas State getting the same as Alabama. I am talking a Tier basis. So the top revenue teams will still make more but the gaps won't be so drastic. This will allow for regional conferences and rivalries like it should.
We have history to show this can be done and works - Major League Baseball. The haves and have nots started in the late 80s I would say. The top teams generally were the biggest revenue producers. These teams were in the big cities with the most media money. It was bad for the sport. Fans that didn't have a chance lost interest. Thankfully, they came up with the luxury tax. You still have your gaps but the small guy, like Tampa Bay, can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox now. The Yankees and other top revenue teams didn't have to do this but they did for the good of the game.
It is going to take key people in power and maybe the government to stop this train but hope it happens
Something drastic has to change this path. The answer: nationwide media revenue sharing. I am not talking Arkansas State getting the same as Alabama. I am talking a Tier basis. So the top revenue teams will still make more but the gaps won't be so drastic. This will allow for regional conferences and rivalries like it should.
We have history to show this can be done and works - Major League Baseball. The haves and have nots started in the late 80s I would say. The top teams generally were the biggest revenue producers. These teams were in the big cities with the most media money. It was bad for the sport. Fans that didn't have a chance lost interest. Thankfully, they came up with the luxury tax. You still have your gaps but the small guy, like Tampa Bay, can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox now. The Yankees and other top revenue teams didn't have to do this but they did for the good of the game.
It is going to take key people in power and maybe the government to stop this train but hope it happens
Last edited:
A 30-40 team league would destroy college football (and destroy a good portion of what they think would be the audience for that).
The luxury tax in MLB has virtually no impact on competitiveness, and exists mostly to just provide an argument that MLB is doing something about it.
Good observation. That is an angle I hadn't seen anyone else mention previously. It is a good business decision.
If it also came with some kind of tiered revenue share approach, the "add value" concerns can be alleviated.
There are currently 129 D1 FBS football programs. Among the P5 teams, we have an alliance of 41 schools in the BIGACCPAC and 16 schools in future SEC and the 8 in Big 8. The eastcoast sportswriters want to see that become an alliance of 57. It seems to me that the alliance of 41 teams has more in common with the Big 8 than they do with the SEC (maybe not culturally but definitely in terms of national versus regional branding). We know how trends develop. It's not going to be in the interest of the ACC and PAC to let this go from a P65 to a P57. They should know they would be next on the chopping block. Let's hope they are smart enough to recognize that.
Bottom line is that the PAC is going to hit the media rights market in about 2 years...and they are not going to like the news. Their numbers, both in seat attendance and eyeballs on the sets, have decreased since the onset of the current media contract. They need to...
The big question...what to the so-called blue bloods (USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington) do? Especially if the numbers come in at or even lower than the current. Does adding in 4, or 6, or 8 Big 12 teams help? Obviously, getting the midwest can't hurt, and likely helps some. But it still will be behind the BIG and SEC (likely around the ACC numbers). Game matchups like KSU-Cal, TTech-WSU, Baylor-OSU will hardly move any needles. But even those will draw better numbers than Cal-WSU, Utah-OSU, or WSU-Arizona. Scary thought...the absolute crapfest that is the ACC media rights contract completely hamstrings that league too...but the PAC is going to face the music first.
The big question...what to the so-called blue bloods (USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington) do? Especially if the numbers come in at or even lower than the current. Does adding in 4, or 6, or 8 Big 12 teams help? Obviously, getting the midwest can't hurt, and likely helps some. But it still will be behind the BIG and SEC (likely around the ACC numbers). Game matchups like KSU-Cal, TTech-WSU, Baylor-OSU will hardly move any needles. But even those will draw better numbers than Cal-WSU, Utah-OSU, or WSU-Arizona. Scary thought...the absolute crapfest that is the ACC media rights contract completely hamstrings that league too...but the PAC is going to face the music first.
