*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[snowcraig2.0]

42s Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe
Big 12 and SEC will announce today bowl in future that could even match their conference champions

Collapse

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

 

[snowcraig2.0]

To me this says that despite recent history, the Big 12 and SEC are starting to align. Deathblow to the ACC.

 

[jbhtexas]

To me, this says that the Big 12 and SEC are starting to align. Deathblow to the ACC.

Nifty!!!

The SEC takes FSU and Clemson, and then gives Arkansas and LSU to the Big 12.

TAMU and MU have a no-return policy...

 

[Trainer]

@McMurphyCBS: Champions of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports

 

[HFCS]

@McMurphyCBS: Champions of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports

If the Big Ten and Pac 12 are still going to prop up some fake tradition that a game between the two them is the only sacred and unchangeable thing in college football...it makes sense for the two conferences that are actually the best to do the same thing.

Others are correct this is not happy fun time news for ACC or the new national Big East who will likely lose UConn, Rutgers, Louisville somehow.

 

[MartyFine]

@McMurphyCBS: Champions of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports

Great idea, but this will never happen as at least one will always be in national semi...

 

[Trainer]

Basically this. If this is the beginning of SEC/Big 12 tradition, it says that the Big 12 is now in the super conference discussion. It leaves the big east paired with the ACC.

So is this a new bowl where top Big 12 meets top SEC, and neither team is in the national tourney set up (whatever the NCAA decides the tourney will look like)?

 

[snowcraig2.0]

If the Big Ten and Pac 12 are still going to prop up some fake tradition that a game between the two them is the only sacred and unchangeable thing in college football...it makes sense for the two conferences that are actually the best to do the same thing.

Others are correct this is not happy fun time news for ACC or the new national Big East who will likely lose UConn, Rutgers, Louisville somehow.

I'd bet all my credits that the new national Big East never happens.

 

[jbhtexas]

Great idea, but this will never happen as at least one will always be in national semi...

Perhaps it is some kind of hedge against upsets occuring in both conference championships games (assuming the Big 12 gets back to 12 in order to have a CCG).

 

[isuno1fan]

42s Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe
Big 12 and SEC will announce today bowl in future that could even match their conference champions

Collapse

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

HMMM...what did I say the other day about the Big 12 and SEC working together. I think this is just the beginning.

 

[Wesley]

SEC and B12 have something to gain if ACC collapses.

 

[helechopper]

Incredible read from the Shaggy Bevo. It's long, but riveting really. After reading I came to the conclusion that I'm glad ISU made it into one of the 4 power conferences.

I'm doing this as a separate thread because it's bigger concept and discussion than FSU, Clemson and ND to the B12.


I've been thinking about ESPN's plans and motivations in this over the last couple of weeks, from the original PAC16 and LHN to FSU, and Clemson to B12.

Big, big picture- everything is connected, and all those connections run through Bristol and Burbank even more deeply than we thought, as the LHN deal is directly connected to the new B12 and ACC deals.


In summer 2010, when ESPN and Fox stepped up with big $$$ to save the B12, we all thought the motivation was to keep the power conferences from consolidating into four superconferences, which would have given the conferences more negotiating power with the networks.

That was probably true for Fox, but once the LHN was announced as a $15m/yr for Tier 3, unique programming, etc, I kept wondering about the deal. UT obviously has an incredible brand that dominates the 2nd most populous state in the US, but it seemed like there was a bigger strategic reason behind the deal than simply cashflow, and it seemed like there was more to it than simply keeping a PAC16 from happening.

I think we all had it wrong in 2010. ESPN has no problem with consolidating the 6 "power" conferences into four superconferences. They just didn't want it to be the B12 south merging with the PAC. There were other conferences they wanted to consolidate.


If the PAC16 had gone through, it would have dominated CFB viewing and interest West of the Misssissippi. Except for a few small market exceptions in SEC country and the BIG's western outposts, all the talk about CFB from TX to CA would have been about the PAC16.

But it wouldn't have created a national conference. The PAC would have dominated the West, but the SEC would have still been the talk of the East, and the ACC would have been cemented as the 4th power conference after absorbing some Big East teams to get to 14 or 16 to keep up with the arms race.


After giving it all some thought, there is no doubt in my mind that the biggest single driving force over the last two years is ESPN looking at their ACC ratings (pretty weak considering how big the ACC markets are) and realizing that the ACC was always going to give them mediocre tv ratings given the markets involved and that the ACC was never going to generate national interest, as it would always be viewed as a joke by the rest of the country. But if they could collapse the ACC and merge the football schools with the B12 it would be an entirely different story.


If the PAC16 had gone through, the ACC would have been the last conference standing and the ESPN would have been forced to keep paying the ACC for a mediocre product at inflated prices or risk losing them to Comcast or Fox. Neither is a good scenario.

The ACC's worth is as a basketball conference- not a football conference. Preventing the PAC16 from happening prevented the ACC from becoming the last surviving conference.

But if the tables could be flipped, and the ACC could be plucked of its prime football schools they could pay the ACC at a basketball rate. And if those ACC football schools could be lured into the B12, it would create a much bigger benefit- a near national conference. And if ND were part of the deal, it would be the first truly national conference.


With the PAC16 a distant memory, helping orchestrate an FSU, Clemson, etc move accomplishes a bunch of things simultaneously for ESPN:

1. Most importantly, the B14/16 will be a true competitor to the SEC in terms of prestige, perception and ratings if FSU, Clemson and some combo of Miami/VT/GT were added. Add in ND and it's going to be the most publicized, most-talked about conference in all of the markets from the New England to Texas except for markets that are BIG or SEC strongholds, as well as getting solid publicity in the West because of ND and UT's involvement.

Not only does that drive viewership on gameday, but a steady diet of B14 vs SEC debate over the years is going to drive a lot of Sportscenter and ESPN U programming and storylines. The beast gets fed content and spits out additional publicity in return, fueling a virtuous cycle to increase national interest.


2. And national interest is the end game. The PAC 16 would have been a monster, but it would have still been viewed as a Western conference. The B14 would be a conference with a near-national reach with the ACC schools, and with national reach if ND was added,

And the area where the B14 will get the least attention ? The West.
And who controls the PAC Tier 1 rights ? ESPN.

Outside of CBS' Tier 1 SEC game, ESPN would control every other marquee CFB on any given Saturday. UT-OU, USC-Oregon, Michigan-Ohio State, FSU-OU, ND-UT. Plus, they have a bunch of tier 2 SEC games. And the publicity around all of the new B14 marquee matchups would be gigantic. Think anyone wants to tune in to watch UT's first trip to South Bend as a conference game ? Or the Noles going into Norman as a conference game ?


3. So even though ESPN would be paying more to the 4 teams that left the ACC, they'd be getting massive value added by doing so. Do you think it's worth $32m/y to ESPN to get those marquee matchups ? ($32m= 4 schools getting $8m raises/year if deal is $25m/yr in B12.) Yes- I'd say that a slam dunk for ESPN. Is it worth $32m/yr extra to turn the B12 into a national conference on par with the SEC ? It's an incredible bargain for ESPN.


4. With the football schools leaving, this also allows ESPN to renegotiate their ACC deal downward. So the ****** football/ good basketball conference will now get paid what it's truly worth as a basketball conference and ESPN saves a lot of $$$ on the current deal. If ESPN had allowed the PAC16 to form, they would have been forced to overpay for the ACC's mediocre football product, so the B14 is an enormous win for ESPN on both counts.

5. ESPN knows the ACC will poach the Big East for the best of their remaining members, given how involved ESPN was in the Cuse + Pitt to ACC deal. They know how the dominoes will fall and will be advising/encouraging the ACC at every turn.


I don't think it's coincidental that ESPN stopped negotiating and walked away from the table when the Big East rejected their offer to extend the tv deal. Considering the way CFB rights fees are escalating, it's not in the best interest of the network to have the rights hit the open market if they can lock them up through an extension. And knowing that Comcast is out there, why would ESPN want to give them an opening to get in the game ?

None of those actions make sense unless ESPN was planning to kill the Big East and make it a non-viable conference for football. By killing the Big East and having the ACC absorb the best members, ESPN saves massive $$$ by not having to pay the Big East for watered down product, gets the premiere basketball conference in the country at a basketball price instead of a football price, and keeps Comcast out of the game. And if ND goes to the B14, Comcast is completely shut out.



Add it all up and what do you have ?

ESPN was looking at a PAC16 dominating the West and being forced to overpay for a mediocre ACC product in the East, with the SEC still dominating the national conversation.

Now, ESPN will still dominate the West through their PAC deal, but will have a near-national B14 that is talked about everywhere from Texas to the East Coast, and will have effectively killed the Big East and weakened the ACC so badly in football that they will be able to pay the combined ACC + BE schools a bargain price for their rights.


People have their issues with ESPN, but they are smart and ruthless. I'm now thinking that this entire scenario, from PAC16 to B14 was getting talked about in strategic planning meetings in Burbank two-three years ago. A PAC16 ensuring the weak ACC would survive was a bad scenario for them, while killing the PAC16 and taking the football schools out of the ACC was their best case scenario.

Preventing the PAC16 was the first step to try and make it reality, and the LHN was the biggest factor in that both times. There were some bumps along the way, but once the PAC16 was no longer an option, and the B12 became stable, ESPN turned their sights on the ACC.

This has been designed as a killshot for the Big East and for ACC football from the moment ESPN started whispering in the B12's ear about how they needed to add teams and how much the tv contract would go up if certain schools *cough* FSU, Clemson, VT, etc *cough* were added to the B12.

University Presidents, ADs and big boosters have some power in this whole process, but I think we've seen through the way various negotiations have been handled by ESPN (big $$$ for LHN and B12 tv deal, small $$$ for ACC deal, walking away from Big East) that if they truly want to make something happen it will happen.

We've all known they were a major player in this, but I think they are truly calling the shots in all of this much more than we've been talking about up until now.

ESPN has orchestrated the creation of a CFB landscape where only four conferences matter and where there will be playoffs.

And who is going to be broadcasting those playoffs when the new BCS deal is done ? ESPN has an exclusive negotiation period and I would be very surprised if they don't lock up all the playoff rights.

And between the playoff system and the creation of a B14, plus USC's return and Oregon's rise, along with the BIG and SEC doing their thing, the playoffs will create true national interest like never before. ESPN knows this, and they will be promoting CFB on all their channels the way they do with the NFL. Whatever they end up paying for the playoff rights could well end up being a huge bargain if national interest jumps the way I think it will.


All in all, it's a pretty ******* ****** power play.

 

[LivntheCyLife]

@McMurphyCBS: Champions of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports

As far as I know the 4 team playoff isn't a done deal. I'm wondering if setting up a game like this is being pushed as an alternative. The plan would be something like this:

1) Ditch the BCS
2) Rose Bowl has Big 10/Pac 12 champs, new bowl has SEC/Big 12 champs, continue all other bowls
3) After bowls, top 2 play in national championship game. Almost every year, it would be like a 4 team playoff with the winner of the Rose Bowl and SEC/Big 12 game playing.

Or maybe the SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and Big 10 leave everybody else and form their own system. With a second game always being between SEC/Big 12 game and the Rose Bowl winners.

 

[HFCS]

Great idea, but this will never happen as at least one will always be in national semi...

There will still be at large bids and more teams for major bowls.

It can't hurt the Big 12 and SEC. Every time the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NC game they still get a gigantic woody to pick a Big Ten or Pac 12 team if they can do it in a somewhat respectable way. I'd see this like a much needed balance to that.

The Rose Bowl doesn't always pick a B1G/Pac12 at large if it loses a champion to the title game, but if it has a choice between a #5 and #6 it's taking the #6 if it's a B1G or Pac 12 every time.

 

[JohnnyFive]

Incredible read from the Shaggy Bevo. It's long, but riveting really. After reading I came to the conclusion that I'm glad ISU made it into one of the 4 power conferences.

I didn't want to quote the whole re-post so I just copied this portion minus the Shaggy Bevo piece. If any of that is true, then *%*$ ESPN for ruining college athletics. No one entity should have that much power, and who are they to say this school isn't worthy, but that one is.

 

[HFCS]

As far as I know the 4 team playoff isn't a done deal. I'm wondering if setting up a game like this is being pushed as an alternative. The plan would be something like this:

1) Ditch the BCS
2) Rose Bowl has Big 10/Pac 12 champs, new bowl has SEC/Big 12 champs, continue all other bowls
3) After bowls, top 2 play in national championship game. Almost every year, it would be like a 4 team playoff with the winner of the Rose Bowl and SEC/Big 12 game playing.

Or maybe the SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and Big 10 leave everybody else and form their own system. With a second game always being between SEC/Big 12 game and the Rose Bowl winners.

From what I've read 4 teams seems like a done deal and using the BCS ranking even seems like a done deal. The question is selection and there seem to be 3 ideas.

1. Straight top 4 BCS favored by SEC and possibly Big 12
2. Top 4 BCS ranked teams who are conference champions (never hear how ND/BYU work into this)
3. Top ranked conference champions in top 6 of BCS rankings, then possibly fill with any other teams based on BCS ranking. The "hybrid".

The other thing in the air is the site of the games and role of current bowls in the games.

I agree with your ideas, but it's not happening. It's all about the people in power keeping their power. They'll change as little as they have to change while insuring they are in control. Going to 4 team playoff is pretty much a market pressure must for them now.

 

[HFCS]

I didn't want to quote the whole re-post so I just copied this portion minus the Shaggy Bevo piece. If any of that is true, then *%*$ ESPN for ruining college athletics. No one entity should have that much power, and who are they to say this school isn't worthy, but that one is.

Ditto. The BCS and NCAA play a part in it too though.

I don't think college sports/football is "ruined" by this, but it's certainly not fair to several dozen FBS college football teams. We got lucky, plain and simple.

 

[JohnnyFive]

Maybe college athetics isn't "ruined" for everyone, but it is for alums of schools like Iowa State who had to sit through what we sat through last summer. I try to stay out of the we're-better-than-the-ACC talk because the alums from those schools are probably feeling the same gut punch we were 12 months ago.

I hope the poster from Shaggy Bevo is right and we're among the survivors. But as a pessimistic ISU fan (is there any other kind?) I won't count my eggs before they're hatched. I'll reserve praise for this deal if and when it gets done.

 

[helechopper]

College football isn't ruined (for ISU and those lucky few), but it is changing and changing quickly. If this plays out as stated in the Bevo post, then there's going to be a lot of disgruntled college football fans across the nation. But if there's one thing we all know in life its that money trumps all. I think this expansion locomotive has too much steam to be stopped now.

Selfishly, I am excited for the match-ups though.

 

[HFCS]

Maybe college athetics isn't "ruined" for everyone, but it is for alums of schools like Iowa State who had to sit through what we sat through last summer. I try to stay out of the we're-better-than-the-ACC talk because the alums from those schools probably feeling the same gut punch we were 12 months ago.

I hope the poster from Shaggy Bevo is right and we're among the survivors. But as a pessimistic ISU fan (is there any other kind?) I won't count my eggs before they're hatched. I'll reserve praise for this deal if and when it gets done.

I agree, it sucks and is unfair. It's clearly about football and to be honest last year a team with K State's success being "left behind" made a lot less sense than the ACC and Big East teams in danger now. Even ISU, we were 38th in football attendance last year, I'm sure that's higher than most of the ACC and Big East teams who could end up outside a "big 4".