Yes. I think the method of delivery might look very different in 10 years and the Big 10 Network model will eventually be obsolete (i.e. getting paid for number of people in a state instead of actual subscribers)
Expansion
- Thread starter ZachRyan22
- Start date
Yes. I think the method of delivery might look very different in 10 years and the Big 10 Network model will eventually be obsolete (i.e. getting paid for number of people in a state instead of actual subscribers)
Big 12 was Tier 1 and 2.
Big 10 was Tiers 1, 2 and 3.
It is not apples to apples. You need to add Tier 3 for each individual school.
What was ISU's Tier 3 income?
Which did not include Tier 3 for Big 12. When you add Tier 3, Big 12 is higher. What do you not understand about that?
I had what I felt was a well reason post, but got bounced...short story, keep the XII at ten teams....
The only way we should add is by subtracting from another P5 school. I don't see the Big 12 attractive enough to do it, but you never know. If you got FSU and Clemson that would be an ideal scenario, but they have grant of rights too.
Moderators: I noticed perkyforherky doesn't have an avatar. Could one of you please load this for him:
Perky is the goofy a** UIHC "mascot"
You're jealous of my full eyelashes.
Lets say you had to take 2 (realistic non-power 5 teams) which do you take if money weren't an issue? Strictly on who you would prefer not who financially would make the most sense.
I would say based on previous success, travel partners, etc...
UCONN
Cincy
BYU
USF
UCF
UNLV
Colo St.
Memphis
I would say based on previous success, travel partners, etc...
UCONN
Cincy
BYU
USF
UCF
UNLV
Colo St.
Memphis
Similarly, and this has been brought up before - if the cable/satellites are forced to offer a la carte channels it would hurt the B1G network, as well as lots of others (even ESPN). I read an article about a lawsuit on this a few months ago, and it seemed like the "must offer a la carte" was going to win. I would have to believe that would hurt conference network revenues, but IDK how much. At least 10-20% I'd think, and maybe dramatically.
Of course if that happens, I'd expect most conferences to give back Tier 3 rights and a scramble for Wolverine TV, Buckeye Network, etc to be set up very fast. So it would evolve.
Throwing money out the window, geography is my next criteria. Ballooning out to a 3rd time zone doesn't make much sense. Then it becomes a game of who is available between the I-35 corridor and Morgantown.
In Cincinnati and Memphis, you get average football and some above-average basketball. Schools that ISU could beat on a somewhat regular basis. Manageable road trips with solid local offerings. Some recruiting inroads to Ohio and Tennessee.
The SEC doesn't have a GOR. LSU and Arkansas would be better additions than FSU and Clemson and both of them could make more T3 money in the B12 than in the SEC, especially LSU.
It's not worth it to the B12 to add anybody other than 2 of those 4 schools.
Adding urban commuter schools like Memphis, UCF, USF, Houston and Cincy isn't the answer nor is adding a school that draws as few fans that CSU does.
Last edited:
So.... is there a way that this could all work out really well for ISU?
Say Texas, OU, OSU, and TT all left for example, and then we added Cincy, Memphis, Houston, and Central Florida or something like that, and we all took the money that Texas, OU, OSU, and TT had to pay to leave the conference.
First of all, the conference would immediately become a lot more winnable without UT, OU, OSU, and TT. Second, we get a lot of money from those schools for them to leave. The BIG problem with that, however, would be that new conference without those schools would be MUCH less marketable, and thus, the TV deal would shrink tremendously.
But if we could get rid of Texas and OU, but still keep the conference together with the addition of some other schools, I think it could be a good thing. BUT.... without Texas and OU, it wouldn't be much of a conference anymore.... so there is that small aspect.
I agree that LSU and Arkansas would be better than FSU and Clemson, but those two are even bigger pipe dreams than FSU and Clemson are. I agree they'd make more T3 money in the Big 12 than they'd make in the SEC....but holy crap the T1 and 2 money they're going to make in the SEC in the future - it'll more than make up for what they'd be giving up in T3. Not to mention the whole reason why Arkansas is in the SEC is because they got tired of dealing with the Texas schools in the SWC and left. Why would they want to go back?
Big 10 and SEC are the untouchable conferences. Pac 12 is untouchable as well because it's protected by geography. So it's either the Big 12 or the ACC that's going to get pilfered from here on out. And the Big 12 had better hope the deadline for the ACC Network comes and goes without a Network being formed, because as someone said earlier, that invalidates the ACC GOR, which means it's open season on the ACC.
Does anyone know when this deadline is for the ACC network requirement? Where exactly is this stipulated in their GOR?
If the SEC (2) and Pac 12 (4) collude to take 6, that's more than half. Won't happen because both SEC and Pac 12 would want Texas and Oklahoma and both can't have them, just saying it's not as far fetched as you make it out to be - the scenario does exist.
Really do not see any scenario taking place of teams leaving for the Pac 12. It is not going to happen.
Let's discuss the scenario of Iowa State winning the National Championship in football.
I just don't understand the lure of the Pac 12? Nobody really pays much attention at all to games out west. You want to be in the Midwest or the East.... those are the areas which get the most viewership.
