Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

Cyclones1969

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
8,885
6,077
113
55
Good, so why did you object to going with option 1 over 2?

Do you think boise st has a chance to play, let alone beat, OU if 4-8?

You know why they didn’t give a ****? Too many 4-8 seasons rather than 8 or 9 win seasons.Think about that

You’re the one that said what Campbell has done here has not been that impressive. any coach could do it.

you really think anyone outside of Boise or the parts of Oregon that want to join Idaho care.

That’s still the part that’s funny.
 

deadeyededric

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2009
15,836
13,623
113
Parts Unknown
Gus was a big hire for them. He has a brand name and SEC cred. If he has a great start, they may never look back.

Btw, I saw USF is going to build a on campus stadium. Their Board of Regents is connected, and there is a ton of "new money" support down there for these startups. Add that and recruiting, I still like them over Boise long term. BSU could end up going to the Pac 12, but USF the ACC (although I think in the P3 world, ACC folds and one of Miami or FSU eventually ends up in the eastern side of the Big 12, ASU and Utah on the West).
USF is a good school also. I hope the Big 12 adds SDSU at some point. Their stadium is a going to be awesome.
 

boone7247

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 15, 2011
3,019
942
113
Near the City
I think part of why UCLA is so blah is that their historic stadium has no campus connection and is a 30-70 minute drive away. I used to live near their campus, now I live not too far from the Rose Bowl. It can't be good. I also lived near DePaul campus for a while when they played 90 minutes of traffic away from their basketball arena. DePaul could be a dominant program with a small arena in that thriving neighborhood the campus is in and exclusively local players.

DePaul built an arena right by the McCormick center a few years back. not on campus, but also not Rosemont.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
Even if the 2 power conferences dominate playoff spots and win all of the championships, I don't believe you can get the fans of the other 32-40 teams to watch your product if their schools are completely cut out. Thats the reason for 1-2 lower paid leagues. To try and convince their fans they are a part of the new division 1 football and keep them involved for national audiences.

I don't think you can even move the 40-48 to themselves over time. You could see the SOB's try and increase the pay gap further giving those schools an advantage.

Also, what remains to be seen is how the branding is effected in the 40-48 if they have to play each other all the time. CFB have been conditioned your team is not successful unless you are undefeated or 1-2 losses. What happens when teams have 4 or 5 losses and viewership? The reason they can get 9 and 10 win seasons is non-conference games against teams financially disadvantaged. By not completely separating from the other 32-40 teams that provides more non-conference wins.
Not instantly, but that's why they have phantom access for awhile. Losing and irrelevance gives people the wandering eye. The older fans, maybe, but inherently those fans are dying out. 10-15 years of no real success and the story all about the North-South BIG/SEC battle, and fans will start to have teams they root for in that drama.

For the same reason these schools weren't invited in 2023, you're not going to lose much in 15 years after they've been slowly suffocated out. People already don't watch them in the numbers networks can justify, That number will only go down as they are fodder for 15 years. Whatever hit in ratings is easily offset by this polarizing national North-South battle and feeding less mouths
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
You’re the one that said what Campbell has done here has not been that impressive. any coach could do it.

you really think anyone outside of Boise or the parts of Oregon that want to join Idaho care.

That’s still the part that’s funny.
Again, why did you object to option 1 over option 2?

You're either resorting to strawmans, or dumb. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume strawmans as your white flag. Either way, those statements were never made or alluded to.

I see you still can't answer the questions:
Did Boise's brand grow? Would it have grown more if being 4-8 often? Would they have played OU in a big game if always 4-8?

No one picks going 4-8 over 8 or 9 wins for less OVERALL money (the example you chimed in on, JFC you're an idiot). No one would pick 4-8 over 8 or 9 wins for even a few million MORE. At some point perhaps you pick years of less wins for more money, but even then other factors come into play beforehand.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Cyclones1969

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
38,882
26,928
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
It's funny how we like this and yet it would be unpopular at OSU and a total non-starter at Tech. This is not a split that would garner broad support outside of the Iowa and Kansas borders.

Yeah that's some iffy redistricting there.

Essentially what I assume will happen (among realistic options) is equal split/"recruiting access" of Texas schools and even split of the 4 newcomers (two in one division, two in other, can't be 3/1). Retaining ISU/KU/KSU might work while adhering to those aspects, or perhaps it won't, but that's probably priority 3.
 

heitclone

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2009
16,630
14,433
113
45
Way up there
OK then, it's settled?
OK then, when do we draw up the contract?
View attachment 89767

I like this alignment the best but our division is much tougher currently. I would hate not playing Okie St but I think for the league, right now, that's the two best programs in the league. It would make sense to split them up. I think end the end, they'll try their hardest to split up TX and put 2 "new" teams in each division.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex O Herlihan

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,828
63,939
113
Not exactly sure.
You need financial revenues to compete that is for sure. With Campbell as ISU's head coach it gives ISU hope for competing on a national level.

In the long run for fans its an interesting question.

Is it better for fan satisfaction to be a part of the 40-48 and operate at big disadvantages due to existing brands and probably a lot more losses each year.

Or is competing in a rebuilt B12 at about 50-60% of B1G/SEC revenue and having a lot easier chance of competing in football provide better fan satisfaction.

I doubt anyone turns the money down, but some fans may look back later and be glad their schools didn't make the cut if its about trying to win 9-10 games a year and still have some playoff access.
This could be true in a different angle. Right now ISU has seen that there will be a seismic shift coming. JP will prepare. Last I knew ISU had 66MM in debt and borrowed 20MM due to Covid. Payments of 6-8MM per year. JP will position to make sure ISU is sitting fine.

If this become a contest, the SEC will absolutely crush the Big ten in the athletic side, and I don't think the big ten Pres's will be happy to push academic money to athletics. The other conferences are seeing that something is happening and I could see them saying, hey lets put out a good team at the highest level, but not go for king maker level. The big ten schools could try to push, led by Mich and OSU, to compete with the SEC. While their budgets will handle it the others in the big ten probably couldn't. Unsure of others but use Iowa's since their stuff is easier to mind. They had 199MM of debt and added 50MM for Covid. They are sitting on a quarter of a billion in debt and had payments of 22-23MM before the Covid debt. They are about double their annual revenue in debt whereas ISU is one full years. When Covid hit, Iowa had 2.5X the debt required than ISU and ISU only had 12k fans at home games and cost was like 350/season ticket, so a little over 4MM from football attendance than Iowa's none.

If a war broke out between the Big ten and the SEC, some of those teams could get trampled and crushed. It may be better in 20 years for those other teams to not be in that mess. There are a lot of things that could happen, so who knows what is right and what is wrong?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: t-noah

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,956
66,457
113
LA LA Land
10 games with one team rotated off, unless some math/schedule person points out it’s not possible.

seems best way to maximize viewing inventory.

CG guarantees your one off team isn’t dodging best team.

would need some marquee non conf games though and not flubbing it like we did saturday
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
Whether it happens instantly or as a slow-drip, it isn't going to magically make people of relegated teams watch. Regardless of how it happens, every fan at some point is going to decide that their team is not at the real big-boy level and they lose interest. When that happens very few are going to simultaneously decide they're going to adopt a new favorite team in the P32-48.
The marginal cost of that is already baked into the exclusion. Say all of that interest or viewership in the leftovers goes away ($20-$25million worth per school?), to zero interest in CFB. That also means you're paying those schools zero eventually. No impact. In reality, some fans would still watch BIG-SEC just as before, while the pot for the leftovers continues to go down, and it would be a net positive for the networks
 
Last edited:

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
13,046
21,031
113
Even if the 2 power conferences dominate playoff spots and win all of the championships, I don't believe you can get the fans of the other 32-40 teams to watch your product if their schools are completely cut out. Thats the reason for 1-2 lower paid leagues. To try and convince their fans they are a part of the new division 1 football and keep them involved for national audiences.

I don't think you can even move the 40-48 to themselves over time. You could see the SOB's try and increase the pay gap further giving those schools an advantage.

Also, what remains to be seen is how the branding is effected in the 40-48 if they have to play each other all the time. CFB have been conditioned your team is not successful unless you are undefeated or 1-2 losses. What happens when teams have 4 or 5 losses and viewership? The reason they can get 9 and 10 win seasons is non-conference games against teams financially disadvantaged. By not completely separating from the other 32-40 teams that provides more non-conference wins.
I think you hit it on the head. The ideal for the sport and the media companies is to have the big brands be consistently successful while having as many teams have fans that think there's a shot that some day they could make a run. There's a big difference in being at a big disadvantage but thinking that if the stars align and you hire the next Campbell you can make a run vs. you are simply in a lower league that is structurally eliminated from participation in a playoff no matter what you do.

People talk about carriage fees with BTN because of their model, but ESPN's dwarfs BTN. It would take very little loss of interest and subsequent loss of ESPN network subscriptions to be a huge financial hit. ESPN has a HUGE vested interest in preserving every single ESPN family of networks subscription they have. ESPN doesn't give two ***** if every team in the conferences lose money by adding teams. ESPN only cares that fans of teams keep watching and subscribing. If they feel like relegating 8, 20, or 30 teams to a lower division loses them some subscriptions and ad revenue by lower viewership, they are going to fight like hell to keep those teams relevant in some way.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: t-noah

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
Yeah that's some iffy redistricting there.

Essentially what I assume will happen (among realistic options) is equal split/"recruiting access" of Texas schools and even split of the 4 newcomers (two in one division, two in other, can't be 3/1). Retaining ISU/KU/KSU might work while adhering to those aspects, or perhaps it won't, but that's probably priority 3.

I think those are the two realistic options:

1. BYU, OSU, and all of Texas in a West / everyone else in an East. Pick this one if maximizing rivalries wins out over splitting Texas for recruiting. The East gets UC and UCF so there is still good recruiting ground here.

2. Chop up Texas; either 2/2 across divisions or something like Tech/TCU/Baylor in one and Houston/UCF in the other. Pick this one if it's important to ISU/KSU/KU to have more Texas access. That might matter more if we go back to only 8 conference games, too.

"Keep the old Big 8 together" is not really a realistic approach.
 

cyfan92

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2011
8,246
13,109
113
Augusta National Golf Club
10 games with one team rotated off, unless some math/schedule person points out it’s not possible.

seems best way to maximize viewing inventory.

CG guarantees your one off team isn’t dodging best team.

would need some marquee non conf games though and not flubbing it like we did saturday

I really doubt we do 10 conference games plus CyHawk. I would think we need as many home games as possible.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
10 games with one team rotated off, unless some math/schedule person points out it’s not possible.

seems best way to maximize viewing inventory.

CG guarantees your one off team isn’t dodging best team.

would need some marquee non conf games though and not flubbing it like we did saturday

10 conference games in a 12-team conference feels unwieldy, plus it doesn't necessarily mean more inventory either. A network gets more inventory in a 12-team conference if 7 teams are playing home non-conference games in a given week vs. all 12 teams playing conference games.

I think it's an open question whether 8 or 9 conference games will be better for this league.
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,828
63,939
113
Not exactly sure.
I think those are the two realistic options:

1. BYU, OSU, and all of Texas in a West / everyone else in an East. Pick this one if maximizing rivalries wins out over splitting Texas for recruiting. The East gets UC and UCF so there is still good recruiting ground here.

2. Chop up Texas; either 2/2 across divisions or something like Tech/TCU/Baylor in one and Houston/UCF in the other. Pick this one if it's important to ISU/KSU/KU to have more Texas access. That might matter more if we go back to only 8 conference games, too.

"Keep the old Big 8 together" is not really a realistic approach.
If the four texas schools are in the other half, and you play 9 conference games, There is a good chance you will be in texas every year and several times twice.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,956
66,457
113
LA LA Land
10 conference games in a 12-team conference feels unwieldy, plus it doesn't necessarily mean more inventory either. A network gets more inventory in a 12-team conference if 7 teams are playing home non-conference games in a given week vs. all 12 teams playing conference games.

I think it's an open question whether 8 or 9 conference games will be better for this league.

we don’t have the SEC luxury of 8 games and a late season Indiana State home game
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
If the four texas schools are in the other half, and you play 9 conference games, There is a good chance you will be in texas every year and several times twice.

Right, you could even do it with 8 conference games. If you play 3 games a year vs. the opposite division, that means the four Texas schools play a combined 12 games vs. the East. If they play half of them at home, that is enough to set up a schedule where every East school gets exactly one game in Texas per year. If you do 9 conference games, some of the East would get 2 games while the rest got at least 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCClone