Big 12 Expansion
- Thread starter 2clones4cy
- Start date
That grouping of teams would disintegrate the Big 12 and put Iowa State in the MAC conference...why would anyone who is an Iowa State fan want such a thing?
Incomprehensible. Having small programs of no note from larger urban areas does not help the Big 12's fiscal approach...which is not network based, but is premised on having impact teams and highly viewable matchups. Worse, teams like Cincinnati and Temple may be from large markets, but this does not equate to them pulling in a substantial number of TV sets from those markets...so that does little to help the league as well. Adding more dead weight is precisely how we end up losing UT and the other big cash cows of the conference....and if that happens the league is dead.
We must not fall into the trap of accepting lesser teams now...which would preclude adding better teams down the road while cutting our per team revenues in the meantime. We, as a league, must hold off predation longer than the ACC...which is being dragged down by its own excessive "dead weight" schools and has horrible per team revenues...if we are to emerge from this expansion era intact.
When the ACC starts to crumble...and it will because poor revenue is an inescapable taskmaster in the business of college football...the B1G and SEC will make their moves to get to 16 each. THAT is when the Big 12 will have its chance...coming to the rescue of the remaining 6 or so southern ACC teams (Miami, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Ga Tech, and perhaps NC State) but this is possible only if we hold out till then and ride our current high per team revenues to outlast the ACC.
Time and revenue are on our side in this battle to outlast the ACC...unless we blow that leverage by taking in a bunch of fiscally burdensome smaller schools in the misguided belief they bring markets and can grow into P5 level programs of value.
Add the teams you're suggesting, and the league is food for vultures and our program at ISU ceases to be a P5 one. Its really a simple mathematical equation. It would be true stupidity to go down that road out of impatience, or some misguided desire to bring in "easier wins" type programs.
BYU may be an exception to all of the above, because it already brings a solid national fanbase, national reputation and would not be a revenue drag on the league...so adding them as an 11th IS a viable option. They are the ONLY team nationally that can meet our criteria...and even then just barely and only if they are willing to compromise on some membership issues/rules.
They can and will bolt...even if they have to wait till 2024 or so to ride out the GOR. The GOR will hold them now, but if the league adds schools like many mentioned in this thread, we will have set in motion the departure of our key schools...and no, the conference would not survive the next contract phase in the early 20's. At least, not in any form or remotely close to the pay level at which it is now...we would cease to be a P5 league altogether. So while the GOR is essentially unassailable as you say, it does have an end date. We have to set conditions so our leading teams want to renew the GOR in 6-7 years from now...not create a situation where they are searching for a new home at that time.
Interesting talk. I really don't know how this should be approached. I would think most of the schools would be interested in bringing in TV markets and lesser teams like the B10 did. Who want to bring in another team that you have a good chance to lose to? Besides, why would anyone from a P5 conference want to come to the Big 12? The best thing that could have happened to ISU was getting gobbled up by the Big 10 when NE went. Better money and a lot more winnable games in football.
How can anyone say that adding byu and Memphis doesn't add to the big 12 from a revenue standpoint? First off adding anyone is tiered meaning they don't get a full share right away....like Rutgers and Maryland. Byu is a national program in football..poor mans Notre Dame. Memphis tv market is the #4 tv market for college football according to ESPN stats. Doesn't mean they all watch Memphis but that isn't point nor does it matter. It's all about the actual tv market not who watches the actual team. See Rutgers. Memphis has a lot of $$ and the biggest donor prob in the country in fed ex. It would not surprise me to see Memphis added with a behind the scenes deal that fed ex is the sponsor for a new big 12 tv contract whether that's it's own network combined with the longhorn network or part of a new deal with Fox. The advantage for the big 12 is Fox wants to stay relevant in college football and we are their biggest pony. And...Memphis tv market would also include Nashville Market which is top 10 as well. Only 3 hours apart. Again...it's about the actual tv market not the team itself.
BYU at least pays for itself. BYU football only is a no lose situation for everybody. It's the 12th. Memphis will always be a geographic fit, they seem like a football fit now but haven't always. They may be the easy piece to slide in if our hand is forced.
We shouldn't go to 12 for the playoff committee anyway. They change the rules by the day and the deck is stacked with the committee truly only there to protect the Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12's position of dominance until the final cards fall for the Big 12/ACC poaching.
How can u say this? It's not about who watches or how many watch teams it's all about the market they are in. Adding Memphis instantly becomes the largest tv market in the conference who watch college football. I hardly think adding byu a national program would make Texas and OU run. You are right it's about financials and there are numerous teams out there that bring far more to the table tv wise than half the teams in this conference already. Why do u think Rutgers was added and not mizzou or Pitt to the BIG. All about tv market.
And right now Texas has not as much leverage as they used to cause less people are watching a bad team.
I don't know that the B1G and SEC will go to 16. At that point even if you go to 9 conference games you're still only playing teams from the other division every four years. That kills a lot of traditional rivalries, and ticket sales in those leagues are already showing the impact of the loss of those games. I think shrinkage to 10-12 teams is just as likely as expansion in the next round.
Every single Isu fan should pray we expand and go to two divisions...or be content with winning 2-3 games a year.
I don't deny it could help ISU's schedules, I just laugh at the idea that TCU or Baylor gets in the playoff if they win one more game vs K State last year. They don't, because they are TCU/Baylor and we have 2-3x less representation on the committee than the B1G, SEC and P12.
Anyone who saw TCU drop from 6 to 3 for no reason and thinks a win over a hypothetical Big 12 North team vaults them back up is being naive. Fix is in, just look at our representation on the committee. One dude, a Texas Tech AD nobody has ever heard of.
That is wrong. The Big 12 doesn't have its own cable network. Having a huge TV market only matters if you (as a conference network) can force all subscribers in said media market subscribe to your channel. THAT makes the money.
The TV money the Big 12 makes is based on eyeballs watching the games (ad sales), not subscribers to a non existent Big 12 network.
The huge check ISU cashes due to the Big 12 media contract has nothing to do with media markets, it is due to having games people want to watch (as a conference).
The big market thing is so overblown. The B1G regrets adding Maryland and Rutgers because they aren't doing anything for them. Hell more and more people are starting to cancel their TV service and just have Netflix and Hulu.
And as ESPN goes to paid subscriptions or paid events places like Nebraska, Oklahoma and Iowa have a drastically higher % of college sports fans than New Jersey. In the long run it makes sense to go where true college football and college basketball fans actually are.
Sort of. While I agree that the future of tv will be pay per channel service to an extent I don't see the huge media companies just allowing it to happen and live channel surfing will never go away..at least not for the next couple decades.
If it's all about who is watching the teams play on tv then why hasn't byu, Cincinnat or UCF been added? All 3 of those teams have more tv followers than half the conference including TCU and WV who were added recently if I recall.
Byu, Cincinnati and UCF have more eyeballs watching than does ISU, KU, WV and TCU. And didn't we just add WV and TCU?
I'm just not buying this argument that we haven't brought in other teams because there aren't any that would add value to the tv contract. First off...Fox wants to maintain its presence in college football and the big 12 is its big fish. Second...how can adding teams like byu, Cincinnati or UCF not add value if those teams bring almost double the viewers than those watching Isu, ku and TCU?
Are we talking about people actually watching the games or the population of their metro?
ISU gets significantly more people to games than UCF and doesn't have ten pro teams and 3 BCS programs in the same state. It's pretty safe to say if neither team is amazing more eyes are watching ISU than UCF. Ditto for Cincy. BYU is a much different animal though.
Sorry but untrue. Both. More people watch Cincinnati, byu and UCF games on TV almost double than watch Isu on TV. Who goes to games doesn't matter when it comes to tv contracts all they care about is who is watching on the tube.
