What should our next move be?

[TXCyclones]

What conference call and where are you seeing that?

Being tweeted on the coaches conference call this morning. Mack Brown's turn on the call stated "I think U of Texax wants to stay in Big 12, I want to stay in Big 12. Texas would love to see Big 12 stay together." And then I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

[PabloDiablo]

I think if an invite doesn't come within the next month or two then we should because it seems the Big Ten is taking the watch and see approach. So our best move is to create a hybrid conference that will force the Big Ten to act or let us make the best of our situation.

I personally think that the Big 10 will not be "forced" to do anything. They aren't going to add schools just because everyone else at the "cool kid's table" is doing it. They will stay as calculating as ever and wait for a jackpot goldmine like ND to come. They will not bring someone in who doesn't contribute at least close to the amount of revenue they are splitting right now.

If the ACC and Pac-12 both go to sixteen and the Big East dissolves, we will be fine. Suddenly there will be a bunch of Big East bowl tie-ins available and the 4 biggest conferences are going to be like Hungry, Hungry Hippoes trying to gobble them up. Do you really think the Big Ten and SEC are going to be ok with the ACC and Pac-16 having a bigger mouth than they do?

West Virginia seems like a lock to the SEC. Mizzou will get wooed by the SEC and Big Ten. Notre Dame and BYU are going to have to do some soul-searching about whether or not there is really still a place for independents in the BCS.

I think we will see WVU, Mizzou, and one of TCU/Baylor/Louisville go to the SEC. I think we will see Notre Dame, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the Big Ten.
I think we will see South Florida, Cincinnatti, and two of TCU/Baylor/Louisville go to C-USA and we will watch them to develop into a fringe BCS conference in a few years. I think there's a good chance BYU rejoins the Mountain West.

I think there's less of chance but still the possibility the following happen: MWC and WAC re-merge to sixteen teams minus the Texas schools making the jump to FBS. Army and Navy join the MAC along with a northeast school jumping up to FBS (possibly Villanova?). I could also see the Sunbelt finding enough southern FCS schools willing to go FBS to fill out a sixteen team league as well.

Again, no. The Big Ten's position on this has been very similar to the SEC in that they aren't just going to add schools that don't bring anything to the table in terms of dollars. Somewhere along the line this 16 team "super conference model" came out and everyone bought in. The PAC and ACC seem to be happy grabbing up schools while the SEC and Big 10 are laying low waiting/analyzing if there is more money to be made by adding schools. People seem to be just grabbing puzzle pieces and shoving them anywhere, when they clearly don't fit.

In a purely economic sense, "super conferences" are a terrible idea to those conferences with TV contracts that are more lucrative, with more average revenue dispersed per team, than the average team would bring in.

Expanding for the sake of expansion may be fine for Larry Scott but it won't be for Slive and Delaney. They want the new schools to pull their weight and bring in new dollars.

 

[Clark]

If the ACC and Pac-12 both go to sixteen and the Big East dissolves, we will be fine. Suddenly there will be a bunch of Big East bowl tie-ins available and the 4 biggest conferences are going to be like Hungry, Hungry Hippoes trying to gobble them up. Do you really think the Big Ten and SEC are going to be ok with the ACC and Pac-16 having a bigger mouth than they do?

West Virginia seems like a lock to the SEC. Mizzou will get wooed by the SEC and Big Ten. Notre Dame and BYU are going to have to do some soul-searching about whether or not there is really still a place for independents in the BCS.

I think we will see WVU, Mizzou, and one of TCU/Baylor/Louisville go to the SEC. I think we will see Notre Dame, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the Big Ten.
I think we will see South Florida, Cincinnatti, and two of TCU/Baylor/Louisville go to C-USA and we will watch them to develop into a fringe BCS conference in a few years. I think there's a good chance BYU rejoins the Mountain West.

I think there's less of chance but still the possibility the following happen: MWC and WAC re-merge to sixteen teams minus the Texas schools making the jump to FBS. Army and Navy join the MAC along with a northeast school jumping up to FBS (possibly Villanova?). I could also see the Sunbelt finding enough southern FCS schools willing to go FBS to fill out a sixteen team league as well.

I don't think either the Big 10 or the SEC will go to 16 teams. The ACC upping the exit fees and preemptively expanding all but guarantees those teams will stay in the ACC severely limiting expansion options for the SEC and Big 10.

I don't think the Big 10 moves past 12 unless ND is involved. I think the SEC adds either WV or Mizzou to get to 14 and stays there.

The issue is that there just isn't any teams out there that bring in enough money to make it worth bringing them in and splitting the pie more ways.

Also, under no circumstances is KSU getting into the Big 10.

 

[buf87]

If a new league is formed shortly, do you want small exit fees ($5 million) or big exit fees ($20 million)?

 

[daphins]

I personally think that the Big 10 will not be "forced" to do anything. They aren't going to add schools just because everyone else at the "cool kid's table" is doing it. They will stay as calculating as ever and wait for a jackpot goldmine like ND to come. They will not bring someone in who doesn't contribute at least close to the amount of revenue they are splitting right now.



Again, no. The Big Ten's position on this has been very similar to the SEC in that they aren't just going to add schools that don't bring anything to the table in terms of dollars. Somewhere along the line this 16 team "super conference model" came out and everyone bought in. The PAC and ACC seem to be happy grabbing up schools while the SEC and Big 10 are laying low waiting/analyzing if there is more money to be made by adding schools. People seem to be just grabbing puzzle pieces and shoving them anywhere, when they clearly don't fit.

In a purely economic sense, "super conferences" are a terrible idea to those conferences with TV contracts that are more lucrative, with more average revenue dispersed per team, than the average team would bring in.

Expanding for the sake of expansion may be fine for Larry Scott but it won't be for Slive and Delaney. They want the new schools to pull their weight and bring in new dollars.

There was a rumor being floated here about a week or so ago, that MU had turned down a Big 10 offer that would put it on a 2nd tier as far as revenue sharing went.

Not sure how true that was, but I could see the Big 10 being willing to give a home to a school like ISU, or KU that adds a lot to the conference academically and with other sports, while cutting their share of the revenue pie.

Not saying that I AGREE with it, but I think that's the most likely scenario under which we'd get into the Big 10. It could save them from litigation, and keep a school like ISU in a BCS conference when they might have otherwise been left out in the cold. Depending on the percentage (is it 30% less, etc.) it might not be a horrible deal.

 

[PabloDiablo]

There was a rumor being floated here about a week or so ago, that MU had turned down a Big 10 offer that would put it on a 2nd tier as far as revenue sharing went.

Not sure how true that was, but I could see the Big 10 being willing to give a home to a school like ISU, or KU that adds a lot to the conference academically and with other sports, while cutting their share of the revenue pie.

Not saying that I AGREE with it, but I think that's the most likely scenario under which we'd get into the Big 10. It could save them from litigation, and keep a school like ISU in a BCS conference when they might have otherwise been left out in the cold. Depending on the percentage (is it 30% less, etc.) it might not be a horrible deal.

I guess I hadn't heard that. I would have a problem not being on the same revenue plain as Indiana and Purdue but if there were some deal to increase with performance or something maybe that wouldn't be all bad. 70% of 22 mil is still 15.4 mil and would probably be better than any TV deal a merger of big east and reject big 12 teams would get.

I think any time there is talk of unequal revenue sharing, it causes problems. Just my opinion, I still don't think it happens.

 

[weisr2002]

There was a rumor being floated here about a week or so ago, that MU had turned down a Big 10 offer that would put it on a 2nd tier as far as revenue sharing went.

Not sure how true that was, but I could see the Big 10 being willing to give a home to a school like ISU, or KU that adds a lot to the conference academically and with other sports, while cutting their share of the revenue pie.

Not saying that I AGREE with it, but I think that's the most likely scenario under which we'd get into the Big 10. It could save them from litigation, and keep a school like ISU in a BCS conference when they might have otherwise been left out in the cold. Depending on the percentage (is it 30% less, etc.) it might not be a horrible deal.

Also if a pod system is approved by the NCAA, with a 4 team playoff for a conference champ, that would be more money and incentive for the Big 10 to expand to 16.

 

[Clark]

Also if a pod system is approved by the NCAA, with a 4 team playoff for a conference champ, that would be more money and incentive for the Big 10 to expand to 16.

Just because one conference uses a pod system to decide their champion doesn't mean all conferences would have to as well.

Other than ND, who brings in more money to the Big 10?

 

[weisr2002]

Just because one conference uses a pod system to decide their champion doesn't mean all conferences would have to as well.

Other than ND, who brings in more money to the Big 10?

They don't have to, but how much money will those extra 2 games generate? Alot. Might be worth it.

I don't know the numbers, but that may be the financial incentive needed to expand to 16.

 

[kingcy]

and to add onto this a different status may begin to come into play other then AQ status, it called NON-Profit status super conference will most likely lose that status and could be taxed heavily.

You can give them any tax rate you want but if they break even they dont have to pay taxes. The conference can make it so they dont make money at the end of their FY by giving the schools more money and schools would find ways to spend that money.

 

[Clark]

They don't have to, but how much money will those extra 2 games generate? Alot. Might be worth it.

I don't know the numbers, but that may be the financial incentive needed to expand to 16.

It's actually only one extra game (semi finals, finals rather than just finals)

And that one extra game likely wouldn't bring in enough revenue to justify adding not just one but four extra teams to share the pie with.

 

[weisr2002]

It's actually only one extra game (semi finals, finals rather than just finals)

And that one extra game likely wouldn't bring in enough revenue to justify adding not just one but four extra teams to share the pie with.

You would have 2 semifinals games, and one finals. So it is 2 extra games in that sense.

 

[weisr2002]

You would have 2 semifinals games, and one finals. So it is 2 extra games in that sense.

Not sure the numbers are there. Read that Pac 12 expected 10 million for their 12 team championship game. So with a 4 team playoff maybe 25-30 Mil at the most?

That and a couple small tv markets may make it worth while.

Still doesn't make ISU any more attractive to the Big 10 though, other than a filler.

 

[Cycsk]

The remaining 5 schools should immediately fire Dan Beebe and move the Big 12 offices out of Texas. Then a massive lawsuit should be launched against the SEC and PAC 12 for tampering in order to protect the athletic budgets of the remaining schools. Then the schools should immediately merge with the Big East bringing in TCU and Boise State in also with BYU. Once that move is done a $35 million exit fee should be created. Then as ESPN will probably try to get out of their TV contract we should force them to settle for a huge buyout. Once that is done the Big 12 should move its TV rights to NBC that move with the allowed creation of private networks would make us very attractive to Notre Dame. While this situation wouldn't be ideal but it looks like our best option being that the Big Ten doesn't want 16 teams and we would be making a stand against superconferences and our footprint would be massive.

Two things really bug me (in addition to the damage that may come to Iowa State):

1. There is no true concern for what a conference has traditionally meant, namely a full range of relationships of universities. For instance, this will totally mess with the rivalries and travel schedules of all the non-revenue sports.

2. It may be a step toward a national playoff system in football. The bowl games are so unique and wonderful. There is nothing like it in sports.

 

[isufbcurt]

You can give them any tax rate you want but if they break even they dont have to pay taxes. The conference can make it so they dont make money at the end of their FY by giving the schools more money and schools would find ways to spend that money.

However, if it was setup so each school in a conference is like a partner in a business then distributions to the school (partner) are not considered expenses and would have no effect on taxable income. So the conference would still be taxed.

 

[Clark]

However, if it was setup so each school in a conference is like a partner in a business then distributions to the school (partner) are not considered expenses and would have no effect on taxable income. So the conference would still be taxed.

Conferences are basically pass through entities (which aren't taxed whether you're tax exempt or not)

For example, partnerships themselves pay no taxes, that income flows to the partners and is taxed on the partners personal income tax return.