Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby has some interesting comments regarding expansion...

[huskymedic]

Not earthshattering but...

UCFSports 7:09pm via TweetDeck
Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby has some interesting comments regarding expansion. Multiple ways to read into it. http://newsok.com/big-12-qa-with-big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby/article/5361578?custom_click=rss

UCFSports 7:10pm via TweetDeck
Bowlsby says no "obvious candidates" for Big 12 expansion, rules out P5 to P5 moves in short-term, but doesn't rule out G5 to P5.

UCFSports 7:10pm via TweetDeck
The only league that could conceivably take G5 teams would be the Big 12, unless UConn is part of a two-team B1G expansion to 16.

 

[whaler11]

Conference realignment in one sentence:

"so anybody that would be considered for expansion in our league would have to bring at least pro-rata value"

And to be seriously considered bring pro-rata plus another $20 million.

 

[clmssun]

Also note that Bowlsby specifically denied all the "four conferences of 16" talk. Not one commissioner has ever corroborated this fan/Twitter fascination.

 

[Plains&Lakes]

Conference realignment in one sentence:

"so anybody that would be considered for expansion in our league would have to bring at least pro-rata value"

And to be seriously considered bring pro-rata plus another $20 million.

Not earthshattering but...

UCFSports 7:09pm via TweetDeck
Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby has some interesting comments regarding expansion. Multiple ways to read into it. http://newsok.com/big-12-qa-with-big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby/article/5361578?custom_click=rss

UCFSports 7:10pm via TweetDeck
Bowlsby says no "obvious candidates" for Big 12 expansion, rules out P5 to P5 moves in short-term, but doesn't rule out G5 to P5.

UCFSports 7:10pm via TweetDeck
The only league that could conceivably take G5 teams would be the Big 12, unless UConn is part of a two-team B1G expansion to 16.

I think that aside from the under-sized Big 12, I think that the Big Ten is the most likely conference for expansion because of a likely natural add (UConn) and the necessity of only one more team. Added to this would be the added value that extra team would bring to the Big Ten as opposed to the Big 12 package with lesser eyeballs in the area. This is why the Big Ten is only a Virginia Tech, Virginia, GT or North Carolina away from expansion. For the much the same reason why Missouri, Vanderbilt or Kansas are mentioned. Because the money is there. This is why I think that the chances for a Big Ten Expansion to UConn are very real in the next 2 to 3 years. Bowlsby's 10 to 12 year timeframe for "conversations" is a politically-correct deflection. He knows better.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

 

[pj]

Bowlsby supports what I argued in another thread (Game Theory), that realignment can only happen when it's in the interests of the TV networks, and they like to have 100% control of a property. The B12's split deal gives both ESPN and Fox veto power over B12 moves and having to please several masters, along with the division of the LHN as an ESPN property, is a "boulder" in the way of B12 moves.

But as TV networks draw to a close, the situation will become unstable. Networks will pay up for effective control of a conference and then will support raiding the other network's properties. That opens the way for realignment.

ESPN owns UConn currently. If the AAC goes with Fox in its next contract then maybe ESPN will raid the AAC. If the AAC stays with ESPN then maybe the B1G will raid UConn. B12 and ACC are hamstrung until their current TV deal expires. SEC can only raid the B12, but GoR are in the way.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Bowlsby supports what I argued in another thread (Game Theory), that realignment can only happen when it's in the interests of the TV networks, and they like to have 100% control of a property. The B12's split deal gives both ESPN and Fox veto power over B12 moves and having to please several masters, along with the division of the LHN as an ESPN property, is a "boulder" in the way of B12 moves.

But as TV networks draw to a close, the situation will become unstable. Networks will pay up for effective control of a conference and then will support raiding the other network's properties. That opens the way for realignment.

ESPN owns UConn currently. If the AAC goes with Fox in its next contract then maybe ESPN will raid the AAC. If the AAC stays with ESPN then maybe the B1G will raid UConn. B12 and ACC are hamstrung until their current TV deal expires. SEC can only raid the B12, but GoR are in the way.

Then we need to "Pitt" our next TV negotiation, and convince whoever the B1G doesn't sign with to take our conference at lower amount, but making our school the lead attraction. Cue incentive for the B1G to raid on behalf of their TV overlords.

 

[Marty Jackson]

until there are TV negotiation deals happening, stability is at hand... Once the Big get's into it's TV deal negotiations, everything is open. if the networks have their check books open, then maybe the BIG decides to challenge the GOR's of the ACC or Big12. Maybe Uconn get's in... It all depends on how the numbers are interpreted and what the networks are willing to pay.
The good news is that Uconn has a season or two to bulk up the football program and continue its dominance in BB.
If you look at what Louisville did in its few years leading up to the ACC invite, that should be Uconn's game plan now (aside from cooking the books). And, if you look at what Uconn has done the timing could be right this time (Hockey East add, new Champions Center, Top-Caliber coaches in FB and BB, strong academics, growing research, huge state support with $B's being pumped in)...
The only thing missing is success on the grid-iron. But, if Diaco is correct about this team being a year or two away, things could fall into place better than people are willing to admit.

 

[Pudge]

You missed the underlining KEY phrase ...

This is all dependent on how we "watch" sports. It may not be on Cable much longer. It might all be mobile devices or some other streaming mechanism to our Big Screen ... but not through a Network programming. All this throws this discussion for a loop. So speculating on that 10-12 years remaining on the Cable; that may not be the most important factor.

 

[Stinger92860]

You missed the underlining KEY phrase ...

This is all dependent on how we "watch" sports. It may not be on Cable much longer. It might all be mobile devices or some other streaming mechanism to our Big Screen ... but not through a Network programming. All this throws this discussion for a loop. So speculating on that 10-12 years remaining on the Cable; that may not be the most important factor.

Mobile versus my 70 inch flat screen. I vote for the big screen with streaming.

 

[bobbyinaz]

You missed the underlining KEY phrase ...

This is all dependent on how we "watch" sports. It may not be on Cable much longer. It might all be mobile devices or some other streaming mechanism to our Big Screen ... but not through a Network programming. All this throws this discussion for a loop. So speculating on that 10-12 years remaining on the Cable; that may not be the most important factor.

Regardless of whether sports are watched via cable, dish or online streaming the content will still be owned & distributed by someone. There will still be someone there to purchase broadcast rights from a conference so they can disseminate them thru whatever means they choose.

The perfect example of this is the recent HBO announcement that they will provide their own streaming service. While it allows someone who only had cable because they wanted to watch HBO programming the chance to disconnect their cable it's not coming free. While it may allow the consumer to save money because they won't have to pay for basic cable service & whatever other charges they incur from the cable provider HBO is still making their money. HBO owns the content & will always charge the consumer for the right to watch it regardless of how it's being accessed

 

[Pudge]

Regardless of whether sports are watched via cable, dish or online streaming the content will still be owned & distributed by someone. There will still be someone there to purchase broadcast rights from a conference so they can disseminate them thru whatever means they choose.

The perfect example of this is the recent HBO announcement that they will provide their own streaming service. While it allows someone who only had cable because they wanted to watch HBO programming the chance to disconnect their cable it's not coming free. While it may allow the consumer to save money because they won't have to pay for basic cable service & whatever other charges they incur from the cable provider HBO is still making their money. HBO owns the content & will always charge the consumer for the right to watch it regardless of how it's being accessed

Why a conference?

Take the acknowledged fact: Notre Dame & Texas has far more Brand appeal & Value than others. What's stopping them from separating & streaming their schedule differently ... After the current contract. Or a bonding together of Florida State & Georgia Tech & Clemson?

The Conference format has been wrapped like a faux nappy for the BCs & others. In an era that we have seen LeBron carve up a league by his own personal power (and knowing he has to play with someone),who is to stop the $40m top dogs demanding $80 & telling other Universities to take scraps?

We are under the impression that there is collegiality. BS. Why would you trust the President or Board of any of these?

 

[whaler11]

The issue becomes you don't have a product to sell if you don't have a schedule to play.

The second issue is if you don't have the scale of an ESPN or a Fox involved it's going to be very difficult to generate the same kind of revenue.

Could Texas and the top dozen programs bond together and in the short term double what they make? Certainly - but they may find it's a short term winner and a long term loser.

If you struck out on your own and sold a streaming package for $100 a year you'd need 200,000 subscribers to generate 20 million - ignoring the infrastructure, production and marketing costs you'd have to incur it seems a long way from a better deal then they have currently.

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered...

 

[bobbyinaz]

Why a conference?

Take the acknowledged fact: Notre Dame & Texas has far more Brand appeal & Value than others. What's stopping them from separating & streaming their schedule differently ... After the current contract. Or a bonding together of Florida State & Georgia Tech & Clemson?

The Conference format has been wrapped like a faux nappy for the BCs & others. In an era that we have seen LeBron carve up a league by his own personal power (and knowing he has to play with someone),who is to stop the $40m top dogs demanding $80 & telling other Universities to take scraps?

We are under the impression that there is collegiality. BS. Why would you trust the President or Board of any of these?

ESPN has already tried this with the LHN & it has failed for ESPN miserably.

More importantly, unless the haves (i.e. Texas, Notre Dame, Bama football, Kentucky hoops) want to play a round robin schedule against each other there will always be a need for some kind of conference structure in order to satisfy scheduling needs, Title IX requirements, etc,

How has LeBron carved up the NBA? The league just signed a massive new contract nearly doubling the previous one yet there is still a salary cap in place and there are still max contract guidelines. LeBron exercised his right as a free agent to go wherever he wanted to but he doesn't have the ability to tell the Cavs "pay me 50% of your media income"

 

[Kolumbo]

The bubble will burst. Perhaps then all the top dogs will go indie to get their feedbags filled. Texas, USC, Ohio State, they could all go independent and make just as much if not more. Why should Wake Forest make the same as FSU? It should not. The entire system is going to ebb and flo until every single program starts making what it actually deserves. And consumers realize we're the ones getting bilked.
OK, any news yet?

 

[Fishy]

I would say about 20% of the posts on this board are revenge fantasies involving the destruction of Wake Forest.

Wake is fine - we can stop worrying about 'em.

 

[frankthetank]

I would say about 20% of the posts on this board are revenge fantasies involving the destruction of Wake Forest.

Wake is fine - we can stop worrying about 'em.

Heh - I've noticed on a lot of boards (not just this one) use Wake Forest as the prime example of getting propped up the most by conference membership. Whether it's fair or not, it's just like a company - if you were there in the beginning (like Wake Forest was with the formation of the ACC), then you receive disproportionate spoils even if you don't bring the same value. There are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people that spent a lot more time building Microsoft than Paul Allen (he left the company in 1982, which was 4 years before the firm went public), but Allen was a co-founder from day one and that's why he has $16 billion-plus to spend on sports teams and other personal interests. Wake was there in the beginning, so they're going to be there as long as the ACC exists. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Heh - I've noticed on a lot of boards (not just this one) use Wake Forest as the prime example of getting propped up the most by conference membership. Whether it's fair or not, it's just like a company - if you were there in the beginning (like Wake Forest was with the formation of the ACC), then you receive disproportionate spoils even if you don't bring the same value. There are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people that spent a lot more time building Microsoft than Paul Allen, but Allen was a co-founder from day one and that's why he has $16 billion-plus to spend on sports teams and other personal interests. Wake was there in the beginning, so they're going to be there as long as the ACC exists. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

Being a founding member of a conference doesn't mean you can't be fuc&ed over...Exhibit A: UConn.

 

[frankthetank]

Being a founding member of a conference doesn't mean you can't be fuc&ed over...Exhibit A: UConn.

Oh, sure, schools left behind can get screwed by others leaving. See the Big East and the old Southwestern Conference. It would just take quite a bit to see that happening to Wake Forest and the ACC at the same level. (If anything, the Big 12 is much more at risk for a total collapse - the Iowa States and Baylors of the world are the ones that are REALLY happy that the Pac-16 formation never occurred.)

 

[Kolumbo]

Heh - I've noticed on a lot of boards (not just this one) use Wake Forest as the prime example of getting propped up the most by conference membership. Whether it's fair or not, it's just like a company - if you were there in the beginning (like Wake Forest was with the formation of the ACC), then you receive disproportionate spoils even if you don't bring the same value. There are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people that spent a lot more time building Microsoft than Paul Allen (he left the company in 1982, which was 4 years before the firm went public), but Allen was a co-founder from day one and that's why he has $16 billion-plus to spend on sports teams and other personal interests. Wake was there in the beginning, so they're going to be there as long as the ACC exists. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

Except, if your company only had 16 employees, you would have no choice but to get rid of the dead weight. Having a football power instead of a WF would increase everyone else's take. 4 schools in such close proximity only weakens the conference. CR states so.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Heh - I've noticed on a lot of boards (not just this one) use Wake Forest as the prime example of getting propped up the most by conference membership. Whether it's fair or not, it's just like a company - if you were there in the beginning (like Wake Forest was with the formation of the ACC), then you receive disproportionate spoils even if you don't bring the same value. There are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people that spent a lot more time building Microsoft than Paul Allen (he left the company in 1982, which was 4 years before the firm went public), but Allen was a co-founder from day one and that's why he has $16 billion-plus to spend on sports teams and other personal interests. Wake was there in the beginning, so they're going to be there as long as the ACC exists. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

Not exactly.

With the possible exception of Bill Gates (Gates put up the cash but Allen was the hardcore programmer), nobody put close to the effort into Microsoft's early days (they began in new Mexico in the mid 1970's writing software for a mini computer call Altair. The company was Gates & Allen at that time). At the time he was diagnoed with Hodgkin's and left the company many industry experts believed that Microsoft was losing its driving force and would not be much of a player going forward (boy were they wrong).

 

[IMind]

Oh, sure, schools left behind can get screwed by others leaving. See the Big East and the old Southwestern Conference. It would just take quite a bit to see that happening to Wake Forest and the ACC at the same level. (If anything, the Big 12 is much more at risk for a total collapse - the Iowa States and Baylors of the world are the ones that are REALLY happy that the Pac-16 formation never occurred.)

Ahh the failure of the PAC-16... another thing that happened as poorly as possible for UConn.

 

[BoatShow]

BYU UCF UConn Cincy to Big12 just do it already.