Oklahoma Exploring Leaving the Big 12

• SportsAndLady

  

  enigmaax;885429 wrote:Damn, that would be wild. Would they just be trading places with the Oklahomas or would the PAC have to go on a search to get back to 12?

  It said the Big 12 is not going out without a fight, that they will be active in adding members to the conference to keep it alive. Also said the PAC 12 commish isn't so set on expanding to 16 teams like we thought.
• SportsAndLady

  

  jordo212000;885487 wrote:There is no way Arizona or Arizona St. leaves the PAC-12 for the sinking ship that is the Big 12

  It's definitely highly unlikely...but at this point, I wouldn't be surprised with any moves.
  
  Hell TCU to the Big East came out of nowhere..same with A&M to the SEC.
  
  I also would have never thought KU, Mizzou to the Big East was feasible, but thats looking like a real possibility.
• enigmaax

  SportsAndLady;885491 wrote:It said the Big 12 is not going out without a fight, that they will be active in adding members to the conference to keep it alive. Also said the PAC 12 commish isn't so set on expanding to 16 teams like we thought.

  I'd be more a fan of 10 teams, but 12 is the ideal number if you are going to play a championship game. It may happen, but I've never understood the obsession with going to 16 teams. It seems like there has to be a threshold in there where having to split bowl money (etc.) with too many teams makes expansion counterproductive (though I guess if more TV money automatically comes with more teams, I'd be wrong).
  
  In the scenario you brought up, if Arizona and Az St just up and bolted, the PAC would lose its right to a championship game. Even if they didn't want the additional expansion (to 16), it seems like they'd be inclined to find two more teams to get back to 12. After being at the forefront of the movement, that would kind of leave them scrambling.
• dazedconfused

  

  anybody know for sure if byu turned down the big 12? if they didn't, seems like them, boise and probably either colorado st or air force is the best the big 12 could do to get back up to 12
• SportsAndLady

  

  enigmaax;885496 wrote:It seems like there has to be a threshold in there where having to split bowl money (etc.) with too many teams makes expansion counterproductive (though I guess if more TV money automatically comes with more teams, I'd be wrong).

  
  
  I believe with a 16 team expansion comes a HUMONGOUS TV deal.
  
  The Big Ten paid out its member schools an average of $6.3 million their first two years of the BTN. If they moved to a 16 team conference, that number would go up almost double in my opinion. Probably about $10 mill a team. Major conference commissioners salivate over the thought of having 16 teams in a conference network, simply because of how much that is actually worth on a market with less and less conferences (superconferences would delete the Big 12 and probably the ACC).
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I don't get the 16 team leagues, either. You may as well have two 8 team leagues instead of divisions, because for as often as you play teams in the opposing division, it might as well be that way.
  
  The ONLY reason for going to 16 is to increase revenues and the power of the conference. Of course, that only really works if you're the only 16 team conference. If there are 3 others, then the glamour wears off real fast.
  
  I could see the PAC 12 trying to get Oklahoma and one other former Big 12 member (Okie state?) and then creating a land-locked division to counter the coast. It would help cut travel costs as most games would be within the division (AZ, ASU, OK, OSU plus perhaps two of the California schools USC and UCLA make sense because they'd be closer) vs. (Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, WSU, Cal and Stanford).
  
  If they added two more inland schools, then you simply switch the California schools back to a coastal division.
  
  In any event, the Big 12 better scramble and pick up some WAC or Mountain West schools to fill the void, or they'll be left in the lurch.
• SportsAndLady

  

  dazedconfused;885512 wrote:anybody know for sure if byu turned down the big 12? if they didn't, seems like them, boise and probably either colorado st or air force is the best the big 12 could do to get back up to 12

  They answer to that question (gotta laugh at the answer):
  
  "BYU has not tacitly accepted nor explicitly rejected an offer from the Big 12."
  
  But come on..they almost assuredly did. They signed an 8 year contract with ESPN when they decided to go independent. Those contracts don't just spring out of nowhere. They knew the Big 12 was their only plausible option, and when they found out the Big 12 was in shambles, they went to plan B: contract with ESPN + independence.
  
  I guess they could have gone to the PAC 12..but there wasn't really any room for them.
• enigmaax

  Writerbuckeye;885516 wrote:I don't get the 16 team leagues, either. You may as well have two 8 team leagues instead of divisions, because for as often as you play teams in the opposing division, it might as well be that way.

  Yeah, from a competitive standpoint it is incredibly worthless.
  

  The ONLY reason for going to 16 is to increase revenues and the power of the conference. Of course, that only really works if you're the only 16 team conference. If there are 3 others, then the glamour wears off real fast.

  Eh, I would guess the more important thing is how many major markets you can get into. There's plenty of those out there even if there's a few other big conferences.
  

  SportsAndLady;885514 wrote:
  
  I believe with a 16 team expansion comes a HUMONGOUS TV deal.
  
  The Big Ten paid out its member schools an average of $6.3 million their first two years of the BTN. If they moved to a 16 team conference, that number would go up almost double in my opinion. Probably about $10 mill a team. Major conference commissioners salivate over the thought of having 16 teams in a conference network, simply because of how much that is actually worth on a market with less and less conferences (superconferences would delete the Big 12 and probably the ACC).

  Makes sense and good point about the less conferences. How much does the individual TV market play into that, though? I mean, it wouldn't be worth it if you weren't bringing enough TVs to pay for yourself. Like, how beneficial would it be for the ACC or SEC to add West Virginia (just an example I've heard mentioned other places)? Another recent speculative example, would Florida State and Clemson be that good for the SEC since the SEC would already be in those markets by the time they launch a network? Or more relevant to this topic, how well would the Big XII do even if they did pull in some CUSA, MWC, or WAC cast-offs?
• SportsAndLady

  

  enigmaax;885531 wrote:Makes sense and good point about the less conferences. How much does the individual TV market play into that, though? I mean, it wouldn't be worth it if you weren't bringing enough TVs to pay for yourself. Like, how beneficial would it be for the ACC or SEC to add West Virginia (just an example I've heard mentioned other places)? Another recent speculative example, would Florida State and Clemson be that good for the SEC since the SEC would already be in those markets by the time they launch a network? Or more relevant to this topic, how well would the Big XII do even if they did pull in some CUSA, MWC, or WAC cast-offs?

  My best bet would be that with 16 teams, you have enough teams to split up how you want to form your conference. You split it up between:
  
  1-tv markets (the syracuses, rutgers, missouris of the world)
  2-traditionally good football programs that will increase conference revenues from bowl games, etc. (the west virginias, oklahomas, etc.)
  3-the "miscellaneous"'s (for lack of better term)..these are the schools that maybe wouldn't bring in much revenue from a TV market, aren't traditional football powers..but bring something else to the table (Kansas for basketball revenue/brand, Boise St. for recent success, etc.)
  
  Like I said, with 16 teams in the conference, you can't just add 4 football powerhouses, there simply aren't enough regional powerhouses. You have to split it up evenly so the ups and downs balance each other out in the long run.
• dazedconfused

  

  enigmaax;885531 wrote:Makes sense and good point about the less conferences. How much does the individual TV market play into that, though? I mean, it wouldn't be worth it if you weren't bringing enough TVs to pay for yourself. Like, how beneficial would it be for the ACC or SEC to add West Virginia (just an example I've heard mentioned other places)? Another recent speculative example, would Florida State and Clemson be that good for the SEC since the SEC would already be in those markets by the time they launch a network? Or more relevant to this topic, how well would the Big XII do even if they did pull in some CUSA, MWC, or WAC cast-offs?

  
  
  i think the sec and the big 12 are the opposite ends of the spectrum. does the 12 team sec really need conference expansion? highly doubt it, especially if they are talking about adding schools already within their footprint (fsu/clemson). even if you are talking about schools outside of the sec footprint (a&m, mizzou, wv, md), does it really make sense? 12 is such an optimum number for a conference and the sec has been the standard-bearer for the perfect conference since its inception (look no further than the big 12, acc, pac 12 and big 12 copying the model). the only reason expansion makes sense for the sec is if there is more money to be made with 4 more teams and more importantly the money that would come from a re-worked television deal.
  
  the big 12, on the otherhand, sits at 9 and is on their death bed. before texas screwed the pooch and forced the jettisons of a&m/neb/cu, the big 12 had a pretty good model (a slightly poorer man's sec). now with the three departures and beebe all but in bed with the longhorns, the big 12 needs expansion - well that an equal revenue distribution and to stop catering to texas more than anything. is the list of likely, non-pipe dream candidates (houston, smu, air force, boise st, colorado st) great for the big 12? not at all but when you're facing an impending death, you have to do what you can to survive. also, if i were them, i'd put pressure on texas to conform to an equal revenue stream...what do they have to lose at this point? death of the conference? that's happening anyways
• karen lotz

  

  ChipBrownOB Chip Brown

  
  Hearing the SEC vote to admit Texas A&M was 10-2 and that West Virginia is squarely on the SEC radar as a potential 14th member.
  
  

• Sykotyk

  

  No way would Arizona/ASU jump from guaranteed millions to the Big 12 staggered revenue model where Texas controls the league. If not directly, but via sheer monetary power.
  
  The Big 12 can hold on and bring on some others, but I think the writing is on the wall and it's every man for themselves. That's why Texas A&M is trying to leave, Oklahoma has discussed it, and I'm sure KU/KSU/Mizzou/ISU/Baylor/TT have already started to flea the sinking ship in some way.
  
  And, as strange as it is to say, I see the Big East gaining a lot of these teams if the PAC-16 thing happens.
  
  You have TCU to thank for that going to the Big East. It opens up the central part of the country. And, the Big East now becomes a legitimate target for teams like Baylor, Kansas (could you imagine the Big East tournament now?), Kansas State and Iowa State. I think Missouri would be a shoe-in for the Big Ten if the 16-team shakedown happens everywhere.
  
  Plus, the Big East needs the numbers if the ACC tries to pillage from them if the SEC pillages the ACC.
  
  Sykotyk
• dazedconfused

  

  and now we focus our scope on norman, ok...
• SportsAndLady

  

  Sykotyk;885732 wrote:No way would Arizona/ASU jump from guaranteed millions to the Big 12 staggered revenue model where Texas controls the league. If not directly, but via sheer monetary power.

  Obviously the theory there, would be that Arizona and ASU would go to the "new and improved" Big 12. I'm sure revenue sharing would be in place, as well as a new TV contract solidifying the league for 8+ years.
• ts1227

  

  karen lotz;885718 wrote:ChipBrownOB Chip Brown

  
  I saw on some SEC boards when googling about this that Vandy may have abstained to start, and Ole Miss was the one school truly opposed, yet the formal vote was 12-0 (other 2 realized it didn't matter and came along for sake of appearance).
  
  Also, Fort Worth newspaper expects formal A&M to SEC announcement today.
  
  Your move, OU.
• enigmaax

  ts1227;885937 wrote: Also, Fort Worth newspaper expects formal A&M to SEC announcement today.

  http://www.kcbd.com/story/15408001/aggies-to-hold-press-conference-to-announce-its-entrance-into-the-sec
  
  Apparently the press conference is set. I'm more interested in who the 14th team will be as it seems like WVU has been picking up steam in the rumor circle.