Do college football fans really believe Big 12 is divided on adding FSU and Clemson?
Do you really think that the Big 12 would pass on two
football giants with storied histories and national championships?
Do you really believe that Deloss Dodds is so concerned
about power-mongering that he would deprive the conference of an economic
windfall and the chance to put a dagger through the heart of the ACC?
Do you really think that, given the chance to add FSU,
Clemson and Georgia Tech, the conference would bicker and argue over which of
the three teams to take?
The answer is painfully simple -- they would take all three.
The national media was slow to the Big 12 expansion story. They knew the Big 12 was a
whisker away from collapse last year and that internal conflict almost doomed the league. They missed out on the story because they refused to believe the Big 12
could be the hunter instead of the hunted.
But this isn’t your father’s Big 12.
This is a new conference with renewed purpose and strong
leadership. The grant-of-rights does more than lock conference members
together, it ensure that all institutions are treated equally – one school, one
vote.
I’m not naïve enough to think that Texas and Oklahoma don’t wield
tremendous influence in the conference,
but I’m certain both have to play by the rules.
Yet the grant-of-rights isn't the sole factor in the new found unity
of the Big 12. The leadership of Chuck Neinas and the prospect
of new television markets a giant pot of gold at the end of the expansion rainbow have helped to solidify the conference as much as the grant-of-rights.
Neinas convinced the Big 12 if they could only set aside their bickering they could compete with the SEC and thrive. It was his vision of the Big 12 that lead to the bowl alliance with the SEC and his vision of the Big 12 that has the league ready to deal the death blow to the ACC.
Neinas has no problems being the bad guy, after all it's just business.
Neinas convinced the Big 12 if they could only set aside their bickering they could compete with the SEC and thrive. It was his vision of the Big 12 that lead to the bowl alliance with the SEC and his vision of the Big 12 that has the league ready to deal the death blow to the ACC.
Neinas has no problems being the bad guy, after all it's just business.
The Big 12 sees the SEC as a nearly perfect model for what they want to
become. They see the SEC as an “ongoing business concern” whose export product
happens to be great college football.
And that’s why, despite what you may hear and read, the Big
12 is in total agreement on the additions of FSU and Clemson.
If Georgia Tech continues to show interest, interest that
seems to wax and wane almost daily, then the Big 12 will have no problem
following the SEC model and adding all three.
Big 12 members may gripe and complain about expansion and
their hesitancy to their local media but its all just posturing. Privately they're all behind the addition of any institution that adds economic value and improves their football product.
And don’t you think that a conference that has Texas,
Oklahoma, WVU, TCU, Oklahoma State, FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech would be
enough to lure Norte Dame into the fold?
I’ve said repeatedly I’m reluctant to write about Notre Dame
and I’m not ready to do that just yet. Let’s just say those rumors floating
about concerning Notre Dame and the Big 12 are more fact than fiction.
Musings…
The Big 12 will not expand (beyond 12) unless the teams add real value - think Georgia Tech and Notre Dame .
VPI and UNC have reached out to the SEC. In VPI’s case it’s
more than reaching out.
I have to believe that if UNC goes to the SEC then NC State joining
the Big 12 becomes a real possibility.
Expansion to 16 fits within the Big 12 model if the teams would add
value and teams like NC State and Maryland seem a good fit.
Obviously there was a much wider rift in the ACC between the football schools and basketball schools than anyone believed (see Andy Haggard's rant). Chuck Neinas, Oliver Luck and Kirk Schulz played that rift like virtuosos.
*I leave Miami out of the discussion because I believe they are no longer under consideration (by mutual consent).
unc leaving would bethe biggest blow no matter what fsu does. to have arguably fhe face of the acc leave is insane.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think UNC knows what's going on with FSU & Clemson? Do you really think they would sit by and see someone like NCST get that huge slice of SEC pie? The rats are always the first ones off a sinking ship.
DeleteNot saying that the report is insane or that you are for reporting, I'm just amazed to see them leave. Insane as in holy cow this is getting intersting.
DeleteThe interesting thing here is if the Big 12 could get to 16 with 6 of the following 7
ReplyDeleteFSU
Clemson
Notre Dame
Ga tech
Maryland
NC State
Louisville
a 16 team league could break into 4, 4 team subdivisions, with three games in division, three rotating across the divisions, and potentially, if you wanted a 9 8 model 3 dedicated rivalry games (an 8 game model could have 2 additional rotating games maybe?)
Or you can divide into two 8 team divisions, seven games in division, and 1-2 rotating through the other division. And of course a Championship game.
I like every choice but am lukewarm about both MD and NCST. Both are more desirable than Miami, but my hate for the 'Canes runs deep.
DeleteI don't want the Big 12 to renege on their promise to L'Ville
I really hope that UNC gets left out in the cold, they are part of the elitist ideology that doomed the ACC (by denying and an invite to WVA for ACC affiliation) and accepting Syracuse. To see them come out on the other side in the SEC (a league in which the FSU and Clemson fan bases both covet entry) would be like them continuing to stick it to us.
ReplyDeleteBut that's just my own personal bias. Having GT join the Big 12 with FSU & Clemson would ease that just a tad, but to see them rebound from this re-alignment and end up where my Tigers have always wanted to be would be would be like slat in the wound. But that is neither here nor there.
Either way, the thought of being in a division with like minded programs (and fanbases) w/WVU, FSU, GT, UL, ND, etc. will still be exciting.
Good work theDudeofWVA!
Heh, outside of Basketball and some other non revenue sports, UNC would become like another Vanderbilt or Kentucky in the SEC. it would be fun to see them try to compete in the SEC against the likes of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy, and unless the SEC realigns, Mizzouri.
Deleteoh I have no doubt they would be cellar dwellers in the SEC, but the thought of them making out financially after all of this I guess is what irks me. But I do agree, at the least it would be nice to see them get spanked. I certainly know what that feels like though.
DeleteUNC has "potential" to be a powerhouse CFB program, too, but their home state doesn't generate many top-level recruits. Hell, Mack Brown won there so I know it can be done. I'd be surprised to see the Tar Heels break away from Duke and UVa, but stranger things may happen.
DeleteWelcome aboard, WVU. Glad to have y'all on board.
Ok here is what people do not understand. The Grant of Rights does not signal "stability" or equality. The SEC has no grant of rights and never has. Members are free to leave when ever they want, with no exit fee's.
ReplyDeleteTexas is never going to share equally, and OU is their right hand man. That is why they will always make the most from tier 1 and 2 and that will never change.
Big 12 schools wanted BYU and Lousiville, Texas said NO. Texas wanted WVU and OU said NO, Texas won out.
WVU is not going to make as much as OU and Texas, neither is FSU, or Clemson, say hello to the OSU pay rate at BEST.
ND is not going to join, that needs to stop. All their rivalries are with the PAC and B1G. The B1G has had more prominent football members the entire time the Big 12 has existed. Yet ND never jumped ship to the B1G, and they are not going to jump ship to the Big 12 because of WVU, LOU,CLEM, and FSU. All those schools come from pathetic football conferences.
Jeremy you need to do a little fact checking. The Big 12 now has EQUAL revenue sharing and the grant-of-rights isn't the only factor in the new-found conference stability, but it is important. The grant-of-rights means that Texas doesn't have any options. They can't force their will by threatening to leave because they can't leave. When the Big 12 contract is announced you'll see that each team receives the SAME amount from T1 & T2 rights and that there is between a $6-$10 million gap between what the Big 12 earns and the ACC gets. Sorry to hit you with so much bad news but here's the kicker... FSU & Clemson ARE LEAVING THE ACC. Peace brother.
DeleteOne thing I've been wondering, if push comes to shove, why couldn't the grant-of-rights be subject to litigation the same way everything else has been? If Texas is adamantly opposed to expansion and the other proposed Pac 16 defectees (the Oklahoma duo and Texas Tech) are ambivalent and expansion nevertheless happens, what would stop Texas from filing suit using the same basic argument West Virginia used to get out of the Big East early?
Delete"VPI and UNC have reached out to the SEC. In VPI’s case it’s more than reaching out."
ReplyDeleteCan you expand on VPI is more than reaching out?
Sorry it messed up trying to login to aol account.
DeleteIf FSU and Clemson leave the ACC then VPI leaves for the SEC. The only question is which NC school they take with them.
DeleteIt would add to your credibility if you would spell your own conference commissioner's name correctly. It is spelled Neinas, not Nienas.
ReplyDeleteSome observations:
Of course Texas follows the rules, but they always make sure they write the rules first. They don't play fair, and they always make sure they benefit as much or more than anyone else. They also consistently put out disinformation that feeds their agenda, true or not.
Georgia Tech will not join the Big 12. Culturally, academically, and geographically they are not a good fit.
North Carolina has always been aligned with Duke and Wake Forest, and the school and conference is far superior academically to the Big 12 or the SEC. The ACC can absorb one or two defections like FSU and Clemson and still be a viable conference, so North Carolina is in far from bad shape given their basketball revenue.
Notre Dame is not a fit geographically or academically with the Big 12 and their alums believe that they are a unique school on the landscape of college football. It doesn't mean they won't play Big 12 schools, but they would not join the Big 12 or any conference unless forced, and it is clear the Big 10 would be their first choice for a variety of reasons if they did join.
Lastly, I totally agree with you about your most major point, that the Big 12 would take FSU and Clemson in a heartbeat. Deloss Dodds is a politician, and his comments are an attempt at plausible deniability against the Big 12 being accused of poaching teams from the ACC.
Thanks for the catch on Neinas. Culture and academics go out the window when money is involved. Georgia Tech is the one who reached out to the Big 12 after saying no initially. I reported that a few weeks ago and they just recently reached out again.
DeleteOnce again I think we should all remember the only culture that matters now is the culture of greed.
Jim, I don't think Texas will dominate the Big 12 like they have done in the past. TCU, WVU, FSU and Clemson have dynamic leaders who just wont play that game any longer. Texas can't threaten to leave either. Add four strong leaders to the conference and you'll see the Longhorn's power diminish, but no worry for the Horns, they'll have their money to keep them warm.
DeleteAnd finally, if Texas still had the power over the conference they had in the past the Big 12 would stay at 10.
I must disagree, things are not as black and white as you paint. Money is certainly a big driver, and maybe the most important, but not the only thing to schools. If that were true, Notre Dame would have joined a conference already, as they are far from being the top revenue school. Maybe academic prestige, geography and culture don't matter to you, but I assure you they matter to big donors, academics, university presidents, and board trustees. It is part of the formula that achools must consider in what could be a 100 year commitment.
DeleteRegarding Texas, after the defections from the conference (three of which were laid directly at their feet) they now have a situation where the remaining (and new members too for that matter) are completely dependent on them for staying in the conference. If Texas leaves, the conference would be crippled, and they know it.
They have by far the most revenue in college sports, and the gap will only widen in the coming years. Texas has exactly what they want: a money and power advantage over other schools. They will use the Big 12 and maintain their power there until it ceases to be of use to them. If you think that is not true, then you haven't researched enough or are just naive.
Jim, Texas is locked into the Big 12 for at least 13 years. If they go they leave their TV rights with the Big 12 and, when FSU and Clemson, join the conference, it wont need Texas to survive.
DeleteTrust me on this one. Texas and DeLoss Dodds will not have an advantage over the new blood in the conference with Oliver Luck and such. Here's a story about Luck. He was against the Marshall series forced on WVU by the Governor. The Governor tried to force WVU to renew the series for an additional 15 years but Luck refused and actually got up and walked out on the Governor. No one will intimidate or Oliver Luck or TCU's AD.
And once again... if Texas were calling the shots the Big 12 would stay at 10.
First, the 13 year agreement has not been signed, and neither was the 6 year rights agreement. Secondly, when it is signed, I guarantee you that there will be an "out" provision, with a fee payment, that Bevo could easily afford.
DeleteTexas is calling the shots, and they also need plausible deniability so that they or the conference don't get sued. They want to expand all right, they just don't want to be accused of paoching.
To your point, Texas will always have an advantage, because they have the power. They have the TV sets, football demographics which continue to grow unlike the midwest and WV, they have a premier national football reputation, and even academic superiority of the rest of the Big 12. Lastly they have an imbalanced conference for which they have been the architect.
Oliver Luck is only as important as the TV sets ($)his school brings, which are not huge. Please remember also that WV had to be lent money by the conference just to be able to join. WV needs Texas and the Big 12 way more than Texas needs them. WV was stuck in the dying Big East and had already been turned down by the ACC and SEC. WV and TCU were added to keep the ten team minimum in place for TV contracts and to restore faith in the Big 12 because Texas had decided to stay.
None of the problems that drove Nebraska, Missouri, and A&M from the conference have been solved. The tiered payouts to members and the 15 million each year paid to Texas exclusively through the LHN is proof of that. No other power conference would allow that advantage to Texas. It is the only reason they stayed.
The best con game of all is the one that people deny even exists. When Nebraska, A&M and Missouri called Bevo on it, Bevo refused to compromise. They didn't think those schools would leave. They were wrong. So now they have had to scramble to try and prove that they have changed to restore stability to the conference. They haven't. If you never even admit that you're in a con game, you have no chance of ever finding out what happens to the ball under the cup.
Jim. You are wrong. The 6 year grant-of-rights has been signed and equal revenue sharing is in place. The only advantage Texas has over the rest of the Big 12 is the LHN. The grant-of-rights also does not have a buyout clause that is less than than the value of the rights and it will be extended to 13 years.
DeleteNo, the 6 year grant was never signed. They agreed in principle, that is all. If they signed it, surely you can provide a link. I have challenged others and they can't. And until you can show me the contract itself that proves that a 13 year grant is basically a forfeit of all revenue over that period, it defies credibility, and Texas isn't that stupid. Neither is Oklahoma.
DeleteThe "only" advantage Texas has? Are you kidding me? The "new" Big 12 contract will ramp up to (yes ramp up, not start at) 20 million per school. The LHN pays Texas an additional 15 million per year for 20 years now. Do you think ESPN might also exert their political clout to defend their 300 million dollar investment in just one school?
Look, this is your forum and you will always have the last word. This will be my final post on this thread. I would suggest in writing this blog that you are writing like a "True Believer Fan" of the Big 12 your school and not a dispassionate objective observer of the national football landscape.
Therein lies the self-deception.
Jim. I can't share a link but I know it has been signed. I am biased towards WVU and that shouldn't be hard to figure it out, but I don't stick my head in the sand and wish cowpies would turn into apples.
DeleteCertainly by now you have accepted the fact that FSU & Clemson are moving to the Big 12. If not then certainly you accept the fact they have had serious discussions and all signs point to them leaving. Ask yourself why would FSU & Clemson leave the ACC for the Big 12 if they were not assured the conference was stable?
I think we can agree they would not.
Also if the grant of rights had not been signed wouldn't you think Clemson & FSU would push Swofford to fortify the football product by adding a school like WVU?
The other factor I want you to consider is the SEC - Big 12 alliance. Do you think the SEC would choose the Big 12 over the ACC if it had concerns about the stability of the conference? Do you think the SEC would enter into that agreement with the Big 12 if they thought Texas and/or Oklahoma would bolt?
The fact is that Texas, and to some extent Oklahoma, are untouchables in the college football world. What conference would want Texas should the Longhorns bring about the collapse of the Big 12 through petty machinations?
I argue that not single conference would consider Texas solely because they have the reputation as a troublemaker.
And we both know the independent route once considered by Texas has no future in college football.
Texas knows it has to sleep in the bed it made and it has decided that a healthy Big 12 is a healthy Texas.
Please don't think your comments are not valued, because they are. Just because we have dissenting views doesn't mean you are welcome.
It's just the facts at my disposal tell me a different story than the one you are advocating and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the conversation is civil.
Jim... should be you Just because we have dissenting views doesn't mean you are NOT welcome. By all means participate.
DeleteGuys -
DeleteY'all don't need to worry about Texas and DeLoss "bullying" anybody. UT gets the same ONE vote as every other member of the Big 12. Signing over the Tier 1 and 2 "grant of rights" was HUGE for stability and guarantees that each member is locked in for 13 years minimum.
The facts are the whiners from Nebraska and A&M NEVER voted for equal revenue sharing. Funny how we're able to make this happen after they, CU and Mizzou left. Why is that?
Now, do I believe DeLoss wields significant influence? You bet. But, even he realizes that staying at 10 teams at this time will be fiscally irresponsible. Bigger is definitely better. The new BcS playoff system almost dictates that we need a CCG.
The SEC has the same model as the updated Big 12 pact. Will that change if/when the "SEC Network" launches? Perhaps, but Slive needs to sell his members on relinquishing their Tier 3 rights. Florida makes over $10mm annually with their Fox/Sun Sports agreement. Entrepreneurial spirit is a good thing!
Hook 'Em -
JB
Okay, I'll bite. And thanks for the civility your way too.
DeleteI will believe Clemson and FSU to Big 12 when they announce it. I will say that it wouldn't shock me. I've never disputed that as a possibility, and we know they are talking. But talks don't guarantee agreements.
I also believe the Big 12 is stable right now. I never said otherwise. What I said was the the causes of the instability that drove NU, A&M, and Mizzou from the conference are still there. All ten of the current Big 12 members less OU and UT could not do better in another conference that would invite them, so they aren't going anywhere. OU and UT can have their own cake to eat and not share with other members, so they are content for now, until the landscape changes again.
The problem with this scenario though is a disincentive for schools that have other options for conferences that have true revenue sharing and a true conference network in place or planned. The reason that FSU and Clemson are considering the Big 12 is because neither of those schools has SEC, PAC, or B1G options, and the ACC is fast falling behind in football.
The 13 year rights agreement has not been signed yet, which was publicly announced, pending the completion of the new Big 12 TV contracts. Once again I suggest that there will be a buyout clause or an out which is not just a 13 year forfeiture of revenue for OU and UT. If you can produce a contract that says otherwise, I would admit that I am wrong. But I am not.
UT and OU are far from untouchable. They each have baggage which can be overcome. OU's is the tie with Okie Lite, academics, and smaller TV footprint. UT's is their unwillingness to share all revenue equally and be a member, instead of THE member.
Ultimately, there are schools (like WV and TCU) that can live with the inequalities, since it provides a better conference and more revenue than they had before.
Whatever happens, it is certainly interesting to watch, and as we know, it isn't done yet.
I expect the 13 year grant of rights to be signed at the upcoming Big 12 meeting. DeLoss confirmed as much during an interview on LHN.
DeleteI understand that the extension of the grant-of-rights is expected when the TV contract is signed.
DeleteJim, with each new school added to the Big 12 I really believe Texas will have less and less ability to force their will on the conference. What could happen is the best football school in the ACC (- VPI & one other) will join the Big 12. Then the conference, in my opinion, is bullet proof.
I've been following the talks with Clemson and FSU since last December and I never really believed it would happen until a few weeks ago. It's happening... and it will be resolved soon.
May I ask which school you support?
JB,
DeleteI totally agree with you about Texas recognizing the value of at least 12 teams, which includes a championship game. It drives more revenue and insures conference stability. After all, you are the "Big 12." Most of us understand the need for plausible deniability in public comments.
Missouri worked hard for a long term grant of rights, right up until the time they left. Texas was not in favor of more than 5 years at that time. Missouri pushed for 10. The reason Texas changed their view was the imminent risk of the Big 12 losing its TV contracts since they fell below the required 10 teams. The only way to attract decent schools was a longer grant of rights which shared that revenue equally, as equal revenue sharing is also new for the Big 12. Ironically, had Texas originally agreed to the 13 years with equal shares, Missouri might not have left.
Schools have already signed over third tier rights in the SEC. The conference has allowed them to be used by the individual schools until the launch of the SEC network, which looks like it will happen in 2014.
Florida third tier revenue includes their radio rights for sports like basketball. To compare, Kansas derives 7 million each year for their third tier rights, almost all of it from basketball.
Dude,
DeleteI think that VPI would join the SEC first over the Big 12 if offered there, as would the Carolina schools. That doesn't mean I think it will happen though.
As far as fandom, I am a huge college football and basketball fan of a lot of teams nationwide. I live in Kansas but am a Missouri alum. But I hate the sectarian flaming that has only intensified lately.
WV made a great move for themselves in going to the Big 12, and I was in favor of it before it happened. You have an excellent football and basketball program, and have made yourselves nationally relevant.
I always enjoyed watching Missouri play Texas teams in basketball and football. If you want to be the best you have to beat the best.
The Big 12 dissolving is in nobody's best interest.
What I would love to see happen for the Big 12 is 100 percent equal revenue sharing and the creation of a fixed channel Big 12 Network. A rising tide will lift all boats. With that in place you won't need rights agreements or exit fees, because there would be little incentive to leave for a mere couple of million when everbody's pulling together.
Perhaps one day it will come to pass, just like it will in the PAC, B1G and SEC.
@JimD
DeleteThanks for the Mizzou history lesson. I didn't know how they voted, to be honest. I just followed the rhetoric coming out of College Station and Lincoln.
Do you think Mizzou wants a do-over? :-)
Jim:
DeleteThanks for the great debate on grant-of-rights. The way I understand it the agreement is that if a school leaves the Big 12 the rights to their 1st and 2nd tier rights stay with the conference. Both the Pac 12 and Big 10 have a grant of rights correct?
Also don't you think the Big 12 would fight long and hard over the grant of rights issue should Texas decide to bolt?
Here's the thing... I think Texas is committed to the success of the Big 12. I really do.
But it comes down to this, if CU, FSU and GT join the Big 12 the conference could survive Texas leaving and still be viable.
I don't think that happens, but the rest of the Big 12 wants insurance against the potential threat and thus expansion beyond 10 to 12 or 14.
And the Big 12 would be adding quality schools. Most people in the ACC would argue that WVU isn't a premier program but I say the last 15 years tell a different story.
In all honesty, I agree with Jim on the Big 12 Network.
DeleteI was vocal from the start against LHN. Why? There's simply not enough content for it to be interesting 24/7. We need all Big 12 conference members, their non-rev sports and history for a compelling sports channel.
One of the biggest programming features to be included with LHN was Texas High School (University Interscholastic League) sports. Not surprisingly, A&M raised hell over this and justifiably so. At the time, the NCAA didn't have a rule against this programming. Now they do. LHN has suffered b/c of this loss.
Do I think the LHN is sustainable? Not without a significant boost in major carriers. Right now, it isn't even available in Austin b/c Time Warner owns that market. I've gotta believe ESPN has an "out clause" if LHN fails to meet subscriber and/or profitability targets.
I'd really like to see a Big 12 Network if/when LHN fails and the plug is pulled.
JB,
DeleteI don't think Missouri wants a do-over at this point. I think the pain and frustration of the whole fiasco has made them glad to be able to breathe fresh air. Of course, the SEC is a tough road, and there are sharks in them-there waters too.
When Nebraska left, I have to admit I was sad to lose a good competitor that had a lot of history with us. But I never got angry about it.
There isn't intense hatred and envy for all things Bevo like A&M seems to have.
So I guess you should never say never, but every alum and fan I talk to seems happy to be out of the turmoil and concern that another shoe will drop.
Dude,
Yes, the PAC and Big 10 have a grant of rights only as long as they are in the conference. One to two years of exit fees protects the conferences from lost revenue until they find a replacement. Same as the Big 12 used to have. No difference, except 3rd tier are or will be included in those two conferences. In the SEC there is also a grant of rights as long as you are a member and zero exit fees.
Neither side would want to have a protracted legal struggle if Texas wanted to leave. I think it would make the Big 12 look bad in the long term to try and hold any school to a decade or longer of lost rights, and if that happened, I think you would finally see politicians getting involved in a bad way, and nobody wants that. More likely is a negotiated settlement or a trigger in the contract that allows a team to pay and leave.
I don't want to underestimate the importance of the 13 year term though. I think it was an excellent strategy from a PR point of view and necessary to instill confidence in fans, the media and potential new members for the Big 12 going forward. I think you will see that in the next two or three years, that grant of rights will be minimized if not eliminated because nobidy will want to leave at that point.
I totally agree with you that if FSU, Clemson, and Ga Tech were to join the Big 12, they could afford to lose Texas and still be a top football conference. No doubt. But that isn't the case today.
In this crazy landscape of college football it seems like just about anything is possible.
Given the timing and need for the Big 12 to get back to 10 teams quickly, I think West Virginia was an excellent choice for both sides.
If (and as someone who would prefer to see the ACC remain intact I have to hold on to the "if") the Big 12 does poach FSU and Clemson, it would be wise to go big and get at least one other deep south like Georgia Tech, if not more. Because of their history as an independent FSU might be suited to play what amounts to a national schedule but Clemson has pretty much been playing nothing but southern schools throughout its history- will its fanbase remain energized playing a schedule with Big 12 North schools and West Virginia replacing the likes of GT and the Carolina schools? A game here or there against Texas and Oklahoma might be worthwhile but what about when those schools fall off the schedule and the replacements aren't up to snuff (everything is cyclical, two years ago Texas Tech was an entertaining draw, today its not). And before anyone says new rivalries can be forged, ask the Big East how well the Pittsburgh-Cincy "rivalry" ended up working out (and that one actually had a natural feel to it). For the sake of making sure this works across the board, the Big 12 needs to make a big southern swing if its going to make one at all.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, valid points. The only way for the Big 12 to expand is east and south. Also consider how damn tough the conference is going to be when the four new school are all in the fold. Wouldn't you want a breather here and there? I can see a cross-divisional game in the Big 12 to match Texas and FSU or WVU and Oklahoma...great tv in my opinion.
DeletePlease remember when you talk about the Bearcat - Panther rivalry you are still talking about Cincy and Pittsburgh. No comparison to the passion that rural schools feel for college football compare to urban schools like Cincy and Pittsburgh where the landscape is dominated by pro sports.
Well that's the thing, outside of Texas and Oklahoma, there is no sure thing cross-divisional game to bank on- Oklahoma St and Baylor are both just a few years removed from being complete non-entities (or worse, in Baylor's case) and there's no way to know how TCU will really do in a BCS league over the long haul. There will be years where Clemson is looking at a schedule where the only worthwhile games they play that are within easy transport are the games (home or away) against FSU and West Virginia and it's likely only one of those games would be a home game in a given year.
DeleteI do hope that the Big 12 can convince another 2 ACC schools to join the Big 12 w/FSU and Clemson (GT/Miami). I know Miami is a toxic situation, but they still have national appeal (save that convo for another day though). But I agree with the premise that adding a 3rd or 4th ACC school to the expansion would at least hold some of the rivalry aspects of respective teams together. Although Louisville and ND would be great additions too imo.
DeleteBy all accounts seems that the Big 12 is setting itself up to make a run a putting together top-notch football focused conference though, starting to think they are not going to rush to #13-#16 ... it will be an interesting thing to follow how things shake and bake and all sort out a couple of years from now.
Dude,
ReplyDeleteQuick question, if the first four in are FSU, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Georgia Tech - why would the Big 12 add anyone else. It appears to me that adding two more teams at that point would only dilute the payout per school...
Dude,
ReplyDeleteLove your blog and tweets! Why doesn't the Big 12 think BIGGER and get NYC market by grabbing Rutgers?
Rutgers has even less fan support than Pitt and Cincy. Why bother?
DeleteNot based on attendance, bowl travel, or TV ratings. We average 15-23k the last 5 spring games. Pitt cant fill a HS field.
DeleteNo disrespect to Rutgers. I'm not really familiar with the Scarlet Knights' facilities, attendance figures or Nielson ratings. It's just my uninformed "perception" at this point.
DeleteBut, I don't have a high opinion of any urban, east coast CFB program. Including "The U" Miami.
Just thinking out loud here if Big 12 goes to 14 teams and 2 7 Team divisions how does the following sound?
ReplyDeleteDiv I Div 2
Texas - TCU
Oklahoma - Oklahoma St
Texas Tech - Baylor
Kansas - Kansas ST
Georgia Tech - Florida St
Notre Dame - Clemson
Iowa State - West Virginia
This arrangement gives each school at least one trip each year to Texas, a trip every other year to Kansas and Oklahoma, and Georgia/South Carolina are hit every other year. D epending on how many games they rotate that is. (I admit Iowa State VS WV doesn't sound like a great rivalry game on the surface right now, but with TCU signing a deal to play Texas on Thanksgiving, I could see that Being a Rivalry to replace A&M. Baylor and TCU both used to be in the SWC, so I picture either them as cross division rivals, or same division in a 14 team struggle. The interesting thing is, what happens if it goes to 16? Who would the next 2 in be, and addmittedly, in this configuration Notre Dame might not be in right away so they might need a 15th team that can come in quickly. (Would Louisville be a more natural rival to the WVU Mountaineers, or Iowa State?)
Also Notre Dame used to play Georgia Tech a lot as I recall. I could see them and FSU being in the Same Division, with Ga Tech being Notre Dame's designated rival. Right now I think I have it as Clemson though so who knows :/
Imagine this setup for a 2 Division 16 team league.a 4 division league is tricky, but I could see a fixed rivalry game whereby all the TX schools are in separate divisions ... but here's a potential 2 team break out. And yeah this may be a stretch. But man, if Miami and FSU recover their strength, wow what a tough schedule WVU would have.
16 Team 2 Divisions
Div I Div 2
1 Texas - TCU
2 Oklahoma - Oklahoma St
3 Texas Tech - Baylor
4 Kansas - Kansas St
5 Georgia Tech - Clemson
6 Notre Dame - Florida St
7 Iowa St -Maryland/Pitt/Louisville
8 Miami - West Virginia
For some reason I have a hard time picturing us playing Clemson or FSU regularly or notre dame for that matter. Still Wow... what a football league that could be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere's my vision for a Big 16. Four pods.
DeleteTexas; UT, TT, Baylor, TCU
Heartland; OU, OSU, KU, K-State
Midwest; Iowa St, ND, L'Ville, WVU
Southeast; FSU, VaTech, Clemson, GaTech
Play a 9 game Big 16 schedule with maybe 2 cross-divisional "rivalries"; ie UT vs OU (this goes without saying)and ND every year. Yeah, I know that's selfish but it's just an example. Other 4 conference games are on a rotation.
Couple points I want to clarify here
ReplyDeleteOne- Jim can you post a link showing the actually PAC 12 or BIG 10 tv deals. Not an espn link an actual link of the contract.
Two- if you were to find it, you would see that the PAC 12 and big 10 have a grant of rights. Their tier 3 deals included a grant of rights by the school. So no, the big 12 isn't the only one with them.
Thirdly - if FSU and Clemson left the acc, the tv contract is out the window. Do so e research, vt FSU, Clemson and Miami are at the top of list for why the acc gets the tv deal (FSU second Clemson 3-4)
Take those two away and you are looking at a big east deal
Kansas Big 12 Pride,
DeleteYour first and second points are interrelated, so I will combine them. In any other conference, you don't sign away your rights for 13 years, your rights are pledged for as long as you are a part of the conference. If you leave, there may be exit fees to cover the lost revenue from the contract for a year or two until you are replaced, very similar to what the Big 12 used to have.
The reason for the long future pledge (13 years) was due to the instability in the conference and the gross disparities in revenue between members, and the imminent collapse of the TV contracts, which required the Big 12 to have at least 10 teams. Before that, there were unequal payouts with gross disparities, and a great deal of discord among members, not just the ones that left. No other major conference requires that 13 year pledge, because they don't have to.
The exception to the general conference rules is the SEC. If you leave, there are no fees. Once you leave, your TV rights are your own.
On your last point, I didn't disagree with any of that. In fact, I agree. The major football programs in the ACC are driving the revenue for TV contracts, though general population in member states is also a significant part of the calculus.
The problem in the ACC is that four schools share North Carolina viewers, two schools share Florida, and two schools share Virginia. Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech carry a disproportionate load in their commitment and spending on football and don't get as much benefit from the revenue compared to other ACC schools who will not spend as much.
Unfortunately, Miami has signalled that they want to de-emphasize sports under Donna Shalala. With FSU's sports deficits, the Big 12 becomes an attractice option if the SEC doesn't invite them. Same for Clemson. The SEC doesn't want to duplicate states. That's why they may join the Big 12.
Just double-checked. The Big 12 G-o-R will EFFECTIVELY bar defection. Bugging my friend for details.
DeleteI'm trying to get Bob Burda to clarify issues on the gant-of-rights. He's away at the baseball tournament but I've emailed him.
DeleteThere's one thing that I've been wondering and I hope someone could help with- can someone please clarify why the grant of rights is so binding where just about every other legal contract throughout the full realignment saga (going back to Nebraska and Colorado) has been subject to negotiation through lawsuit? Not saying this would ever happen but if a school like Texas wanted out of the Big 12 bad enough, what would actually prevent them from filing suit to get out of the grant of rights?
ReplyDeleteWillaim,
DeleteNothing would truly prevent them from negotiating their way out. No suits were filed with any other Big 12 member leaving (even A&M, it was just threatened by Baylor's Ken Starr) they just negotiated an exit fee, which would have been zero if they had waited a full two years.
I would suspect that a negotiation would be more likely than a lawsuit if Texas truly wanted to leave.
Thanks Jim, that goes along with what I've thought all along, that the grant of rights really doesn't provide any more stability than a high exit fee.
DeleteNone of this is happening talking about things like you think you know what is going on is not going to make it happen. Move along nothing to see here.
ReplyDelete13 x $20M =$260M
ReplyDelete13 x $25M =$325M
13 x $30M =$390M
$260M-$390M > any other exit fee ($20M typically).
nice written
ReplyDelete