Wha?!? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Wha?!? (/thread-212.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Wha?!? (/thread-212.html)
Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-15-2010
Quote:The blogosphere is full of unsolicited advice. The Bleacher Report suggests the Pac-10 turn its raider\'s eye to the Mountain West Conference and add 4 more schools: Utah, BYU, TCU and Boise State.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406310-pac-10-expansion-alternative-choices
Wow, two religious schools and a truck driving school? Â No, thanks.
Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-15-2010
The latest rumors are that UT, OU and aTm will be the only recipients of the NU and CU exit penalties.
The rest of the Big Texas Conference just loves to take a beating.
Re: Wha?!? - Spiny_Norman - 06-15-2010
The numbers that I have seen are telling. Â This is the amount of the conference tv contracts according to espn. Â
Conference   Amount of contract
Big Ten       $242 million
SEC Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â $205 million
Big 12 Â Â Â Â Â Â $78 million
ACC Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â $67 million
Pacific-10 Â Â Â Â Â $58 million
Big East      $33 million
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5285680
You can see why the Pac 10 schools gave Larry Scott a specific mandate - increase the tv revenue to remain competitive. Â I guess the thinking was that the legacy Pac 10 configuration is not attractive enough to the networks to bring in the desired big bucks. Â So they shot for the moon (anyone want to guess whether the PAX 16 idea came from CAA or a consulting firm like McKinsey - an org that does not have to live with the consequences).
The result is that the Pac 10 invitation was the perfect bargaining chip/leverage point that the Big 12 needed to get max value for ITS next tv contract. Â Those schools are going to double their money. Â The Pac 11 should be getting gift basket thank yous from the 10 remaining Big 12 schools.
Re: Wha?!? - terry - 06-15-2010
Garvin is right. The Pac 10\'s next TV contract is going to bring a substantial increase in TV money -- with or without Colorado/Utah. The increase is going to happen just because the market price has gone up -- regardless of expansion or a conference championship game.
The question is whether Colorado/Utah will bring in enough additional money to offset the fact that we have to split it 12 ways instead of 10. Assuming Utah is in, we\'re expanding the conference by 20%. So, for the existing schools to break even, the addition of Colorado/Utah needs to increase the conference\'s revenue by at least 20%. To add some incremental value, I would hope to see Colorado/Utah increase the conference\'s revenue by a lot more than 20%.
Colorado and Utah will add some value to the TV contract, but I really doubt that they will add 20%. I don\'t have the detailed TV rating analysis that the networks will use, but I\'m pretty sure that the numbers of viewers in Colorado and Utah isn\'t going to add 20% to the Pac 10\'s existing TV market. For what it\'s worth, I figure that the population of Colorado and Utah is about 14% of the population of the four existing Pac 10 states. My guess is that Colorado and Utah will dilute the per-school value of the new TV contract because their incremental value will not be enough to offset splitting it 12 ways instead of 10.
With just Colorado, there might not be any dilution. The Colorado market is significantly bigger than the Utah market. If we were to just add Colorado, that\'s only a 10% expansion in the conference, so we would need to get only an extra 10% from the TV deal to avoid dilution. I suspect the TV networks will view the Colorado market as adding another 10% in value. It\'s the much smaller Utah market that causes the dilution.
The other additional source of income if we add both Colorado and Utah will be a conference championship game in football. That will bring in some extra money -- maybe $1 million per school per year. That money probably will be enough to allow us to break even or have a slight benefit from expansion. But the additional dollars really are not going to be terribly significant in an overall athletic budget of $60 million or $70 million.
We would be better off not expanding. Having committed to Colorado, I\'d rather just stand pat with 11 teams, and wait to see what happens in the future. I don\'t see the addition of Utah as being in the conference\'s long-term best interest.
Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-15-2010
An interesting analysis Terry...and the BIG X may not last that long given the lopsided TX benefit compared with the others....it may also be that BB exaggerated to keep the horses in the barn. Either way, there are bound to be some unhappy schools in that conference.
Re: Wha?!? - Leftcoast - 06-15-2010
Yup .... the Big 12 is the weak sister of conferences - no great loyalty between the schools and a shrinking common good holding them together. Â I suspect the Big 12 will soon go the way of the old SWC. Â
Remind me, WHY do we want those guys?
Re: Wha?!? - Kathy - 06-15-2010
You\'re not the one who needs reminding, Lefty. Larry Scott fell for UT\'s power play, just like the Big Ten\'s Jim Delaney did. And the rest of the poor saps in the Big 12 can only hang on for the ride.
Re: Wha?!? - fullmetal - 06-15-2010
TCU and Boise State would be great adds. BYU runs afoul of the religious institution test that seems to exist in rumor land. Â I don\'t actually know how Christian TCU is though...maybe they run afoul as well.
Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-15-2010
Do we need to revisit all the reasons BSU would be an awful fit for us? Â They are good at football and wrestling. Â Nothing else. Â Tiny market. Â Atrocious academics. Â Low attendance. Â Pass.
Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-15-2010
Whatever you do, don\'t say anything to Scott. Â After what TX likely sold him, he\'s the perfect candidate for the BP stock I need to sell*
*They just raised the estimate of the amount of oil leaking into the gulf from 35k barrels to 60k a day.
An out-of-the-box idea - needle - 06-15-2010
An out-of-the-box idea (that will almost certainly never happen):
Three four-team divisions, with top two teams for championship game determined by conference winning percentage with BCS standing as a tiebreaker (think the NBA).
Sked:
Three opponents the same every year.
Calif. schools get stuck with four-six conference opponents each year but an extra home game, other divisions may have fewer conference games (to minimize travel concerns).
Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-15-2010
NCAA rules require 2 divisions that each play round robin to allow 2 teams to meet in an exempt 13th game (CCG). So, while I like thinking outside the box, we\'d need to change NCAA rules to get there. We may have an easier time just taking the top two records as a rule change.
I get where the 3 divisions come from, though. Makes geographic sense.
But please, keep the BCS rankings out of this. The three-way tie in the Big XII South a few years ago was resolved with the BCS rankings and it left a bad taste in many mouths. Besides, there is no reason to provide the BCS any more undeserved legitimacy than it already has.
Re: Wha?!? - needle - 06-15-2010
I found this March article where Scott discussed the idea of a conference title game without expansion.
Pac-10 looking at title game possibilities -- without expansion
By Dennis Dodd
CBS Sports.com Senior Writer
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13102294/pac10-looking-at-title-game-possibilities-without-expansion
If the schools think as fans do, that two divisions would be bad all the way around, I think Scott would push for a change to the rule requirements for staging a championship game. Â Not sure how far he\'d get.
But while I\'m assuming the Pac championship game is a done deal, there\'s also this quote from Scott:
Quote:"I don\'t see expansion tied to a championship [game] and a network," Scott said. "I do think our conference is very well laid out for the possibility of a network. While we don\'t have as many states or the population, let\'s say, of the Big Ten, there\'s logic to the way our conference is laid out."
Re: Wha?!? - dabigv13 - 06-15-2010
Larry Scott = Lyle Lanley
Well, sir, there\'s nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Expandified,
Sixteen-team
Megaconference!
What\'d I say?
Megaconference!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw
Re: Wha?!? - yvonne - 06-15-2010
I like Needle\'s idea, and was even thinking of it on my own before I read it here. Â It makes perfect sense, which is why it won\'t happen: California schools (Southern or California Division), Northwest schools (Northern Division), and schools with no Pacific coast (Eastern Division). Â
I\'m not sure how the rest of the schedule would be set up (two from each other division?), but it would preserve rivalries.