Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Emo EMAW]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument. 

[DQ12]

Still waiting for someone to present the scenario in which it would be beneficial to the Big 12. It's been four days with this and I've yet to read one.

Where two 11-1 Big 12 teams are ranked 5th and 6th, and the undefeated ACC champ is playing 24th ranked Duke in the ACC championship game.

You do understand that the winner of our game would be 12-1, right?

The premise is that we are trying to get one in the playoff, not both.  If you are trying to get two in the playoff, yes, the analysis is different.  But that possibility is so remote that I don't think it is worth spending much time on.

uh yeah.  i just gave him a scenario where a championship game would be beneficial.

That still doesn't guarantee anything. Wouldn't it be better just to hope for a top 4 loss on championship Saturday? Chum's post is 100% correct.

Of course it doesn't guarantee anything, but it guarantees a big 12 team being 12-1 and would be beneficial for the playoff hunt.

fwiw, i'm absolutely fine not having a CCG, but there are scenarios where a CCG helps.  i mean, it obviously helped Ohio State last year.

[Panjandrum]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

I do think this is where we're heading, too.

The CFP committee, TV networks, other conferences, etc. are going to force us to conform either through penalty or reward.

FWIW, I think OU is going to spearhead expansion to get a network, first and foremost.  Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, I think they want one for two reasons: stability and exposure.  It's why Boren was talking about one when he made his comments back in the summer.

I think the thought is that if we get everyone tied into a network, or at least everyone sans Texas, it will be enough to keep the band together.  Also, the fact that Fox already has all of our T2 rights and the vast majority of our T3 rights makes it pretty easy for them to figure out how to do it quickly and profitably. 

If KU actually had a T3 deal worth a crap, I don't think we'd get this thing off of the ground, but I think it will be relatively easy to buy back their rights.  KU basketball on our network, and Big 12 basketball in general, will be a big driver of value for the network.

The other thing to take into consideration here is that Fox is going to make a play for the Big Ten's T1 TV rights in 2016, or at the very least, look to share that cost with ESPN like they do with us and the Pac 12.  With ESPN losing money, it sounds like that model is preferable to them than no Big Ten at all.  That means more Big 12 games will get bumped from Big Fox and FS1 since we'll share both platforms with the Pac 12 and Big Ten.

So, when that happens, Fox will control more of our content on the various cable networks, and it will be pretty easy to move those parts back and forth between FS1 and a Big 12 Network like it's easy for ESPN to move stuff from their networks and the SECN.

The other thing to keep in mind, as some will question our ability to get carriage in areas outside of the Midwest, will be the fact that Fox controls the BTN as well, so it would be possible for them to shoehorn our network and the BTN as a larger package deal in areas outside of our footprint to at least get a nickle per subscriber or something.  There has allegedly been discussions between Fox and the Pac-12 about selling off a majority share of the P12N to Fox for the same reason.

So, if all of those came to fruition, you'd have a similar deal where the Big 12, Pac 12, and Big Ten all have that sharing model of carriage with ESPN on T1 and T2 games, but Fox would run all of the conference networks in a similar fashion to how they run the BTN, and they could easily package them as a bundle to hammer everyone over the head with.

It's kind of shrewd, to be honest.  You get ESPN to help you pay for the most expensive content, and then you bundle the volume.

[Steffy08]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument.

Exactly.  The argument was never about whether it was actually going to happen, but whether it was possible to establish rules beforehand that would identify situations in which the Big 12 would benefit from a game.  It is possible.  Yes, other conferences would pitch a fit, but that just proves how it benefits the Big 12.

[michigancat]

Is there evidence that adding Houston and Memphis/cincy is the deciding factor between a network or no network? I see Houston adding nothing, and Memphis or cincy adding very little.

[Panjandrum]

Oh, and one other thing...

With ESPN losing subscribers, and Disney hammering on them every quarter for dragging their projected revenues into the tank, it's supposedly pushed the ACC Network off for a couple of years (if not indefinitely), due to the costs of starting a network.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/acc-network-launch-pushed-back-further-at-espns-request.html

I wouldn't be at all surprised, if we came up with a network, to see ESPN willing to buyout the LHN and just take the loss.  It costs them about $26 million annually to run the network, and Texas is only generating about, roughly, $20-22 million a year (give or take), and then they have to give Texas a $10 million share on top of that, so they're probably losing somewhere around $15 million a year on the LHN.  Even if they get broader carriage, that amounts to pennies per subscriber, which only equates to hundreds of thousands in new monthly revenue for ESPN.  At the $.02 a subscriber they get for the LHN outside of Texas, to make an additional million dollars a year off of it, they need like 4.2 million new subscribers (napkin math).  They're already sitting at 20 million with carriage from ATT, Dish, DirecTV, etc.  It would take Comcast and Time Warner to buy in, and even then, say they got around 50 million subscribers, they would make around...$26 million at current subscriber rates.

Right now, personally, I think the only thing stopping ESPN from killing the LHN is that they don't want to eat a nine figure settlement when they're already dragging down Disney's bottom line.

If Texas and ESPN would be willing to settle, I think we'll have a Big 12 Network.  But, until then, they have until June 30, 2031 to run the network.

Lawyers can probably tell me how that settlement would go considering Texas still has something like $150 million in guaranteed revenues from the LHN between now and then.

[Belvis Noland]

this thread makes me think Pan doesn't have gainful employment.  or he works nights. 

[Katpappy]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument.

The crap Steffy, Rusty and you want is the very reason Delaney wants this blocked.  The rough ridin' picking and choosing isn't fair to the other P5 conferences.
Looks like the same thing I was talking about.

[Panjandrum]

Is there evidence that adding Houston and Memphis/cincy is the deciding factor between a network or no network? I see Houston adding nothing, and Memphis or cincy adding very little.

If we're talking network, Cincy may merge with the Dayton DMA to create a Top 15-20 market here in the next 5 or so years.  If that's the case, you can increase your subscriber fees in that general area. 

If you can charge $1.00 a subscriber in Cincy for the Big 12 Network, and that combined DMA has 1.33 million cable subscribers in it (which I checked and verified online), then that's an annual subscriber fee revenue of ~$16 million.  If you got the same for Memphis, and their 636k subscribers, it would be ~$7.6 million annually.

Houston comes into play if you don't feel like you can get Texas out of the LHN and into your network. 

If Cincy and Dayton merge subscribers into the same DMA, eventually, then you'd have the #5 (Dallas), #10 (Houston), and #21 (Cincy/Dayton) DMA in your list.

The real kicker is if you get Houston, can you charge more for the DMA knowing you pretty much cover nearly all options? 

I took the total number of subscribers in each state (I mean you may not get this much in Memphis' case, but whatever.  Ballpark estimate), and estimated they'd get a dollar per subscriber like the Big Ten does (assuming we get a similar bundling deal).  Then if we charged $0.44 outside of our states, like they do, I got a grand total of something like $194.8 million in subscriber fees alone, annually.  That doesn't even take advertising into consideration.  So, from there, you estimate what that payout might look like per school.

We know that teams #11 and #12 will get pro rata in T1 and T2 dollars, so that $20 million a year will offset a net decrase in dollars due to two new shares.  The addition of a CCG will also probably add at least $1 million per school, per year.  So, will that completely offset the additional distribution of NCAA tournament, CFP, etc. dollars?  I don't know.  For most schools, sharing a network with Texas and OU will definitely lift our revenues.  OU and UT will take a little hit.  However, is it worth it to them to do that and know you're going to be one of two kingpins in a P5 conference?  Hard to say.

[Panjandrum]

this thread makes me think Pan doesn't have gainful employment.  or he works nights.

I'm incredibly efficient.

Very gainfully employed.

[MakeItRain]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument.

That was literally the first thing I said when rusty brought it up, read better.

[Emo EMAW]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument.

That was literally the first thing I said when rusty brought it up, read better.

Then you should stop while you're ahead instead of asking stupid questions.

[Steffy08]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument.

That was literally the first thing I said when rusty brought it up, read better.

Think better.  Don't say it won't happen because other conference think it gives the Big 12 an unfair advantage, while simultaneously saying that it won't give the Big 12 an advantage.

[michigancat]

I mean I thought the optional championship game was a fun but unrealistic idea but good grief stop being so dumb about it, people.

[EMAWican]

What about when the CFP expands to 8 teams in the near future? Looking at the last couple of years of final standings, getting two Big XII teams in without a championship game seems like a lock.

[MakeItRain]

This entire discussion is nonsensical.  The Big 12 is not going to be allowed to stack the deck in its own favor.  The rest of the conferences simply won't allow it, nor should they.  The conference is going to grab a couple teams, probably Houston and Cincinnati, and have a real live conference championship like every other major conference does by 2017.

This is a much better argument than MIR's there-are-no-scenarios argument.

That was literally the first thing I said when rusty brought it up, read better.

Think better.  Don't say it won't happen because other conference think it gives the Big 12 an unfair advantage, while simultaneously saying that it won't give the Big 12 an advantage.

If you think those two things are mutually exclusive you're really are a paste eating moron.

[Panjandrum]

What about when the CFP expands to 8 teams in the near future? Looking at the last couple of years of final standings, getting two Big XII teams in without a championship game seems like a lock.

Depends on how they want to do it.

Will it be the top 8 teams in the standings?  More conference champs from other conferences?  Do they demand one G5 conference champ get in?

Lots of theoretical stuff there.

[MakeItRain]

What about when the CFP expands to 8 teams in the near future? Looking at the last couple of years of final standings, getting two Big XII teams in without a championship game seems like a lock.

Depends on how they want to do it.

Will it be the top 8 teams in the standings?  More conference champs from other conferences?  Do they demand one G5 conference champ get in?

Lots of theoretical stuff there.

Has to be five conference champs and 3 wildcards.

[CHONGS]

ChiPPS

5 Conference Champs
Highest Ranked from "group of 5"
2 wildcards (two highest ranked remaining teams with the caveat that at most two teams from a conference can be the playoffs)

that's the winning formula

[Panjandrum]

What about when the CFP expands to 8 teams in the near future? Looking at the last couple of years of final standings, getting two Big XII teams in without a championship game seems like a lock.

Depends on how they want to do it.

Will it be the top 8 teams in the standings?  More conference champs from other conferences?  Do they demand one G5 conference champ get in?

Lots of theoretical stuff there.

Has to be five conference champs and 3 wildcards.

God, the 3 wildcards would end up causing pure chaos.

Not saying you're wrong, but the ensuing firestorm and fallout from those selections would be brutal.

[star seed 7]

ChiPPS

5 Conference Champs
Highest Ranked from "group of 5"
2 wildcards (two highest ranked remaining teams with the caveat that at most two teams from a conference can be the playoffs)

that's the winning formula

I think this is good as long as the g5 team reaches a minimum threshold

[MadCat]

ChiPPS

5 Conference Champs
Highest Ranked from "group of 5"
2 wildcards (two highest ranked remaining teams with the caveat that at most two teams from a conference can be the playoffs)

that's the winning formula

I think this is good as long as the g5 team reaches a minimum threshold

Being ranked in the top 5? 

EDIT: Sorry, I was thinking this was from the P5. nvm

[catastrophe]

ChiPPS

5 Conference Champs
Highest Ranked from "group of 5"
2 wildcards (two highest ranked remaining teams with the caveat that at most two teams from a conference can be the playoffs)

that's the winning formula

I think this is good as long as the g5 team reaches a minimum threshold

The threshold should just be that they are ranked. If there are no ranked teams then g5 can GTFO.

Edit: and yes, there is no way the playoff expands to 8 and doesn't give the 5 power conference champs an auto bid. There can be a fierce debate as to who should really get spots 6-8, but no P5 team could REALLY complain that much when all they had to do was win their conference.

[DQ12]

ChiPPS

5 Conference Champs
Highest Ranked from "group of 5"
2 wildcards (two highest ranked remaining teams with the caveat that at most two teams from a conference can be the playoffs)

that's the winning formula

Reinstitute the BCS to determine the wildcards.  There was never any need for the committee.

[catastrophe]

ChiPPS

5 Conference Champs
Highest Ranked from "group of 5"
2 wildcards (two highest ranked remaining teams with the caveat that at most two teams from a conference can be the playoffs)

that's the winning formula

Reinstitute the BCS to determine the wildcards.  There was never any need for the committee.

What about reinstating the system, but replacing the CFP committee rankings for the coaches' poll? That thing was always garbage.