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

[MakeItRain]

Explain why not?
 

Because the State of Missouri is not within the geographic footprint of the B12 conference.  It really doesn't get any simpler than that. 

Name a single Conference Championship that is played in a State outside of the Conference, and I'll promptly shut the hell up.  Otherwise, stop posting in this thread.   

They are going to have the tournament where they think it will make the most money.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  Why is this so hard to understand.  If Mizzou left there would be no other conference with the geographical issue that we present here so, there is no precedent.  Michigan State and UNC are playing a game on an aircraft carrier in San Diego, does that make geographical sense?  Of course not but it makes fiscal sense.  These schools and the conference will do what they think makes the most money.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Big 12 would be served by removing the tournament from its most successful site.

How do you know it makes more fiscal sense in KCMO than it does in Dallas or OKC? AAA capacity is 19,200, OKC's Chesapeake Energy Arena (why did they change the name of the Ford Center?) is 18,203, Sprint Center is 18,555. I think both AAA and Chesapeake have more luxury seating than Sprint Center, too. The money would be just as good in Dallas or OKC.

I know because it has been, that's how I know.  Why do you think KC has hosted so many times?  BTW it isn't the Ford Center anymore because their naming rights deal expired and Ford didn't want to renew the deal.  That's basic sports business, if you don't get that, the rest of this may be over your head.  No offense

[chum1]

remember:  mir will not stop replying to you, but you can stop replying to mir.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Explain why not?
 

Because the State of Missouri is not within the geographic footprint of the B12 conference.  It really doesn't get any simpler than that. 

Name a single Conference Championship that is played in a State outside of the Conference, and I'll promptly shut the hell up.  Otherwise, stop posting in this thread.   

They are going to have the tournament where they think it will make the most money.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  Why is this so hard to understand.  If Mizzou left there would be no other conference with the geographical issue that we present here so, there is no precedent.  Michigan State and UNC are playing a game on an aircraft carrier in San Diego, does that make geographical sense?  Of course not but it makes fiscal sense.  These schools and the conference will do what they think makes the most money.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Big 12 would be served by removing the tournament from its most successful site.

How do you know it makes more fiscal sense in KCMO than it does in Dallas or OKC? AAA capacity is 19,200, OKC's Chesapeake Energy Arena (why did they change the name of the Ford Center?) is 18,203, Sprint Center is 18,555. I think both AAA and Chesapeake have more luxury seating than Sprint Center, too. The money would be just as good in Dallas or OKC.

It's not necessarily a good assumption that those venues will sell out like the Sprint Center has, though. KC makes a lot of sense, but I really think the Big 12 will move the tournament if Mizzou leaves. The southern schools will want the tournament closer to home, and KU, K-State, and ISU won't be enough votes to keep it in KC.

[MakeItRain]

General question: Is there anything preventing us from negotiating football and basketball rights separately at the Tier 1 level?

i.e. Can we still play basketball on ESPN but play football exclusively on Fox?

That would kill the value of a basketball deal.

Just wondering.  I assume, but I just don't know the mechanics of those deals at the granular level.

The networks wouldn't care because they sell advertising separately for football and basketball anyway, but it would be a bad deal for the conference.  Selling them separately won't make as much money as selling them together.  If someone becomes a viable competitor to ESPN, you may see a conference try this, but the time isn't right yet.

[MakeItRain]

remember:  mir will not stop replying to you, but you can stop replying to mir.

You have 1200 more posts than I do

[TB]

Explain why not?
 

Because the State of Missouri is not within the geographic footprint of the B12 conference.  It really doesn't get any simpler than that. 

Name a single Conference Championship that is played in a State outside of the Conference, and I'll promptly shut the hell up.  Otherwise, stop posting in this thread.   

They are going to have the tournament where they think it will make the most money.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  Why is this so hard to understand.  If Mizzou left there would be no other conference with the geographical issue that we present here so, there is no precedent.  Michigan State and UNC are playing a game on an aircraft carrier in San Diego, does that make geographical sense?  Of course not but it makes fiscal sense.  These schools and the conference will do what they think makes the most money.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Big 12 would be served by removing the tournament from its most successful site.

How do you know it makes more fiscal sense in KCMO than it does in Dallas or OKC? AAA capacity is 19,200, OKC's Chesapeake Energy Arena (why did they change the name of the Ford Center?) is 18,203, Sprint Center is 18,555. I think both AAA and Chesapeake have more luxury seating than Sprint Center, too. The money would be just as good in Dallas or OKC.

I know because it has been, that's how I know.  Why do you think KC has hosted so many times?  BTW it isn't the Ford Center anymore because their naming rights deal expired and Ford didn't want to renew the deal.  That's basic sports business, if you don't get that, the rest of this may be over your head.  No offense

So you know because you know. Good to know.

[MadCat]

General question: Is there anything preventing us from negotiating football and basketball rights separately at the Tier 1 level?

i.e. Can we still play basketball on ESPN but play football exclusively on Fox?

That would kill the value of a basketball deal.

Just wondering.  I assume, but I just don't know the mechanics of those deals at the granular level.

It looks like other conferences may separate football and basketball in negotiations based on this:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html

Code: [Select]

Big 10: First- and second-tier rights: ABC/ESPN ($1 billion, expires in 2016) and CBS (basketball, $20 million, expires in 2019)

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html#ixzz1ZvypXrcO


[Belvis Noland]

Finally someone with a point, other than essentially saying "well why would they.". You have a good point, I will counter by saying that no school within driving distance of OKC and Dallas care about the tournament nearly as much as KSU and KU.  It's why football works down there and basketball works in KC.  I also think that it is entirely possible that just as many curious Mizzou fans in the KC area would still attend games.  I think that all of these people who think the conference would just leave KC have never been to the tournament in OKC and Dallas and know just how different it is.  I think many on here just assume that attendance and the experience is similar in OKC and Dallas and it isn't at all.

The tournament clearly makes the most fiscal sense in Kansas City.  As a person who has been to the tournament in every host city and every venue, including Kemper during the Big8 tourny, I agree that no City comes even CLOSE to providing the experience that KCMO provides.  Especially with the new P&L/Sprint Center format.  Attendance and $$$ are obviously going to be maximized in KCMO.  I live/work downtown KCMO.  I want this tourny to stay here very badly.  I think the City will take a sizeable hit if this tourny moves south.  (this is also why I'm dumbfounded that I haven't heard Sly James (mayor), Jay Nixon (Governor and KC native) or any other powerful KC politician/businessman speak out publicly against reallignment).  

But, I do believe that Conference decision makers will make a political decision, rather than one grounded in simple dollars and cents.  

Again, tournament location is decided by a simple majority vote.  When KCMO was voted as the tournament location through 2014, CU, NU and MU were all voting members.  At the next vote, what happens if MU joins NU and CU?  There are 2 very suitable venues in OKC and Dallas and, if a majority of the power exists south of Kansas, I would expect the political decision to move the tournament into the geographic footprint of the Conference.  

I just don't understand why you have any reason to believe that the Power Brokers in this conference will make a rational decision that isn't self-serving.  If the Texas and Oklahoma schools have more power, they will move the tournament to Texas or Oklahoma.  I don't see why this is so hard to contemplate.  

If Missouri stays, the status quo continues on and there is less need to make a political "shake up" type of statement.      

[Belvis Noland]

Hell, even if MU stays, but the conference decides to add TCU and Houston - as opposed to Louisville and BYU, I can still see the Tournament moving to OKC or Dallas. 

[MakeItRain]

Finally someone with a point, other than essentially saying "well why would they.". You have a good point, I will counter by saying that no school within driving distance of OKC and Dallas care about the tournament nearly as much as KSU and KU.  It's why football works down there and basketball works in KC.  I also think that it is entirely possible that just as many curious Mizzou fans in the KC area would still attend games.  I think that all of these people who think the conference would just leave KC have never been to the tournament in OKC and Dallas and know just how different it is.  I think many on here just assume that attendance and the experience is similar in OKC and Dallas and it isn't at all.

The tournament clearly makes the most fiscal sense in Kansas City.  As a person who has been to the tournament in every host city and every venue, including Kemper during the Big8 tourny, I agree that no City comes even CLOSE to providing the experience that KCMO provides.  Especially with the new P&L/Sprint Center format.  Attendance and $$$ are obviously going to be maximized in KCMO.  I live/work downtown KCMO.  I want this tourny to stay here very badly.  I think the City will take a sizeable hit if this tourny moves south.  (this is also why I'm dumbfounded that I haven't heard Sly James (mayor), Jay Nixon (Governor and KC native) or any other powerful KC politician/businessman speak out publicly against reallignment).  

But, I do believe that Conference decision makers will make a political decision, rather than one grounded in simple dollars and cents.  

Again, tournament location is decided by a simple majority vote.  When KCMO was voted as the tournament location through 2014, CU, NU and MU were all voting members.  At the next vote, what happens if MU joins NU and CU?  There are 2 very suitable venues in OKC and Dallas and, if a majority of the power exists south of Kansas, I would expect the political decision to move the tournament into the geographic footprint of the Conference.  

I just don't understand why you have any reason to believe that the Power Brokers in this conference will make a rational decision that isn't self-serving.  If the Texas and Oklahoma schools have more power, they will move the tournament to Texas or Oklahoma.  I don't see why this is so hard to contemplate.  

If Missouri stays, the status quo continues on and there is less need to make a political "shake up" type of statement.      

Good post.  The reason why I think the membership will make a fiscally based decision is that every single decision that has been made in regard to conference realignment has been fiscal decisions.

NU makes more cash in the Big 10
CU makes more cash in the Pac 12
The Big 12 wanted to stay at 10 teams to have more money for everyone
A&M makes more cash in the SEC
Texas stayed because they will make more money in the Big 12 with the LHN
The Pac 12 denied OU & OSU because they will dilute their product and likely wouldn't have added 40-50 million per year to a TV contract.

Mizzou is interesting because I don't know if its clear if they will add enough value to the SEC to make up for the pie being split into another mouth.

[MakeItRain]

General question: Is there anything preventing us from negotiating football and basketball rights separately at the Tier 1 level?

i.e. Can we still play basketball on ESPN but play football exclusively on Fox?

That would kill the value of a basketball deal.

Just wondering.  I assume, but I just don't know the mechanics of those deals at the granular level.

It looks like other conferences may separate football and basketball in negotiations based on this:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html

Code: [Select]

Big 10: First- and second-tier rights: ABC/ESPN ($1 billion, expires in 2016) and CBS (basketball, $20 million, expires in 2019)

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html#ixzz1ZvypXrcO


I'm shocked that is a tier 1 deal for basketball, they don't get much inventory for that.  Last season CBS only had 12 basketball broadcasts involving Big 10 teams.  3 non con games, 6 regular season games, and 3 Big 10 tournament games.  Did CBS really pay $20 million for 12 games?  If so good for the Big 10.

[Belvis Noland]

Good post.  The reason why I think the membership will make a fiscally based decision is that every single decision that has been made in regard to conference realignment has been fiscal decisions.

NU makes more cash in the Big 10
CU makes more cash in the Pac 12
The Big 12 wanted to stay at 10 teams to have more money for everyone
A&M makes more cash in the SEC
Texas stayed because they will make more money in the Big 12 with the LHN
The Pac 12 denied OU & OSU because they will dilute their product and likely wouldn't have added 40-50 million per year to a TV contract.

Mizzou is interesting because I don't know if its clear if they will add enough value to the SEC to make up for the pie being split into another mouth.

Well, you make some good points, but there are also a number of decisions that have been political in nature.  Since the A&M debacle, every reallignment scenario has revolved around "stablity" - not money.    

1) UT and OU agree to equal revenue sharing of tier1/2 even though it means less money for them.
2) A&M (huge beneficiary of unequal revenue distribution) left because they didn't like the LHN highschool recruiting service.
3) NU (huge beneficiary of unequal revenue distribution) left because they didn't like UT calling all of the shots.
4) OU/OSU explored PAC-12 even though the PAC12 would involve higher logistical costs and smaller TV contracts.
5) MU explores the SEC b/c the 6 year revenue forfeiture isn't "stable" enough for them.  
6) KU states that MU rivalry will be dead if MU leaves, despite big financial hit.
7) UT states that A&M rivalry is dead despite big financial hit.  

Bottom line, plenty of decisions are being made because of perceived prestige, stability, and purely bad blood.  

[username]

 

[Panjandrum]

General question: Is there anything preventing us from negotiating football and basketball rights separately at the Tier 1 level?

i.e. Can we still play basketball on ESPN but play football exclusively on Fox?

That would kill the value of a basketball deal.

Just wondering.  I assume, but I just don't know the mechanics of those deals at the granular level.

It looks like other conferences may separate football and basketball in negotiations based on this:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html

Code: [Select]

Big 10: First- and second-tier rights: ABC/ESPN ($1 billion, expires in 2016) and CBS (basketball, $20 million, expires in 2019)

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html#ixzz1ZvypXrcO


I'm shocked that is a tier 1 deal for basketball, they don't get much inventory for that.  Last season CBS only had 12 basketball broadcasts involving Big 10 teams.  3 non con games, 6 regular season games, and 3 Big 10 tournament games.  Did CBS really pay $20 million for 12 games?  If so good for the Big 10.

Well, the more that I think about it, if we were to take football completely away from ESPN, they'd probably dangle cutting out basketball or undercutting us in those negotiations.

If we were to scoop up a few Big East members, especially Louisville and WVU, I think we could negotiate solid deals for both football and B-Ball while maintaining our presence in for both on the WWL.

[pissclams]

 

[Deez Nutz]

 

 

[Dr Rick Daris]

There is no way they are playing the Big 12 tourney in Missouri without MU in the league

Explain why not?  Does Mizzou leaving render KU & KSU basketball meaningless?  So I guess we can say goodbye to KU & KSU playing games at the Sprint Center and no more CBE involving teams from outside of the state of Missouri? 

Can someone proposing this please tell me how it would make business since to no longer have the tournament in KC?  Everyone seems to think that sticking it to MU will he the motivation, how?   Why would Mizzou fans care whether or not the Big 12 tournament is in KC if they are in the SEC?

why did norm stewart always say that his teams would never spend a dime in kansas? you think the kansas fans cared? no they didn't. he said that crap because it wasn't about sticking it to the other fans, it was about giving your fans something to be all weird and proud about and i could see oklahoma and texas being all "you want to leave? fine. no more bball tourney for your state" and then all of the oklahoma and texas people are all like "yeah. what he said!" .

also, you already have two schools in oklahoma that both think okc is the best place for a tourney and three schools in texas that think dallas is the best place for the tourney. mu leaving will probably make them more vocal about this. i mean honestly just imagine that the tourney had been in omaha for the last thirty years and then nu left. you don't think ku or kstate fans would be going screw this. we don't want to have it there anymore? because they would.

I'm assuming you are being contrarian because Norm Stewart not spending money in Kansas has nothing to do with anything relevant.  Did Mizzou lose a valuable revenue stream because he waited to cross the state line to give him players post game sub sandwiches?  The point of this is the Big 12 would be screwing with their highest grossing event if they didn't return the  men's tournament to KC.

I don't understand the point about the Oklahoma and Texas schools thinking the tournament is best in the south.  I don't understand because its obvious that they don't think that way.  They think the baseball tournament works best in OKC, that's why its there, they thought the football championship worked best in Arlington, that's why it was there, they think basketball works best in KC, that's why KC has hosted the most.  KC hosting as much as they have is because the tournament makes the most money there, why can't you people get that?
The next person who mentions Omaha or Denver is getting punched in the face.  There was a reason the tournament was not in either of these places, it wouldn't make a dime.  I can't imagine any circumstance in which the tournament would ever be in Omaha, crap why not Brownsville, TX?

i think everybody does get that. i also think that it's very possible that the big12 schools might change their minds on where the best location for the tournament is if missouri left. why don't you get that?

what if the oklahoma schools would've went pac last month and the rest of the big12 stayed together and added byu, louisville and tcu. do you think the big12 would still think that okc would be the best place for the tournament? i mean jesus.  the big12 could just as easily decide that kansas city missouri is not the best place for the future of the big12 basketball tourney if missouri left. it's very plausible and to stand around and say it isn't is hilarious. frustrating too but more hilarious. this whole discussion is about as dumb as the one about wichita hosting the tournament though and i apologize for my part in it.

[Fuktard]

MU is gone...unless there is some major road block that is thrown up that prevents them from leaving.  This is straight from (one of) the horses mouth. 

[Belvis Noland]

The whole tournament argument is pretty silly.  In the past 8 years, the tournament has been in OKC/Dallas 5 of them.  Dallas '03, '04, '06.  OKC '07, '09.  


We really want to debate that the southern power players won't try to take this tourny from KCMO?  

[Belvis Noland]

MU is gone...unless there is some major road block that is thrown up that prevents them from leaving.  This is straight from (one of) the horses mouth. 

OU/OSU were gone to the Pac12.  Straight from Boren's mouth. 

Things change. 

[ben ji]

MU is gone...unless there is some major road block that is thrown up that prevents them from leaving.  This is straight from (one of) the horses mouth. 

OU/OSU were gone to the Pac12.  Straight from Boren's mouth. 

Things change Mox, your the starting quarterback now. 

FYP

[hemmy]

 

 

[theKSU]

Jack's hammerin BITB on his stability argument.

[MakeItRain]

There is no way they are playing the Big 12 tourney in Missouri without MU in the league
I

Explain why not?  Does Mizzou leaving render KU & KSU basketball meaningless?  So I guess we can say goodbye to KU & KSU playing games at the Sprint Center and no more CBE involving teams from outside of the state of Missouri? 

Can someone proposing this please tell me how it would make business since to no longer have the tournament in KC?  Everyone seems to think that sticking it to MU will he the motivation, how?   Why would Mizzou fans care whether or not the Big 12 tournament is in KC if they are in the SEC?

why did norm stewart always say that his teams would never spend a dime in kansas? you think the kansas fans cared? no they didn't. he said that crap because it wasn't about sticking it to the other fans, it was about giving your fans something to be all weird and proud about and i could see oklahoma and texas being all "you want to leave? fine. no more bball tourney for your state" and then all of the oklahoma and texas people are all like "yeah. what he said!" .

also, you already have two schools in oklahoma that both think okc is the best place for a tourney and three schools in texas that think dallas is the best place for the tourney. mu leaving will probably make them more vocal about this. i mean honestly just imagine that the tourney had been in omaha for the last thirty years and then nu left. you don't think ku or kstate fans would be going screw this. we don't want to have it there anymore? because they would.

I'm assuming you are being contrarian because Norm Stewart not spending money in Kansas has nothing to do with anything relevant.  Did Mizzou lose a valuable revenue stream because he waited to cross the state line to give him players post game sub sandwiches?  The point of this is the Big 12 would be screwing with their highest grossing event if they didn't return the  men's tournament to KC.

I don't understand the point about the Oklahoma and Texas schools thinking the tournament is best in the south.  I don't understand because its obvious that they don't think that way.  They think the baseball tournament works best in OKC, that's why its there, they thought the football championship worked best in Arlington, that's why it was there, they think basketball works best in KC, that's why KC has hosted the most.  KC hosting as much as they have is because the tournament makes the most money there, why can't you people get that?
The next person who mentions Omaha or Denver is getting punched in the face.  There was a reason the tournament was not in either of these places, it wouldn't make a dime.  I can't imagine any circumstance in which the tournament would ever be in Omaha, crap why not Brownsville, TX?

i think everybody does get that. i also think that it's very possible that the big12 schools might change their minds on where the best location for the tournament is if missouri left. why don't you get that?

what if the oklahoma schools would've went pac last month and the rest of the big12 stayed together and added byu, louisville and tcu. do you think the big12 would still think that okc would be the best place for the tournament? i mean jesus.  the big12 could just as easily decide that kansas city missouri is not the best place for the future of the big12 basketball tourney if missouri left. it's very plausible and to stand around and say it isn't is hilarious. frustrating too but more hilarious. this whole discussion is about as dumb as the one about wichita hosting the tournament though and i apologize for my part in it.

They don't think OKC is the best place for the basketball tournament, now do I think they would have continued to have the baseball tournament in OKC if OU & OSU left?  No I dont think they would have because Okies love college baseball and the only fans that would show up are UT fans who feel like being bothered to drive up to it.

I think this conversation has jumped off of the rails a bit.  I don't take exception to people saying the tournament is leaving KC, I take exception with people saying that the tournament will leave KC to spite Mizzou, that's really dumb and obviously ineffective.  The conference worried that the tournament in KC will not make as much money or KC won't have as many votes because of departed north schools are reasonable scenarios for the tournament leaving KC.

My only point is I think the membership will make a decision that makes the most fiscal sense.  They'd play the tournament in Somalia if they thought it would make enough money, its exactly why expansion scenarios have the conference going 1200 miles west and 1200 miles east.

Whatever the case may be KC will have a chance to prove it can be a viable host without Mizzou,  they're hosting in '12, '13, '14.

[wabash909]

I still think there's a very good chance the SEC goes to 16.

http://www.leatherhelmetblog.com/2011-articles/october/another-wvu-report.html