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

[catzacker]

ben, I believe, is quoting Kevin Kietzman.  KK ran that stat out yesterday.  I didn't think ku people ever listenend to KK. 

[The42Yardstick]

Let's keep on task here, fuckers.

This is the conference re-alignment doomsday thread. 

No, this thread is about how conference commissioners can only come from the Ivy League.

[slimz]

Because of the Pac 10's pairing system, our proximity to KU would presumably be beneficial to our chances of making the conference.

How well would a 20 team conference fair? Can you imagine the BB tourney? The West at the staple center, East at the Ford. Get together for the last 2 rounds at the Pepsi Center. Amazing.

Holy smokes.  Could you imagine the Big 20?  

Football:  two 10-team divisions, during conference season you only play every other team from your division.  Preserves the football schedule for the Pac 10 schools and lets every former Big 12 team play each other every year.  Then, you rotate the championship game between the freaking Rose Bowl (stadium) and Jerry World.    Sorry, crappy Georgia Dome and SEC.  Sorry, crappy Jacksonville and ACC.  Sorry,  crappy Big 16 football playing in some (albeit newer) dome in Indy or Detroit.

Brent:  "Folks, you are looking live at the beautiful, historic Rose Bowl in sunny Pasadena, California, on a crisp December evening.  It's 55 degrees here, and we're set to watch the Trojans of Southern California take on the Longhorns of Texas for the Big 20 championship!  The winner gets a ticket to the national championship game, and the loser most likely gets a nice consolation prize: a return trip to this stadium in just under a month!"

Basketball:  Split into 5 4-team pods.  KSU-KU-ISU-CU. OSU-OU-UT-aTm. BU-TT-AZ-ASU. USC-UCLA-Stanford-Cal. Oregon-Oregon State-WU-WSU.  You play the teams in your pod home-and-away. You play the other pod composed of all your former conference members every year, each team either home or away. Then you play 2 of the 3 remaining pods every year, each team either home or away.  (The mixed pod would just rotate to play 3 of the 4 other pods). Total of 18 conference games a year.  For travel to the far away pods, you utilize the same pairing system the Pac 10 currently uses.  Thus, you'll have only two long trips each season.

[deputy dawg]

Quote from: deputy dawg on Today at 11:26:19 AM
Lost in the discussion so far as Mizzou and Nebraska are concerned is that the revenue pie of the Big 10 has to be sliced more ways once they join.  Their take in the Big 12 may actually be larger than their revenue sharing in the Big 10 if that conference expands to 16 teams.  Just sayin'.


OK, each Big 10 school got $22 million from the conference last year--conference revenue had to be $242 million ($22 million x 11):
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12978437/money-remains-major-issue-as-big-ten-mulls-over-expansion

If the Big 10 expands to 16 schools, without revenue expansion, then won't each schools take drop about $7 million ($242 million / 16 = $15 million)?

Would the new schools bring some revenue with them?  shazbot! that if it comes from the Big 12--surely the conference cuts revenue sharing if the school leaves.  My guess is that the distribution is calculated at one date, and distributed at another.  I say kick Mizzou and Nebraska out before the measurement date and make DAMN SURE no Big 12 money follows them to the Big 10.

Am I missing something here?

[sys]

OK, each Big 10 school got $22 million from the conference last year--conference revenue had to be $242 million ($22 million x 11):
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12978437/money-remains-major-issue-as-big-ten-mulls-over-expansion

If the Big 10 expands to 16 schools, without revenue expansion, then won't each schools take drop about $7 million ($242 million / 16 = $15 million)?

Would the new schools bring some revenue with them?

uh, yeah the new schools would bring revenue with them.  that's why they may added.


btw, the big 10 made more like 28 million each last year, rather than 22.  the big 10 network has pretty much completely changed the game for them.

[WavetheWheat]

Quote from: deputy dawg on Today at 11:26:19 AM
Lost in the discussion so far as Mizzou and Nebraska are concerned is that the revenue pie of the Big 10 has to be sliced more ways once they join.  Their take in the Big 12 may actually be larger than their revenue sharing in the Big 10 if that conference expands to 16 teams.  Just sayin'.


OK, each Big 10 school got $22 million from the conference last year--conference revenue had to be $242 million ($22 million x 11):
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12978437/money-remains-major-issue-as-big-ten-mulls-over-expansion

If the Big 10 expands to 16 schools, without revenue expansion, then won't each schools take drop about $7 million ($242 million / 16 = $15 million)?

Would the new schools bring some revenue with them?  shazbot! that if it comes from the Big 12--surely the conference cuts revenue sharing if the school leaves.  My guess is that the distribution is calculated at one date, and distributed at another.  I say kick Mizzou and Nebraska out before the measurement date and make DAMN SURE no Big 12 money follows them to the Big 10.

Am I missing something here?

Each market that is added causes more cable operators to pick up Big 10 network.  For instance is rutgers joins that NYC (HUGE MONEY) if Mizzou Joins that's St. Louis/KC. (big money)  Nebraska is added for the simple fact their football history makes good match-ups for their network (MICH/NU big draw)

There is little doubt joining the Big 10 would be a financial windfall for Mizzou and Nebraska.

[Pete]

Quote from: deputy dawg on Today at 11:26:19 AM
Lost in the discussion so far as Mizzou and Nebraska are concerned is that the revenue pie of the Big 10 has to be sliced more ways once they join.  Their take in the Big 12 may actually be larger than their revenue sharing in the Big 10 if that conference expands to 16 teams.  Just sayin'.


OK, each Big 10 school got $22 million from the conference last year--conference revenue had to be $242 million ($22 million x 11):
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12978437/money-remains-major-issue-as-big-ten-mulls-over-expansion

If the Big 10 expands to 16 schools, without revenue expansion, then won't each schools take drop about $7 million ($242 million / 16 = $15 million)?

Would the new schools bring some revenue with them?  shazbot! that if it comes from the Big 12--surely the conference cuts revenue sharing if the school leaves.  My guess is that the distribution is calculated at one date, and distributed at another.  I say kick Mizzou and Nebraska out before the measurement date and make DAMN SURE no Big 12 money follows them to the Big 10.

Am I missing something here?

Each market that is added causes more cable operators to pick up Big 10 network.  For instance is rutgers joins that NYC (HUGE MONEY) if Mizzou Joins that's St. Louis/KC. (big money)  Nebraska is added for the simple fact their football history makes good match-ups for their network (MICH/NU big draw)

There is little doubt joining the Big 10 would be a financial windfall for Mizzou and Nebraska.

Agree with Wave.


No more stupid posts questioning why MU or NU would want to go to the Big 10, okay?  Let's all just rough ridin' agree on that baby-step, alright?  rough ridin' earning my Moderator money today....

[sonofdaxjones]

If they're smart . . . a Pac 10/Big 12 Network Alliance could be extremely lucrative.   Probably not as much money as the Big 10 Network, but still a substantial increase for everyone involved and more than enough to placate the Big 12 schools.   

I am still leaning towards certain powerful factions in the Big 12 hoping Cornhole and Moo move on. 

[sys]

If they're smart . . . a Pac 10/Big 12 Network Alliance could be extremely lucrative.   Probably not as much money as the Big 10 Network, but still a substantial increase for everyone involved and more than enough to placate the Big 12 schools.   

I am still leaning towards certain powerful factions in the Big 12 hoping Cornhole and Moo move on. 

fox is sucking 49% of big 10 network revenues.  the only way a pac 10/big 12 (i still think adding a 3rd conference would make sense, but might be too unworkable) could make more money would be if they managed to do it with a smaller minority stake.  which is presumably impossible?

[OregonSmock]

ben, I believe, is quoting Kevin Kietzman.  KK ran that stat out yesterday.  I didn't think ku people ever listenend to KK.  

Yep.  Personally, I think Kietzman's the best in the biz.  He's the kind of K-State fan I meet outside of message boards.  Not sure where he got the $8 million number, but I'm sticking with it.  

[mcmwcat]

ben, I believe, is quoting Kevin Kietzman.  KK ran that stat out yesterday.  I didn't think ku people ever listenend to KK. 

Yep.  Personally, I think Kietzman's the best in the biz.  He's the kind of K-State fan I meet outside of message boards.  Not sure where he got the $8 million number, but I'm sticking with it. 

i'm not sure if you understand the terminology 'best in the biz'.  it has nothing to do with his credibility.  only insofar as he can have zero credibility yet be taken seriously.

[catzacker]

If they're smart . . . a Pac 10/Big 12 Network Alliance could be extremely lucrative.   Probably not as much money as the Big 10 Network, but still a substantial increase for everyone involved and more than enough to placate the Big 12 schools.   

I am still leaning towards certain powerful factions in the Big 12 hoping Cornhole and Moo move on. 

fox is sucking 49% of big 10 network revenues.  the only way a pac 10/big 12 (i still think adding a 3rd conference would make sense, but might be too unworkable) could make more money would be if they managed to do it with a smaller minority stake.  which is presumably impossible?

Why would ESPN/ABC or Fox pay more for games it already broadcasts "seperately"?  And why would they make room (especially the ABC) for games that don't garner as much tv's as big 10 or sec games?  The only reason the alliance would garner more money is if the teams that already run this conference and the pac-10 decide to play each other, which would be not be in their best interest unless...and this is important....they get more of the cut....so it might mean that ksu gets "more" money, but USC, UT, OU will still get a majority of it.  we'd never go to an "equal" share because the "risk" is not spread equally.  The Big Pac © (you see that?  It's fracking copyrighted, I said it first) needs to basically whore itself to any cable provider out there.  If it takes getting games on the History channel, so be it.

[sys]

i'm not sure if you understand the terminology 'best in the biz'.  it has nothing to do with his credibility.

it's obvious that bmw made a decision at some point to change his posting style to a 0 credibility model.  he still gets a lot of reaction, so it's hard for a kietzman fan to argue that it has hurt him.


fortunately, i've always despised and scorned kietzman, so it is logically consistent for me to view the bmw in the same light.

[OregonSmock]

Regardless of whether or not Texas is making $2.8 million or $8 million more than the Baylor's of the world, it doesn't change the fact that Texas wants to keep things the way they are.  Why would Texas agree to share revenue equally when they know they don't have to? 

[yosh]

Regardless of whether or not Texas is making $2.8 million or $8 million more than the Baylor's of the world, it doesn't change the fact that Texas wants to keep things the way they are.  Why would Texas agree to share revenue equally when they know they don't have to? 

If this is true, then the big 12 and whomever is willing to continue to falate UT is safe.  As long as Texas wants the Big 12 to exist, it will exist.  Everybody but Texas is replacable.

[sys]

Why would ESPN/ABC or Fox pay more for games it already broadcasts "seperately"?  And why would they make room (especially the ABC) for games that don't garner as much tv's as big 10 or sec games?  The only reason the alliance would garner more money is if the teams that already run this conference and the pac-10 decide to play each other, which would be not be in their best interest unless...and this is important....they get more of the cut....so it might mean that ksu gets "more" money, but USC, UT, OU will still get a majority of it.  we'd never go to an "equal" share because the "risk" is not spread equally.  The Big Pac © (you see that?  It's fracking copyrighted, I said it first) needs to basically whore itself to any cable provider out there.  If it takes getting games on the History channel, so be it.

i can't follow wtf you're talking about.  the discussion is w. re. to creating a big 12/pac 10 channel along the big 10 network model.  not negotiating a new contract with existing carriers.  although, what the incredible success of the big 10 network does illustrate is that sports networks have been dramatically underpaying for collegiate content.

[OregonSmock]

Regardless of whether or not Texas is making $2.8 million or $8 million more than the Baylor's of the world, it doesn't change the fact that Texas wants to keep things the way they are.  Why would Texas agree to share revenue equally when they know they don't have to? 

If this is true, then the big 12 and whomever is willing to continue to falate UT is safe.  As long as Texas wants the Big 12 to exist, it will exist.  Everybody but Texas is replacable.

Exactly.  Texas will survive one way or another.  They've even talked about creating a Texas Network, which would put them on a level far above anyone else in college athletics. 

[Stevesie60]

Regardless of whether or not Texas is making $2.8 million or $8 million more than the Baylor's of the world, it doesn't change the fact that Texas wants to keep things the way they are.  Why would Texas agree to share revenue equally when they know they don't have to? 

If this is true, then the big 12 and whomever is willing to continue to falate UT is safe. As long as Texas wants the Big 12 to exist, it will exist.  Everybody but Texas is replacable.

Exactly.  Texas will survive one way or another.  They've even talked about creating a Texas Network, which would put them on a level far above anyone else in college athletics. 

Notre Dame got their own channel almost 20 years ago.

[sonofdaxjones]

Ben if there was really $8 million dollars difference between the high and the low, than more than just Cornhole and Moo would be looking to move on.

Keitzman is just pulling numbers out of his ass as per usual . . . the best in the biz gets away with that  

[kso_FAN]

Step 1 is complete.

 

[sys]

Step 1 is complete.

 

i understand that the big 10 likes the prestige of an all-inclusive conference, but for less image-conscious players, you'd think you'd hear more about setting up fball-only superconferences while maintaining regional (perhaps existing) conferences for all other sports.

[yoga-like_abana]

So I have not paid attention to this at all because I really did not think anything would happen and I don't feel like reading all 18 pages of this thread.
Can someone give me the cliff notes version as to what the hell is actually going on?.

[Pete]

So I have not paid attention to this at all because I really did not think anything would happen and I don't feel like reading all 18 pages of this thread.
Can someone give me the cliff notes version as to what the hell is actually going on?.

Read the first page, it's basically all come to pass.  And, start worshiping me as your direct prophet link to God.

[yosh]

So I have not paid attention to this at all because I really did not think anything would happen and I don't feel like reading all 18 pages of this thread.
Can someone give me the cliff notes version as to what the hell is actually going on?.

Mostly it's about how Missouri and Nebraska are unwittingly about to screw themselves, while mighty Texas leads us west to plam trees, beaches and great reefer.

[catzacker]

Why would ESPN/ABC or Fox pay more for games it already broadcasts "seperately"?  And why would they make room (especially the ABC) for games that don't garner as much tv's as big 10 or sec games?  The only reason the alliance would garner more money is if the teams that already run this conference and the pac-10 decide to play each other, which would be not be in their best interest unless...and this is important....they get more of the cut....so it might mean that ksu gets "more" money, but USC, UT, OU will still get a majority of it.  we'd never go to an "equal" share because the "risk" is not spread equally.  The Big Pac © (you see that?  It's fracking copyrighted, I said it first) needs to basically whore itself to any cable provider out there.  If it takes getting games on the History channel, so be it.

i can't follow wtf you're talking about.  the discussion is w. re. to creating a big 12/pac 10 channel along the big 10 network model.  not negotiating a new contract with existing carriers.  although, what the incredible success of the big 10 network does illustrate is that sports networks have been dramatically underpaying for collegiate content.

I was talking about an alliance without the tv network, which is what I thought you and dax were referring to.  I was kind of saying if they're going to the TV alliance route instead of TV network alliance route, then they need to just get the F on TV any way they can because I'm not sure what their value is to Fox Sports and ABC.  However, I think a the Big Pac Network would be fantastic.  regardless, in any scenario, I don't see teams sharing revenue equally.