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

[Panjandrum]

I share some of the same fears that theHamburglar posted and will add fan unrest due to UT sucking(relatively) and OU's "big game" problems as possible catalysts for major change.  When the GoR is up, there will definitely be a new AD in Austin that most likely will not have Big 8 ties and the same situation in Norman could be true as well.  UT, for all it's resources, has had some long lulls between playing elite football and we may be entering one of those lulls now. 

Obviously, we can't do anything about OU and UT only what happens in MHK and I think taking the stadium to 60k+ is one of the few ways we could differentiate ourselves from KU, BU, TCU and ISU.  I know the demand is not there at $40 per seat or whatever the current average ticket price is but it might be at $20 or $15.  I can't even feel sure that a KSU that averages 8 wins a year and has a 65k stadium will guarantee a seat at the big boys table during the next go round of realignment but I do believe it will help more than additional sports that no one cares about unless we are winning.

If we have to cut ticket prices in half to sell the 6k seats we would add, I can't imagine that would be considered.

I know the math doesn't work but what else are we going to do that make us more appealing than the competition for that few spots if this thing goes to 64?  The math could work if we move the students and then sell the prime seats they are in now even though I love the atmosphere created by having the students in that location. 

Realignment has been almost exclusively about markets except for NU and their "brand".  We will never have a enough of a market to make a difference so we are left with building a brand - having the largest stadium of the "last in" group could only help our brand.   Winning will be kind of important too.

I would be more inclined to increase club seating in the South EZ and maybe find a way to put a couple thousand seats above them.  If you can ultimately increase capacity of the stadium to 55,000 and have first class amenities for athletes, coaches and high level donors we'll be fine.

[TheHamburglar]

Also, it's worth mentioning that Texas doesn't want to join the Pac-12.  So, that's going to complicate things because they are too academically snotty to join the SEC and they don't want the Big Ten.

Texas likes making money, but they also like having the autonomy being a part of this conference allows.  We allow them to be quasi independent, but at the same time, we fill their non-revenue sport schedule.

I'd agree with this now, but I'm not sure in 10 years. UT fans don't consider a single home Big12 game a "big" game anymore. 10 years of UT fans groundswell about crappy home schedules while watching SEC big boys rotate thru A&M and Deloss bring replaced might change their opinion.

Also, I'm just thinking out loud from a long term strategic perspective. If there is a long term plan to grow the stadium and concede it may not be a money maker, but serve a different purpose, that would be awesome. I'm just afraid our AD is currently more worried about next years profit rather than prepping for positioning in the next round of realignment.

I don't disagree with anything you said in your previous post responding to me. I've just been reading alot if Shag and LandTheives lately and it looks alot like beginning of the same swell that lead to A&M leaving. At some point, the fans work themselves up into a frenzy and win out. When UT football attendance starts to drop because of no perceived big games, everything changes. I hope the ACC scheduling alliance thing works out to get FSU, Miami, Clemson, VaTech, and ND into Austin.  The best thing for the Big12 would be for A&M and UT to start playing again.

[eastcat]

It is foolish to think we would get into the SEC in our current state.

The PAC 12 is our only real chance as they seem to have no problem with schools like Arizona state, OSU, WSU and Utah.

[420seriouscat69]

It is foolish to think we would get into the SEC in our current state.

The PAC 12 is our only real chance as they seem to have no problem with schools like Arizona state, OSU, WSU and Utah.

Arizona State is a weak example, but I get what you're saying.

[sonofdaxjones]

OU and Texas in the Cotton Bowl has to end IMO.

Also, the only reason so many Texas fans are butthurt about playing the current Big 12 teams at home is the fact that Texas football is underperforming.

Trust me, had Texas won the Big 12 last year their tone would be completely different.

I'm old enough to remember the old SWC, and there was a steady slate of games that were yawners if you're a Texas fan . . . SMU, TCU, Rice, Baylor . . . imagine a conference season playing 4 conference games against private schools who outside of a year here and there were mediocre at best during most of the 70's through the mid 90's. 

[eastcat]

It is foolish to think we would get into the SEC in our current state.

The PAC 12 is our only real chance as they seem to have no problem with schools like Arizona state, OSU, WSU and Utah.

Arizona State is a weak example, but I get what you're saying.

I was kinda alluding to them on the Academic front. WSU, OSU and Utah have 40,000 seat stadiums.

[eastcat]

OU and Texas in the Cotton Bowl has to end IMO.

Also, the only reason so many Texas fans are butthurt about playing the current Big 12 teams at home is the fact that Texas football is underperforming.

Trust me, had Texas won the Big 12 last year their tone would be completely different.

I'm old enough to remember the old SWC, and there was a steady slate of games that were yawners if you're a Texas fan . . . SMU, TCU, Rice, Baylor . . . imagine a conference season playing 4 conference games against private schools who outside of a year here and there were mediocre at best during most of the 70's through the mid 90's.

And look what happened to the SWC.

[Katpappy]

Also, it's worth mentioning that Texas doesn't want to join the Pac-12.  So, that's going to complicate things because they are too academically snotty to join the SEC and they don't want the Big Ten.

Texas likes making money, but they also like having the autonomy being a part of this conference allows.  We allow them to be quasi independent, but at the same time, we fill their non-revenue sport schedule.

I'd agree with this now, but I'm not sure in 10 years. UT fans don't consider a single home Big12 game a "big" game anymore. 10 years of UT fans groundswell about crappy home schedules while watching SEC big boys rotate thru A&M and Deloss bring replaced might change their opinion.

Also, I'm just thinking out loud from a long term strategic perspective. If there is a long term plan to grow the stadium and concede it may not be a money maker, but serve a different purpose, that would be awesome. I'm just afraid our AD is currently more worried about next years profit rather than prepping for positioning in the next round of realignment.

I don't disagree with anything you said in your previous post responding to me. I've just been reading alot if Shag and LandTheives lately and it looks alot like beginning of the same swell that lead to A&M leaving. At some point, the fans work themselves up into a frenzy and win out. When UT football attendance starts to drop because of no perceived big games, everything changes. I hope the ACC scheduling alliance thing works out to get FSU, Miami, Clemson, VaTech, and ND into Austin.  The best thing for the Big12 would be for A&M and UT to start playing again.

The thing is that we along with the other mid-tiers in this conference need to get better on a consistence basis.  You're right about us needing to get bigger, but I think that is well known among the mid-tiers.  Look at the money they are throwing at the Football and even BB.  Stadiums are expanding or improving at Baylor, TCU, OSU, ISU, and TTU.  Texas recently put in a request for a 100 million dollars toward FB stadium improvements.  KU and WVU are not doing anything at this time, and could be left behind if they don't start improvements soon.

Only thing is the growth is going to hurt the egoes of the UT & OU.  Because for the other teams to get better, means beating these teams on a regular basis.  And I'm not talking about random wins from mid-tiers, but wins from one or two of the mid-tiers that step up, such as KSU & TCU

[deputy dawg]

I think ku is planning a stadium upgrade, but they are stupid enough to put it behind an upgrade of Allen Pisshouse.  A release on kuathletics.com said, referencing the upgrade to softball, track, and soccer facilities:

"Having said that," Zenger continued, "we now have the opportunity to build these facilities and then as we move forward in our capital campaign we can focus our attention on two premier projects - the completion of the renovation of Allen Fieldhouse, which we know is our crown jewel, and the renovation of Memorial Stadium, and that includes the removal of the track, and the making of a more intimate setting. Why is that important? We live in a day and age of conference realignment. We have seen in recent months that it continues to bubble and percolate. We cannot afford at this time to sit back on our hands and have a stadium that does not reflect the commitment to big-time college football. If that's how we are perceived we could rue the day that we didn't act when we had the opportunity to act."

[MadCat]

"...we can focus our attention on two premier projects - the completion of the renovation of Allen Fieldhouse, which we know is our crown jewel, and the renovation of Memorial Stadium, which we know is our hemorrhoid cushion..."

[ChiComCat]

Also, it's worth mentioning that Texas doesn't want to join the Pac-12.  So, that's going to complicate things because they are too academically snotty to join the SEC and they don't want the Big Ten.

Texas likes making money, but they also like having the autonomy being a part of this conference allows.  We allow them to be quasi independent, but at the same time, we fill their non-revenue sport schedule.

If the state of Texas goes the way it is going then they won't be able to academically look down at anyone and will be a perfect fit in the SEC.  Gov Perry is trying to end any research that doesn't directly bring money to the school.  If that's the trend UT looks forward to, it will be right at home in the SEC in 10 years.

[Panjandrum]

Also, it's worth mentioning that Texas doesn't want to join the Pac-12.  So, that's going to complicate things because they are too academically snotty to join the SEC and they don't want the Big Ten.

Texas likes making money, but they also like having the autonomy being a part of this conference allows.  We allow them to be quasi independent, but at the same time, we fill their non-revenue sport schedule.

If the state of Texas goes the way it is going then they won't be able to academically look down at anyone and will be a perfect fit in the SEC.  Gov Perry is trying to end any research that doesn't directly bring money to the school.  If that's the trend UT looks forward to, it will be right at home in the SEC in 10 years.

It baffles me how stupid Rick Perry really is.

[scottwildcat]

there has never been a more boring thread

you must of missed the first 500 pages.

[Panjandrum]

I don't know if anyone put this in here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22225933/big-12-schools-eyeing-2225-million-in-conference-revenue-payout

May is the time of year when conferences start to finalize their yearly revenue numbers while fueling the college football arms race debate in the process.

The Big Ten is coming out strong with a reported $25.7 million per school.

The Big 12 is in good shape, too, as league sources forecast a conservative range of $22-25 million in conference payout to each school for 2012-13.

The projections don't include third-tier television rights, which the schools control and, in some cases, garner serious side money. (Texas and West Virginia are both reportedly over $9 million per year.)

Kansas State, the conference's lone BCS bowl recipient last season, gets a reward of around $900,000 after selling its full allotment of 17,500 Fiesta Bowl tickets. In this case, the Wildcats get to keep 100 percent of the sales from 25 percent of the allotment (4,375 tickets).

What this means is that we're making more than the Big Ten by a few million dollars, and in the article, Bowlsby says there's some wiggle room to make more.

People can say what they will about Bowlsby, but the dude knows how to make money.

[Skipper44]

The projections don't include third-tier television rights, which the schools control and, in some cases, garner serious side money. (Texas and West Virginia are both reportedly over $9 million per year.)

Is this accurate?   

[GoodForAnother]

yeah, that seems made up.  I think that's more than the entire WV state GDP.

[CyberToothCat]

The projections don't include third-tier television rights, which the schools control and, in some cases, garner serious side money. (Texas and West Virginia are both reportedly over $9 million per year.)

Is this accurate?   

I think it's an accurate number, but it's comparing oranges and tangerines.

In the Big 10, all TV rights (Tier 1, 2 and 3) are owned by the conference.  Outside of that, the Big 10 schools have "Tier 3" contracts for things like their radio networks, coaches shows, in-stadium signage, etc.  I think I read that Ohio State's Tier 3 contract is worth approx $11 million per year, and none of that $11 million is for televising anything.

WVU's "Tier 3" contract includes televising 1 football game, 10 basketball games, a radio network, coaches shows, etc, etc.  In other words, even though WVU has a contract worth $9 million per year for Tier 3 rights, only a very small portion of that is for Tier 3 TV rights.  If the Big 12 started a conference network and WVU was no longer able to televise a football game and some basketball games on their own, they would still have a Tier 3 contract worth about $7+ million per year.

It's almost impossible to compare the conference distributions at these other conferences to the Big 12 unless you know how much of each Big 12's Tier 3 contract is specifically for televising a few athletic events.  How much of K-State's contract with Learfield is for the handful of basketball games that get put on FS-Kansas City, and how much is for the radio network and the LHC Bill Snyder show?  If you know that breakdown, then you can add our conference distribution plus our third tier TV rights and compare to the conference distributions in other conferences.  If you don't know that breakdown, you can only do some estimates that may or may not be accurate.

[sonofdaxjones]

But at the end of the day, it's perfectly fine to take a look at the total take which includes Tier III no matter how it's structured, but your points about direct comparisons are well taken.

I just am a little weary about the SECN hype and some of the numbers I see thrown around.  I just think once you start adding in Tier III and TOTAL conference distribution the Big 12 schools will stack up very well relative to the other major conference schools.  Yes, the SEC may ultimately end up distributing about $33 to $34 million dollars per school (that's total distribution) which is a reasonable and relatively fact based number, but it's not going to be the $40-$50-$60 million that SEC homers keep tossing around using their absurd formulas.

[CyberToothCat]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

I disagree.  Adding sports takes away potential money for revenue sports and capital improvement projects that will be critical for the next stage of realignment.  If we really need to add sports, we'll just put a mitigation plan in place with the conference we're joining and say, "With the money we'll get by joining your conference, this is what we'll do to add X, Y, and Z."

The most important thing is to stay good in football and make sure the whole 2025 plan increases our academic standing.

Regardless, if the Big 12 folds, I don't have a lot of concerns about our future.  The ACC will need 1-2 schools, the Big Ten will need a couple of schools, the SEC will need a couple of schools, and the Pac-12 will need a few schools.  There's like 8-10 spots left if we're the one left behind.  Stay competitive in football and we'll be alright.  The schools that need to be scared are TCU and Baylor.

Say that the Pac-12 wants to take Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU (16).  Then the Big Ten takes Kansas and UConn (16).  The ACC takes WVU (16).  The SEC's choices are Baylor, TCU, KSU, and Iowa State.  They obviously won't take two schools from Texas; that's redundant.  They definitely won't take Iowa State.  So, in this scenario, we'd be a part of some Northwestern pod with Mizzou, Arky, and A&M.

Or you can run different scenarios.  Either way, football is going to drive the bus, so adding sports that will potentially siphon away resources from football is a bad idea.

Regarding the ACC, are you counting ND as their 16th?  As it stands right now, the ACC has 14 football schools.  Adding WVU would only bump them to 15 unless you believe ND will give up their independence.

Regarding the SEC, just to make sure I understand you.  Are you saying the SEC won't take two as in won't take both TCU/BU, or won't take two as in they already have A&M and don't want another Texas team?  I'm assuming the former.  If that's the case, I agree that K-State is probably one of the best options remaining.  That said, wow the cupboard is bare for the SEC in this scenario.  Given the choice of staying at 14 or expanding to 16 with KSU/TCU, they may just stay at 14.  Or they would add TCU in the west and decide to double up in the east by inviting FSU.  Then the ACC would replace FSU and USF and we would sit here with our thumbs up our butts.

We REALLY need to make sure UT/OU are happy in this conference.

[KITNfury]

There is no scenario where KSU ends up in the sec or will be even considered by the sec.

[Rage Against the McKee]

There is no scenario where KSU ends up in the sec or will be even considered by the sec.

Their loss, if true.

[PowercatPat]

I don't even want to end up in the SEC. eff that.

[Emo EMAW]

I don't even want to end up in the SEC. eff that.

We could totally brag about how our only two losses were to the #1 and #2 teams in the country! 

[Panjandrum]

There's a tiny bit of smoke out there that the Big 12 is talking to Houston, and it's essentially for political reasons.

As mentioned before, Perry is trying to "reform" higher education in Texas, and it sounds like this could be a strategy to create a voting bloc between Texas, Tech, and Houston.  Also, it puts a huge Big 12 school in A&M's back yard.

Just smoke.  Nothing more.

[KITNfury]

I don't even want to end up in the SEC. eff that.

I agree, I mostly love this conference. I wouldn't want to go anywhere else unless we had to. Big 10? Gmafb about those losers too.