Advertisement

Advertisement

Realignment Today: 3:02 p.m. Update - ACC issues statement as talk about further Big Ten expansion continues

3:02 p.m. Update:

Well, by now I'm sure many of you have heard that the ACC issued a joint statement which indicated that the rumors about ACC schools going to other conferences are false.

That's what they're saying, anyway.

Here's the link:
http://www.theacc.com/genrel/120612aab.html

I applaud the ACC for saying something, even if it is somewhat laughable, but I can assure you that this statement means very little in all of this. If you're in the ACC's shoes, it's much better to have something like this exist than not. But it hardly means things are sunny in ACC land right now.

Let's face it, they upped the exit fee to $50 million — an astronomical number at the time it happened — and even that didn't keep schools from leaving. If a school wants to leave and another conference wants to take them, they're gone. That's still at least a decent sized "if" at the moment, as we're simply waiting to see if the Big Ten really wants to take its power play all the way.

Stay tuned...

Original Post:

A couple of quick things to share before I move on to the rest of my day and get back to wrapping up the Kansas University football season and working on that Granting of Rights story. It’s coming... I promise. And it’s going to give you a real thorough look at what that thing’s all about.

Just quickly, though, I noticed that there has been a lot more talk out there about Big Ten expansion in the past 24 hours and I wanted to touch on that a little more.

Popular opinion right now says that as soon as the Big Ten adds two more to get to 16 that will open the floodgates for the ACC, SEC and Big 12 to jump on the bandwagon and start adding to their member lists as well. That makes sense. But I’m not so sure it’s going to go that way.

I know a lot of people out there believe that such a move would force the Big 12 to act, but you have to remember that, at its core, this thing is all about television dollars. If the Big 12 can add a couple of teams — say Florida State and Clemson — and increase its value in the eyes of the league’s television partners then it becomes a no-brainer to expand. Do it yesterday. But if not, why do it at all?

It’s not as if this is a guessing game either. The TV execs would gladly enter (and may already have) into any discussions or negotiations about the potential to make more money (from their advertisers and corporate sponsors) but also would be very blunt in explaining to any conference whether moves A, B or C would actually bring increased value. If they say no, I don’t think you can expand. If they say yes, poach away.

One Big 12 administrator with knowledge of the league’s television deals I spoke with yesterday said he did not think college athletics was headed toward four 16-team super conferences any time soon and also said he thought both the ACC and Big 12 were in good shape and did not need to panic and expand for the sake of expansion.

Another league source told me recently that he thought if the Big 12 wanted to expand it likely would have done so already.

I know many reports have indicated that there is some division within the Big 12 about the issue of staying at 10 or expanding. While that may be true on a small level, I don’t believe the members who are open to expansion have reached the point where they are adamant about it happening. I think all 10 still see the value in staying at the current number and are content to remain there.

I’m not sure the same can be said for the Big Ten.

This recent report features Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis pointing out the advantages of expanding to 16....
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8718339/16-team-big-ten-michigan-state-spartans-ad-mark-hollis-sees-advantages

... And this report quotes Illinois chancellor Phyllis Wise saying that the league did not discuss any other schools when it unanimously voted to approve the additions of Maryland and Rutgers. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/education/2012-12-06/no-other-universities-considered-big-ten-when-maryland-rutgers-joined.html

The articles above do not necessarily indicate that Big Ten officials have differing viewpoints on further expansion, and it’s clear in both of them that the league is planning to evaluate the landscape on a daily basis and will act accordingly.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and company are certainly worth keeping an eye on but it may be possible that the Big Ten is not the key piece in all of this after all.

I know I’ll be watching just as closely for news from the ACC’s lawsuit against Maryland and Rutgers’ lawsuit against the Big East. Both are intriguing, potentially game-changing moves and the outcome of either could have just as big of an impact on conference realignment as any expansion talks.

Time will tell.

While we wait, here's an updated percentage wheel with my thoughts on what the Big 12 will do in the near future...

  1. Stay at 10 - 74%
  2. Expand by 2 - 13%
  3. Expand by 4 - 12%
  4. Expand by 6 - 1%

Stay tuned...

Comments

THE_REAL_DEAL_WITH_BILL_MCNEIL 2 years ago

Did you reference the Certificate of Incorporation for the Big 12 for your GoR story?

Matt Tait 2 years ago

Just so you're not disappointed -- It'll explain a lot but it won't be super detailed and will stay away from a lot of technical jargon that may just confuse most people (myself included)...

Bville Hawk 2 years ago

Good preemptive disclaimer, Matt. I'm guessing he will be disappointed no matter what you write.

THE_REAL_DEAL_WITH_BILL_MCNEIL = mangino0holtz

bad_dog 2 years ago

If true, never forget that manginor00lz = KSA 21-3503

blindrabbit 2 years ago

Maybe so, but my guess is the final result will be 4 major conferences of 16 teams each. Three of the four conferences are already determined: the PAC-12 (or whatever), the B1G and the SEC. PAC-12 needs to add 4 teams to reach 16, B1G needs 2 additional, and SEC also needs 2. The fourth major conference will be made- up of a conglomeration of what remains of the other majors, a combination of Big-12, ACC, BigEast and a few other major programs scattered aroung the country. Can speculate all day long as to the additions to the PAC, B1G and SEC and what will make up the fourth and what it will it be named

Joey Meyer 2 years ago

While I understand the incentive to keep the big pot of money in fewer hands, I just can't help but fear inaction by the Big 12 will leave other conferences (Big 10, SEC) with 16 team powerhouse conferences while most of the top schools are out of the picture, and the Big 12 is viewed as a smaller, lesser conference.

For once, even if we break even by expanding, I wish the Big 12 would be proactive. If Florida State & Clemson are out there, grab em! Same with VT, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, etc. Not for stability's sake, but to hang with the best. Make it a four conference country and earn some respect...

d_prowess 2 years ago

On the face of things, I don't think the Big12 could ever be viewed as a lesser conference even if we stay at 10 schools since we often are ranked as one of the toughest football conferences (usually just behind the SEC) and that shouldn't change anytime soon. However, that could happen down the road if we stay at 10 and recruits start to perceive us as a "small" conference compared to the others and thus choose other schools. That could be an intangible in all of this that should be considered. You know competing conference coaches would spin it their way on the recruiting trail!

Matt Tait 2 years ago

I think I read yesterday that the Big 12 actually wound up as the top rated football conference in the country this year. Your point's still valid, but I thought this was interesting.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

It really depends on how each individual ranks conferences if you go by overall team records then the Big 12 is hands down the best conference top to bottom unlike others who have like 3 or 4 great teams at top and then a bunch of bottom feeders. But this was on ESPN today which was interesting as well.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/61044/big-12-loses-more-ground-on-pac-12

I think it all comes down to how people rate conferences.

Curtis Stutz 2 years ago

Sagarin has ranked the Big12 #1 the last 2 seasons in football, and of course KU has had the #1 SOS in the nation.

Matt Tait 2 years ago

I completely hear what you're saying, but you have to remember this isn't about respect or perception or hanging with the big boys. It's about money.

With the current TV contracts, the agreement with the champions bowl and the fact that all of that dough is only split 10 ways, the Big 12 is looked at as one of the big boys financially speaking.

Besides, I know a lot of Big 12 higher-ups really like the idea of not having a championship game in football both for the idea of landing a team in the title game and for the money that would bring.

Matt Tait 2 years ago

Perhaps, but the risk that comes with it (knocking a conference team out of a title chance) also factors in.

pepper_bar 2 years ago

Why on earth would the Big 12 champion get an "autobid"?

90sHawk 2 years ago

Shouldn't they also consider how tough the league is with the round robin schedule? I mean, look at this year, everyone beat each other up and we had 1 team left with a chance at the title, and they get knocked off. That line of thinking (no title game so we don't have team get knocked out of contention) is complete horsesh*t to me. The top SEC teams in each division avoid each other this year, they put UGA and Alabama in the conference title game and the winner is guaranteed a shot at the BCS title game. Sorry Matt, but that stance by Big 12 officials is going to hurt them many more years than it will help. Ridiculous

Tom Keegan 2 years ago

A loss in basketball conference tourney isn't likely to bounce a school from the 68-team tourney or even seriously damage the school's seeding. In football, with fewer games in the regular season and fewer teams in the playoffs, a loss in conference-championship game could bounce school from playoffs.

VaJay 2 years ago

That's the really sad part. No controls, no common sense involved. Maybe in a couple of decades, we'll have 30 team superconferences :(

gccs14r 2 years ago

24 makes sense. Two full divisions of 12, each with a champion, and then they play each other to determine who goes on.

Chitown99 2 years ago

Who goes on to play whom??? With a league of 24, there may not be anyone left to play!

trajanj 2 years ago

I understand the money part but at some point you have to think that this thing is headed towards super conferences and if we don't get aggressive we will get too far behind and become vulnerable. What if the PAC decides 4 - 16 team super conferences is the end game and they make an offer to the TX schools or the TX and OK schools an offer they can't refuse? TX decides they like the idea of being in a conference with USC, UCLA and Stanford and they take the deal. Sitting at 10 and collecting money is great for TX and OU because they know they can go anywhere at the last minute if it comes to that but it doesn't benefit the rest of the conference members. Several conferences are at 14 now and 14 sucks for scheduling. There's no way they are going to stay there.

Joey Meyer 2 years ago

This makes sense. I do want the Big 12 to continue to earn as much for each school as possible, I guess it's just the college fan in me that wants to see the big names added to the league.

On a side note, I find these articles very interesting, informative, and I am very thankful that we have great local writers that pick up on these things and respond to their fans quicker and better than other publications with more resources. Looking to read these is by far the most anticipation I've ever had with reading a newpaper or online publication. Keep up the great work Matt.

Steve Hillyer 2 years ago

Not having a championship game hasn't exactly helped us the last two years so I'm not sure I'm buying it. I think a CCG can help as well as hurt your chances of landing in the National Championship, I think OSU would have been helped last year if they won a CCG.

Stan Unruh 2 years ago

Good information Matt. Thanks Unfortunately Mike Alden, of Mizzu is quoted at the very end of the Mich. St. article. That ruined it for me. He suggested that conference changes are a long way from ending. Since Miz started it by dreaming of a B10 offer, he probably knows.

d_prowess 2 years ago

Are there any lawyers out there that can help Tait trademark the Percentage Wheel? After a few more years you know he will get stolen away from us from someone like ESPN or CBS Sports to write for them and he needs to protect the Percentage Wheel! We can have every cheap beat writer out there trying to copy this revolutionary sports writing innovation!!

jgkojak 2 years ago

I think we know which programs are on the list for SEC and B1G expansion, and even the limited number the Pac has to choose from.

SEC NC Stat Va Tech in a pinch FSU, Clemson

B1G - they are only adding AAU schools UNC Virginia Ga Tech in a pinch Kansas (Yes, KS), Iowa State

Pac Texas Oklahoma/OSU combo Kansas TTU in a pinch San Diego St (really belongs in Pac academically/athletically), Nevada, New Mexico

I'm convinced KU's AAU membership lands it -- best-case, in B1G, worst-case in Pac w/Texas.

Who is S**t Out of Luck w/out B12: KSU -- hello, Mountain West TCU -- it was fun while it lasted, hello Mountain West Baylor -- it's gonna suck to be Baylor ISU -- its AAU gets it something - but w/out Iowa giving in and allowing them in B1G, not sure where they go WVU -- they could get snagged as team #16 in the ACC if the B12 implodes - it would help appease FSU, etc. who wants another football power

2008KUGrad 2 years ago

I doubt they would invite ISU, because they already have that TV market with Iowa.

Vernon Riggs 2 years ago

My guess is that 'Neither' would be the preferred answer of most of the PAC12 Presidents.

trajanj 2 years ago

Iowa has no say in letting ISU in to BIG. The BIG is only going to add schools that are in states that they don't currently have because of their TV deal. That is what gives ISU no chance at ending up in the BIG.

Vernon Riggs 2 years ago

You base your assumptions on the Big12 folding; for that to happen you would have to have 8 of the 10 teams leave at the same time. 8 schools leaving for a better conference at the same time. Your thinking is wrong; the Big12 is not going to implode. The money is too good. With the dividing Tier1 and 2 monies 10 ways and keeping all of our Tier3 money, Kansas will made about $5.5 million more than Ohio State, Michigan or any of the B1G school this year.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

True, however, in the long run due to TV market size the Big 10's will be worth more unless the Big 12 does add say Florida St and Clemson to increase it's footprint.

2008KUGrad 2 years ago

Since conference realignment is all about number of TV sets & cable subscribers in populated areas, what happens if cable television become obsolete? The internet is a wonderful & powerful thing & many people are using cheaper alternative to cable, such as Netflix, Hulu, ESPN live streaming, & many more. There's smart TVs with built in apps. ESPN has had an app & online streaming for years, which I'm sure some of you East/West coasters have utilized regularly.

What will happen with these big cable contracts with ABC, Fox, NBC, & the almighty ESPN? Some people don't think the internet will kill cable, just as cell phones won't (or didn't) kill landlines. Will the networks just instill a premium app?

Matt, has there been any talk of the future of media delivery? Thanks for all you do for the University.

Matt Tait 2 years ago

Awesome questions. I've never thought of that. I'll float it out there.

kuilander 2 years ago

this particular topic has been discussed in depth on a handful of diff message boards. it will be interesting to see how cable subscriptions and carriage fees compete for viewership against a coming a la carte type streaming content choice. this is one reason why i feel the big 12's direction for increasing the quality of its inventory is smart vs just propping up a conference network and going after cable subscriptions ..

average 2 years ago

I know ESPN studies this every few years. The number of people who will put up with paying (hidden in their general cable bill) $10 a month to ESPN and, say, the B1G Network is far, far more than triple the number of people who would actually directly pay $30 a month for the ESPNs and the B1G Network.

The former number includes everyone who buys cable/dish for Bravo or Food Network or Oprah's network. Or who don't know that you can get the networks with a free antenna (there's a lot of those, it turns out). The second would only be dedicated sports people. With family strife included (a dedicated 'for Dad' bill is a luxury item, but everyone watches something from cable).

2008KUGrad 2 years ago

I wasn't necessarily talking about paying "hidden" costs, which I know is what the B1G is doing, as they're wanting their target markets' cable & dish providers to carry the network, regardless, so subscribers do not have an option of paying a percentage to the conference(s).

Today, sports are about the only thing Americans watch live (& by live, I mean not recorded to DVR.) A lot of other programs are recorded & watched commercial free. I know I'm not talking about everybody, but the vast majority does this. With the techonology advancements over the past few years, live streaming has become much easier & convenient. You can watch all of your favorite sitcoms, dramas, realities, etc. on the networks' websites. You can do this with sports, as well. It's called live-streaming, so you're up to time with the game.

This option is readily available & more & more people have made the switch to drop cable/dish subscriptions.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

I would just like to through this out there that ESPN has changed online streaming of big televised games. In the past you could watch almost any game, however, now in order to watch many football games on ESPN you have to provide your cable provider and other info so they can verify you have cable. It was due to a huge dispute between them and cable company's like time warner so to some extent that has helped prolong cable being obsolete.

mahkmood 2 years ago

"What happens if cable television become obsolete?" Whether a person wants to watch a live football game from "cable" or the internet they have to connect their TV, computer, or mobile device to a network. Who owns that network? Last time I checked it costs money to have internet service, and that internet service is accessed through cables owned by a cable company (Time Warner, Cox, Sunflower, etc) or wirelessly from a mobile company (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc.) or from dish (DirectTV, DishNetwork, etc.) Apple already has IP (internet) TV in the pipeline. TV will never become obsolete. Networks will never become obsolete. Having to pay for any form of network service will never become obsolete. ABC, Fox, NBC, and ESPN will get paid by the same corporations that advertised by "cable tv" - the advertisements will just reach the end user by a different transmission method.

2008KUGrad 2 years ago

When more people start to figure out they don't need both cable & the internet & decide to go with internet only, how will these networks make up for lost money? Will the super conferences be the ones suffering? Increase the cost per internet subscription?

B1G already said they're signing a new TV deal in 2017. It may be a different world of technology by then.

mahkmood 2 years ago

The corporations owning the networks will always win because they have what the people want, and they get to set the prices. So, yes, they will increase the cost per internet subscription for those wanting a QOS for high quality video streaming.

GeoHawk15 2 years ago

Good questions for the future. However, have you tried to watch live sports over the internet? It's terrible, even on ESPN. A majority of people do not have the bandwidth necessary for live HD streaming yet.

2008KUGrad 2 years ago

I have. I prefer HD TV over live-streaming. There will be advancements in live-streaming.

ku_foaf 2 years ago

2008KUGrad, You bring up a good point, and the television as a business may change as other media drive businesses like books and music have already. TV is the biggest of all, and will fight it tooth and nail, but it will not be immune to technology changes in the long run.

The net result is it will probably scramble everything and we will go through this all again! Who knows when this might happen? Five years, twenty? Apple seems to be exploring this kind of "end around" with cable companies and wanting to charge based on episodes or views. They kind of said it would be very hard to break the current model.

Maybe each individual school will negotiate their own contracts. Maybe the whole concept of conferences will become less important again, maybe even go away, and we will see many independents again. Would bowls like the opportunity to choose the teams they think are the best, rather than locked into teams from certain conferences?

Unsettling, but it will happen again, even if it settles now.

jgkojak 2 years ago

Nice theory --

So... Where do the 10 members go? WVU -> ACC OU/OSU/TEX/TTU -> Pac KU/ISU -> B10 KSU -> ????? TCU and Baylor -> no way

Krohnutz 2 years ago

Put us in the Woody Hayes division. He was crazy enough to be played by Belushi, swap us with Baylor so the rest of the division is happy.

Robert Brown 2 years ago

I have a question. I remember reading somewhere when Nebraska joined the Big 10, they said they could deliver the KC market. They have a large alumni base there. Is this anyway to find out if the Big Ten Network is getting maximum revenue from the cable providers in the KC area?

ltownatrain 2 years ago

While I have no way whatsoever to prove this I would venture to say that while they do get maybe a small pump in people requesting the network in Kansas City that they will never truly have Kansas City unless they have either KU or Mizzou in their conference. I say this because I work in Nebraska and far more alum live in Omaha not to mention that up here Time Warner includes the Big 10 network as part of pretty much every cable package whereas in KC I think it's still extra because there just isn't the huge demand to have it included in all packages. Which is actually key for the Big 10 network, in that they want to make it where it's always included as thats more tv's and revenue.

Robert Brown 2 years ago

The way to find out is to ask Time Warner or Uverse in KC what they are paying to show the Big 10 network. Are they paying $1 per month per subscriber which I think is what they get in Big 10 home states. Or are they getting something less than that. Of they are getting close to the max in KC then the value of KU as a member of the Big 10 is sognificantly reduced.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

It would be a good question to ask them....too bad I don't have the patience to wait 2 hours on the phone with either. Also I really do doubt that they get close to max because KC is still a KU and Mizzou town in the end. I am pretty sure this is one of the reasons why KU is being mentioned in the Big 10 talk because they basically hand deliver the entire KC market (or at least the most populated part) that Nebraska can't.

Josh Galler 2 years ago

Surewest KC already has the BIG network not sure if adding KU would bring anything?

Robert Brown 2 years ago

We get it in Texas as well, but I think the carriers pay only a few cents per person per month to show it. The BTN demands a higher price in states that have a Big 10 schools.

JayHawkFanToo 2 years ago

Yes, Surewest carries 3 Big 10 channels in the KC area and all of them show the exact same thing all the time...I don't get it, what a waste of bandwidth. I personally never watch these channels and I don't know anyone that does. I would much prefer that Surewest carry ESPN3, every other provider seems to have it.

trey 2 years ago

I'm not convinced we're going to 4 Super-conferences given there is no governing body driving this, not sure the economics say that four 16's is the optimal configuration, and a football playoff doesn't require it. That said, we could get there organically, ie. one of the big 5 (excluding Big East which is already gone) implodes. Seems to me that there could be one of three triggers to this...

B1G, SEC, Texas

If the BIG and/or SEC recruits two more teams, or Texas decides they want to go to another conference, then it could kill either the ACC or Big12. In my view, the Big12 is by far the most vulnerable. The ACC has 15 teams (including Notre Dame). They have some margin for additional defectors. The Big12 has 10; one team leaves and I think it crumbles.

Here's a scenario that would be interesting. It assumes the ACC doesn't implode (my view) and geography stays relavent. Maybe not likely, but one that could be attractive in many ways...

B1G triggers the dominoes by adding KU and (yes) MU. I think the B1G would prefer to add UNC and Virginia, but I'm betting the ACC stays in tact. The B1G wants AAU schools and contiguous geography, so next best are KU/MU. This would also take shot at SEC. MU would be far better off in B1G, and I don't think there is any penalty to leave the SEC.

SEC now needs three, adds Oklahoma, OSU and West Virginia. Again, I don't believe the ACC implodes and these three schools are really best fit in SEC. New and contiguous geography for SEC.

ACC needs one, adds UConn UConn fits with basketball and geography (attractive NY market). Notre Dame eventually adds football into ACC.

PAC adds four Texas schools Or maybe takes KSU and ISU instead of TCU & Baylor. PAC has most limited choices to expand and obviously Texas is their top target.

Ironically KU, if invited to B1G, could be trigger for Big12 imploding. If Texas, OU, or KU leaves Big12 is dead. Maybe GOR will prevent any of them from leaving, and if so... we won't be going to four 16's. Personally, I would love to see KU to the B1G.

Sam Constance 2 years ago

Hallelujah.

I'm not the only one who thinks "superconferences" are just a trendy topic that likely won't ever happen.

It was concocted by some sportswriter or fan (or maybe the B1G commish) who thought it sounded like a neat organizational structure, not because the actual mechanisms driving realignment would actually trend towards that final setup.

If I was a gambling man, I would put a lot of money on the notion that the "superconferences" idea will never materialize.

At some point, you hit diminishing returns as it relates to conference size. There aren't enough "bargaining chip" schools available to fill four different 16-team conferences with enough clout to drive the TV contract revenue at a rate that matches the growth in number of schools.

Kyle Sybesma 2 years ago

Any word on who the B1G is looking at?

Vernon Riggs 2 years ago

The AAU schools in the ACC are Duke, UNC, Virginia and GA Tech. The AAU schools in the Big12 are ISU and Kansas. ISU adds zeroTV sets because Iowa already adds those sets. Duke and UNC may be handcuffed. Therefore the easy choice would be Virginia and GA Tech. If UNC would consider going the B1G without Duke, then Virginia and UNC would be best choice for the pure number of TV sets. Kansas would have GoR issue with the Big12 and might have to give up $260 million in TV revenue. Plus, Kansas makes more money in the Big12 than they would now in the B1G.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

You forgot Texas as an AAU school in the Big 12.

Krohnutz 2 years ago

Ironic considering his handle says lonestar.

Brett Clifton 2 years ago

It seems like when I was at KU, the student body was made up from 3 places: KC, Chicago and Denver. Wouldn't KU be able to pitch this to anyone about adding markets and $$$? KC is a no-brainer. Chicago is definitely covered by Illinois and Northwestern, but KU has a big alumni base there. And yes Denver is covered by the Buffs, but we have a large enough contingent out there to make the Buffs court "Allen Fieldhouse West" when we used to play CU. Just sayin.......

Robert Brown 2 years ago

I found something last year that showed the places with the greatest number of alums outside of Kansas and metro KC. I think Chicago was the top. Denver and LA and SF were high on the list as was NY and DC. St. Louis was quite high. I think the others in the Top ten were Dallas and Houston, and Phoenix.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

Dallas/Fort Worth are high and so is Orlando (I think they have something like 10000 alum, which, would explain the orange bowl berth in 08)

texashawk10 2 years ago

KU doesn't cover Denver. KU's largest alumni bases outside of KC/Kansas are St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver. None of those cities outside of KC or Wichita have enough alumni to justify carrying the B1G Network as part of a basic package if KU were to join it.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

This is true, however, as someone mentioned earlier the Chicago and St. Louis markets are ones the Big 10 consider a foothold in so because of that adding KU will enhance those two markets even if it doesn't cover Denver and Dallas.

Phoghorn 2 years ago

Last night, I drafted up my dream conference. What do you folks think about this one?

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Phoghorn 2 years ago

I was waiting for somebody to get it!

Terry N Tom Denner 2 years ago

As long as the Big12 Commish has his lips sowed to Texas AD Dobbs ass the Big 12 will fade away and become nothing but a Big Texas Conference that will be controlled by the Long Horns. Come on KU and read the writing on the wall and bail on the Big Texas 1 + 9. Big 10 would be a great fit for the program.

Sam Constance 2 years ago

Try to catch up. You're still repeating (incorrect) talking points from a year or two ago.

Just stop with the "TEXAS Conference" nonsense. They don't have any power that isn't a result of their enormous amount of resources. I know that we don't like to acknowledge it, but Kansas will always have to concede some things to schools/states like Texas, because we don't have the media markets, population or resources that they do.

It's not like a Texas equivalent doesn't exist in other conferences. There will always be a school with more clout.

Better to accept it and remain in a conference that is ALREADY a good fit, rather than leave and throw away the good things that we do have in the Big 12 so that we can replace the old boss with a new boss that will ultimately be the same.

I believe The Who have a lyric that speaks to just such a thing...

Brian Skelly 2 years ago

I agree about the 2 year old talking points. However that said, I dont believe Texas has any equivalent in other conferences. By sheer numbers Texas could go independent. I agree, that each conferences has their share of teams that control things. But none of them has the sheer heft that UT does. Again, its simply numbers.

Big 10 (Ohio St, Michigan, Penn State until recently), SEC (Alabama, Florida, Georgia), Pac 12 (USC, UCLA, Stanford), ACC (UNC, Duke) all have more say than the other schools in the conference are likely comfortable with. But NONE of those schools could survive on its own little island alone. People need understand for better or worse thats where UT comes at it from. Is it healthy for the state of the conference? No. As ive said prior here and other threads, I actually like being in a conference with Texas. Under the assumption I feel like I could trust them. And of course, I dont entirely. But my guess is after the last go around, It's hard to see UT going anywhere where it wasnt the big dog. Otherwise, they likely would have already done it.

Sam Constance 2 years ago

I agree that Texas' sheer size makes it conceivable that they could go independent if they wanted. But really what we're talking about here is having clout within a conference--at least, that's what I was talking about.

Kansas will never be that type of program. And being associated with that type of program actually helps us a lot more than it hurts us. Because really, the primary drawback is that people have pride and don't like to think that there is some other school with more X, Y or Z than their own school.

I trust Texas as much as any other school that isn't directly associated with Kansas. I don't think they want to be dicks for the sake of it--I think they just want to reap the benefits that they have admittedly earned for their size and resources.

Now if we're talking the STATE of Texas, and not just UT, my opinion might change a bit. But as far as the school goes, I think Texas is pretty alright.

jgkojak 2 years ago

I'm also thinking if the B12 is the one to go instead of the ACC - that tells me that no ACC school leaves -- so the SEC, to get to 16, goes after Oklahoma and OSU

The B10, with no ACC targets, has only one logical choice -- Kansas - which does really deliver the KC market in conjunction w/Nebraska

That leaves Texas to bring TTU to the Pac (not sure who they scrounge for #15 and #16)

That leaves KSU, TCU and Baylor S.O.L. -- would they be in the bastardized Big East (the one with Tulane and SMU)?

(ISU with its AAU status, either goes B10, or is the western extension of the new ACC)

In this scnerio: The ACC adds UConn and WVU The B10 adds KS and ISU The SEC adds OU and OSU the PAC adds Texas, TTU and 2 more (San Diego State, maybe Nevada or New Mexico) The Mountain West adds KSU The Big East adds TCU, Baylor

I could see the Mountain West and the Big East sucking up whatever is left of some of the other Div 1 conferences, leaving very little left

texashawk10 2 years ago

The ACC is not an attractive option to anyone because they pay significantly less than the Big 12, B1G, SEC, and PAC 12. Any school they add will be a Big East or C-USA school because those are the only two conferences in their region the ACC can pay more than. That's also the reason why schools are willing to leave the ACC despite the buyout because in a new conference, they can pay off those debts relatively quickly.

Brian Skelly 2 years ago

I understand why folks talk about wanting to join the Big 10. But there's been no sourced comments or verification that thats even in the works. We can want to 'join' all we want, but we have to be invited.

No one at all heard about Maryland or Rutgers until it happened. My guess is there wont be any (or much) warning about the next moves either.

Sam Constance 2 years ago

Not only do I think the Superconferences are NOT an inevitability, I don't think it's a very likely outcome.

Robert Brown 2 years ago

BP. I agree. A lot of people think that all we have to do is get on the phone to the PAC 12 or Big 10 and tell them we want to join It doesn't work that way. We clearly do not have the value we think we do and that is frustrating.

We actually are in good shape today because UT decided to keep the conference together. I hope people realize that.

Fairwayhawk 2 years ago

I don't think you can put the conference in jeopardy and then save it....it doesn;t work that way!! UT is and always will be the problem.....I have always wanted to stay in the Big 12 but the more this goes on and I hear comments from Texas turds who call UT the savior, I can't wait to get away from them! UT is way overrated anyways.....they do the least with most in my opinion....especially when it comes to basketball and football!!

Sam Constance 2 years ago

Your comment exemplifies what I see as people's main problem with UT:

They just don't like them, and it often seems like it's more out of jealousy than it is anything that Texas has specifically done to "wrong" us.

I don't think Texas "saved" the conference, but I think the fact that Texas saw that it's best situation was to remain in the Big 12 did help make it work. The reason I can't agree that they "saved" it is because saving the conference essentially required everyone to buckle down and agree not to do the petty crap that Nebraska, A&M and Missouri did. If Texas had decided to take off, none of that would have mattered, but I think that's different than saying they "saved" the conference.

Brian Skelly 2 years ago

Exactly. It's INCREDIBLY frustrating. So much so there are times my guess is that most of us wanna scream. I just dont think folks at KU getting up and snapping their fingers is going to do anything.

Im still fairly confident -- although certainly not overconfident -- that when all the musical chairs are done we'll either be in the Big 12, Pac 16, Big 10. The only ones we seem to have no fit in are the SEC and the ACC. We'll just have to hold on until it happens. My guess we've already landed where were going to be though Big 12/14/16.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

I think the most likely are the Big 12 or PAC 16 and sadly as much as I hate UT I think wherever UT goes is likely where KU goes because I seem to get this funny vibe that UT would like to have KU wherever it goes unless of course UT goes independent.

texashawk10 2 years ago

The Big 12 is in good shape, but it's not because UT decided to stay. UT got told no by the PAC, SEC, and B1G and the Big 12 pays more money than the ACC or going independent. The LHN is the sole reason the Big 12 is still together today because UT was on their way to the PAC if not for the LHN and the problems it would've caused the PAC 12 Network they are currently working on.

Fairwayhawk 2 years ago

Everytime I hear that the Big 12 wants to stay at 12 I want to vomit.....I mean seriously how in the world do these adminstrators think 10 is a viable number in the future?? IT IS NOT!!!!! And if our leadership does not realize this.....The Big 12 is gone within 5-7 years!!

I am so tired of this conference crap mainly because nothing positive has happened to the Big 12(additions of TCU and WVU was a SMALL exception)! I really hope perception is not reality in this case and the Big 12 is working hard and WANTS to get back to 12....if not this conference is DOOMED and KU look to get into the B1G immediately. I am also hoping that these "staying at ten" comments are aimed at not giving away our gameplan so we can work silently behind the scenes. In the realignment game...... it is kill or be killed....and unfortunately it looks like we are not the ones prepared to do any killing!!

ltownatrain 2 years ago

Yes but at the same time if a conference wants to expand and raid another conferences garage then you should steal the Ferrari or Porsche and not the AMC Pacer or station wagon. Thus unless the Big 12 can add Florida St. or Clemson who bring big fan-bases, solid football programs and prestige they shouldn't just expand for the heck of it by adding schools like say Cincy or I don't know Rice etc.

Sam Constance 2 years ago

Can you actually articulate why 10 isn't viable?

JayHawkFanToo 2 years ago

Actually 10 teams is the ideal number for a conference.

First, most schools likely would be located in the same general geographic zone and thus minimizing travel. Other that West Virginia, the Big 12 seems to meet that criteria.

In football 10 teams is ideal as each team plays every other team in the conference with 3 games left for out of conference games. Also, it is easier for the bigger teams to get to the BCS that in a 16 team conference where there is not only more competition but a conference title game as well.

In basketball a 10 team, conference means that every team play every conference team home and away. Do you remember the nightmare that the the Big East was, not only during the regular season but also in the post season conference tournament?

Rather than have 4 widely spread super conferences, I rather have 8 - 10 team regional conferences with the winners going to an 8 team BCS playoff in football. Yest, 16 team super conferences would earn more money but it is split 16 ways instead of 10. When you factor the expenses, I believe that the Big 12 with 10 teams is in better shape than most other conferences, with a lot less hassle.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

I love how all the presidents re-affirming their commitment in the article hmmm lets see where did I see that before.....Oh that's right Whiner A&M and the Pick ME Pick Me state did that last year. But I do find the Perlman's comments interesting and I feel like they line up with what we saw last year with schools jumping early either without paying anything or paying less than originally stated.

Dale Stringer 2 years ago

I think the Big 12 has it right and in the best world, there would be 12 x 10-team conferences. That's 120 of the 120 non-independant schools. Teams play everyone in their conference. We have a 16-team playoff made up of Conference winners (if they are in the top 25) and 4+ wild card teams.

bigboypants 2 years ago

Other conferences are expanding into more populated areas (B1G into the NE) and the Big12 is standing pat in a region that perhaps has fewer TVs than any other conference! At the end of the day equalibrium will win out and the product distributers (ESPN, FOX, etc.) will pay more for broader access. Conferences in less populated areas will get less TV money than conferences in more populated areas (ready for that Big12...?).

And, as we've seen, quality of programs (Rutgers??? Sheeesh!!) doesn't matter. Access does.

The Big12 must expand to capture more TV's if they want to be a player in the long-run. And they better get on with it...

Robert Brown 2 years ago

I don't understand why everyone thinks that expansion is required or even necessary. Doesn't the fact they the conference signed a 13 year media deal with Fox and ESPN protect then from having to expand? Aren't the schools guaranteed a minimum of $20M per year for the next 13 years? Isn't that the definition of stability?

texashawk10 2 years ago

Expansion is necessary for long term stability (think 25 years from now). With the way the GoR works, it becomes cheaper each season for a school to leave and if the Big 12 is still at 10 teams 10 years from now, it'll be relatively cheap for a school to leave and I do believe 4 super conferences will be the end game. If the Big 12 doesn't expand, when the GoR gets close to expiring, then it'll be open season on Big 12 teams by other conferences to finish the conference off. That's why the Big 12 needs to expand. It may not help today, but it'll protect the Big 12 in the long term.

justinryman 2 years ago

And here I thought I had brain damage before reading all of the above.

This really does cause a headache.

Please wake me from my slumber when something of substance come forth.

On a side note: Matt Thanks for keeping this going and providing information and such.

mahkmood 2 years ago

ACC statement is for legal and recruiting purposes. Completely lame considering the statement is a blatant lie. I now dislike the ACC even more. I hope the B1G, SEC, and B12 pick them apart and none take UNC or Duke.

Krohnutz 2 years ago

Matt; do you feel like Delaney has basically decided he is pissed off at Swofford and Notre Dame for their deal and part of this is aimed at crippling the ACC?

Let's look at the facts: He went after Maryland. Losing a member typically forces the losing conference (ACC) to then poach from the Big East (which is funny because I remember when there was an agreement that the ACC/Big12/BigLeast would not poach each other, hilarious). So what does DeLaney do? He poaches the next best school left in the Big Least.

I actually feel like Rutgers could be something of a sleeping giant. 40k+ enrollment, access to the Jersey/New York area, a developing football team. Strong academics. What is your assessment of Rutgers and if it will help the Big 10+2+2?

Matt Tait 2 years ago

I think your first question has some validity...

Krohnutz 2 years ago

If he is determined to make the ACC the new Big East, I don't see how Swofford can stop it. Actually, I could see a meeting occurring between officials of the Big 10, Big 12, and even the SEC on how to properly dissect the ACC and take out of it what they want.

So once they get a ruling on Maryland, and save themselves some legal cash, I think Florida State makes a move. Why pay now when precedence can be set on somebody else's dime. I need to read up on that impending court battle, what court rules on it?

Matt Tait 2 years ago

I haven't dug into it that closely yet either... You've got some interesting thoughts here, but don't assume it's a given that the Big 12 will bring teams in. It's all about how the TV folks determine value.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

One quick correction. Jim Delaney did not go to Maryland he went to North Carolina which is why many think he is targeting them.

Robert Brown 2 years ago

For those interested in the of alums in major US cities, check out page 3 of the link below. It is interesting. Chicago and Denver have the largest numbers. We alums are well represented on both the coasts, in Texas and in other Midwestern cities. We are not that well represented in the South including Florida.

http://www2.ku.edu/~oirp/profiles/FY2012/2-101_to_2-317.pdf

ku11 2 years ago

KU to B1G

Texas, Texas Tech to Pac 12

Oklahoma, Oklahome St. to SEC

Baylor, TCU, KSU to Mountain West

WVU to ACC

Iowa St. to Big East (if they'll still be around)

mahkmood 2 years ago

It will be interesting to see if the PAC schools will ever be able to stomach adding universities from the Midwest. Schools like Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and UW seem to view schools from the B12 as Bible-belt, Red-state hicks. That's why the PAC commissioner drops names like SDSU and Neveda when the subject of expansion comes up.

ltownatrain 2 years ago

Well in the end they would stomach adding Texas because they are like a white whale when it comes to revenue. And to a lesser extent I think they would stomach adding Kansas because while not great in football brings AAU affiliation and at least a national brand to the table. Outside of those two I don't think they care so much for the rest.

Bill Skeet 2 years ago

I don't share the believe that KU will end up in Pac12, Big10 or ACC. I think both the Big 12 and ACC are precarious in different ways.

Seems more and more likely that KU will end up in either Big10 or some new conference resulting from the wreckage of the ACC and Big12.

A move that makes one of those two conferences implode will likely cause the other one to collapse as well. Furthermore, the next defection from either conference may be the Jenga block that sends the tower into a freefall.

ACC's fragility is evident. If one or two teams leave, a ripple effect seems easy to imagine.

Big12 has strength and vulnerability with 10 schools and only 3 AAU. If any of those AAU institutions bolt, or Oklahoma, the conference is a shell of its current self.

I think the fates of the ACC and Big12 are tied.

If schools from either weak conference jump to the established conferences, then it's likely a school or two from the other weak conference will also jump to an established conference for self-preservation. Neither conference can sustain attrition in this situation. This will set off the implosion of both conferences, as the three established conferences cherry-pick up to 16 schools.

The result will be three super conferences, and a fourth "phoenix conference" that rises from the ashes of both prior conferences.

ozhawk4 2 years ago

I'll be curious to see the latest information around realignment with the 7 catholic schools from the Big East looking to dissolve the league and possibly team up with the A-10. What would the fallout from this be? UConn and Cincy/UCF free rides to ACC and would the B1G grab any of the leftovers from football? Would that force the SEC to grab a couple ACC teams and would Florida State be mad enough about the focus on basketball additions to leave the ACC? Anyway, I'm curious to see what new information is out there with this latest news that I'm not very many saw coming.

Terry N Tom Denner 2 years ago

Matt Tait, Did you ever check out the video of the did from Spokane Wa. kicking the 67 yard field goal ?? The kids name is Austin Rehkow. Played for the Central Valley HS there in Spokane Wa. KU needs this kid !!!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.