The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Babs]

Yeah, when you drive into Lawrence now, there's this huge sign on the interstate that says HOME OF THE 2008 ORANGE BOWL CHAMPIONS!

Never mind their three national titles in basketball.

[Uncle Ted]

The Bleacher Report attempts to make the argument that the Big 12 should invite BYU based largely on leveraging their new broadcast building for the Big 12 network. I don't think BYU would agree to that but the article did point out some interesting things about college/conference networks and BYU's new broadcasting building:

In this revenue driven world of college athletics, and specifically college football, schools and conferences are searching out any and all possible options to increase their revenue. The ability to launch their own conference networks, or maybe even their own school networks, seems to be the new frontier in revenue generation within college athletics.

So that got me to thinking, how much does it cost to start up a conference network, or a school network? I have thus far been unable to find an exact dollar amount. I do however know it cost the Big 10 Conference approximately $69 million last year alone.

When the Big 10 decided to start their own network, rather than try to do it alone because of the cost prohibitive nature of forming your own network, they partnered with NewsCorp(Fox Sports) to form the Big 10 network. As part of the deal, the Big 10 received 51% ownership while NewsCorp received the other 49%.

[...]

BYU recently completed the most state of the art broadcast house west of the Mississippi River. BYU's broadcast house has the ability to broadcast 4 channels all at one time and all in HD. BYU currently operates only 2 channels.

[CardiacCoug]

The Bleacher Report attempts to make the argument that the Big 12 should invite BYU based largely on leveraging their new broadcast building for the Big 12 network. I don't think BYU would agree to that but the article did point out some interesting things about college/conference networks and BYU's new broadcasting building:

How awesome would that be for the new University of Texas Network to be broadcast from Provo, UT?

Yeah, probably not gonna happen.

[LA Ute]

The Bleacher Report attempts to make the argument that the Big 12 should invite BYU based largely on leveraging their new broadcast building for the Big 12 network. I don't think BYU would agree to that but the article did point out some interesting things about college/conference networks and BYU's new broadcasting building:

The author of that piece, Gene Slater, seems to be . . . a BYU fan. My guess is he is a senior at the "Y," lives off-campus, and also helps plan his mission reunions.

[Babs]

The author of that piece, Gene Slater, seems to be . . . a BYU fan. My guess is he is a senior at the "Y," lives off-campus, and also helps plan his mission reunions.

I was going to go with his parents' basement. I love Bleacher Report!

[Uncle Ted]

The author of that piece, Gene Slater, seems to be . . . a BYU fan. My guess is he is a senior at the "Y," lives off-campus, and also helps plan his mission reunions.

Yeah, I agree there needs to be a thread entitled "$#%^ I read on Bleacher Report." but it is interesting to me that the Big Ten spent at least $69M for a 51% ownership in their network and the BYU broadcasting building has a four channel capacity. Of course, this could be just some more $#%^ I read on BR.

[Uncle Ted]

How awesome would that be for the new University of Texas Network to be broadcast from Provo, UT?

Yeah, probably not gonna happen.

Maybe if UT offered 49% ownership in the LonghornTV channel to BYU like the Big Ten did to Fox sports...

[SCcoug]

The author of that piece, Gene Slater, seems to be . . . a BYU fan. My guess is he is a senior at the "Y," lives off-campus, and also helps plan his mission reunions.

You're right that he's a BYU fan but I think he is a legacy donor of some kind.

[wally]

The author of that piece, Gene Slater, seems to be . . . a BYU fan. My guess is he is a senior at the "Y," lives off-campus, and also helps plan his mission reunions.

.....receding hairline, EQ secretary in the same single student ward for past 4 years running, wondering if he should stretch is graduation out another year for a chance at this year’s crop of freshmen co-eds ... you could go on and on.

[Top Ute]

Conclusion - OU has absolutely nothing to complain about. When they didn't make a BCS game, it was because they were not eligible, with one possible exception in 2001, but their final ranking was 11.

OU wasn't eligible in 2001 because there were two Big 12 teams ahead of them -- Nebraska in the title game at the Rose Bowl, and Colorado by virtue of being Big 12 champs in the Fiesta. BCS rules don't allow three teams from a conference to be in a BCS bowl game.

Then there were only four BCS games. With there being five now, there is no way an 11th ranked OU would be left out of a BCS game, unless the same scenario applied where there were two Big 12 teams ranked ahead of them.

[Top Ute]

BSU and Utah are comparable to OU with your other points but they seemed to somehow get at-large bids in the recent past. I would even throw in TCU but someone would argue they totally command the DFW tv market somehow.

Utah has never earned an at-large bid. They were automatic qualifiers in 2004 and 2008 based on BCS rules. So were TCU and BSU 2006. BSU 2009, however, was an at-large team, as it didn't earn automatic qualification that year.

[beefytee]

Utah has never earned an at-large bid. They were automatic qualifiers in 2004 and 2008 based on BCS rules. So were TCU and BSU 2006. BSU 2009, however, was an at-large team, as it didn't earn automatic qualification that year.

But didn't the Sugar bowl select them ahead of the Big East champ or something in 2008?

So they weren't the last team in that no one wanted, which is the point of the argument.

[Uncle Ted]

Utah has never earned an at-large bid. They were automatic qualifiers in 2004 and 2008 based on BCS rules. So were TCU and BSU 2006. BSU 2009, however, was an at-large team, as it didn't earn automatic qualification that year.

That is technically true about Utah in 2004 and 2008. Of course, if none of the non-AQ conferences have a top 12 ranked team or ND doesn't get a high ranking (8?) then it creates another another at-large slot. So essentially it is a rule based selection of one of the at-large slots.

In 2004 Boise State had the same record (11-0) as Utah and was ranked #9 but didn't get an "at-large" selection. Again, in 2008 Boise State had the same record as Utah (12-0) and ranked #9 but didn't get an "at-large" selection. If it wasn't for Utah they would have been to four BCS games. Given they weren't selected for the "at-large" so much for the "novelty" argument.

There was some interesting discussion about how moving to 16 team conferences wouldn't have changed the possibility of going to a play-off and if the Pac-16 formed they wouldn't have received a second AQ slot recently. Also, it seems the BCS is/was open to creating more at-large slots...

Among the most "galactic" and discussed/feared changes was those four 16-team conferences forming and breaking off from the NCAA. While even the most adventurous fans may have feared the unforeseen repercussions, others favored the idea in hopes of a playoff drawing near without the NCAA or BCS to stop a bracket from forming.

But that idea is bullhockey, to use one of English's most eloquent and imaginary nouns, according to Hancock.

"I thought, probably, that would mean a playoff would be even further away, and I think it’s a long way off anyway," Hancock said. "Because the same presidents who are voting to not have a playoff would still be voting. Now there’s 120 represented, and if there were only 64 represented, I think the vote would be the same at the presidents’ level. I did kind of have to chuckle at that speculation."

Hancock also implied that had a Pac-16 formed, it wouldn't have necessarily earned the second automatic BCS bid that some speculated it would receive.

"The logical thing would have been there would have been more at-large spots available," he said. "As far as contingency plans, we didn’t go any beyond, 'Here are some options.' Right after we sort of internally came up with the options, the whole thing went away."

He declined to speculate on the Big 12's status as an automatic qualifying conference if the five remaining Big 12 North teams had patched together a new Big 12 without the South or Colorado.

"One thing is, if you lose an AQ, then you would run the risk of not being able to fill out all of the 10 slots because of the two-team rule, if that makes sense," he said. "So that was something we were going to have to think about, as to what steps you can take to make sure that there are 10 teams. But again, it never got beyond just scratching our heads and thinking this is something we’re going to have to think about at some point."

[DU Ute]

If Big 12 teams were countries.

[LA Ute]

If Big 12 teams were countries.

Now that is funny stuff.