The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[SoCalCoug]

But as much as that article strokes my inner thigh (with apologies to GN)

Why? Are you saying that's his job?

[Uncle Ted]

Why the Big 12 is happy with 10 amid the latest round of realignment

The Big 12 is suddenly an outlier in college athletics. In a couple of years it will be the smallest BCS conference. As it is, the Big 12 can't even count to 12 (teams).

Superconferences loom. Conference networks surround it. With Louisville hooking up with the ACC, it looks like the realignment carousel is passing by the Big 12. Again.

And things couldn't be better in the Pure Prairie League (plus West Virginia). That continues to be the opinion of Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby.

“You and others may think I'm crazy,” he told CBSSports.com on Wednesday. “I think no one has proven to me that larger is better. ... If we had the opportunity geographically or financially for something that clearly moved the needle, we'd be on them.”

There isn't that school out there at the moment. That includes Louisville, which the league had vetted in the past.

One industry source estimated Big 12 schools will be cashing checks for $30 million-plus in the first year of the playoff beginning in 2014. The total now stands at approximately $20 million per school. Beginning in 2014, the Big 12 will begin taking in $40 million per year from the alignment with the Sugar Bowl (previously Champions Bowl).

There's your opportunity -- as Bowlsby put it -- that moves the needle. Expansion in the form of a bowl game split between the Big 12 and SEC.

A conference championship game doesn't make much financial sense. One media consultant says such a game would be worth only $700,000-$1 million a year per school. Not an insignificant amount but worth having to split with two more mouths to feed?

Think of it in Powerball terms. It's easier to make more money if you and nine friends combined to buy tickets for Wednesday's drawing instead of 12.
[...]

Oh, yeah, one other thing...

Conclusion: Texas/Oklahoma isn't leaving for the Pac-12.

[Maximus]

well frack

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why? Are you saying that's his job?

Just the left side. You can do the right side if you like.

[Scratch]

So I'm not sure if this would go under B12 expansion or something else, but I have requested a copy of the grant of rights (or any documents in which any B12 schools grant any media rights to the B12 or any other entity) from several B12 schools. Iowa State just wrote back to me and informed me that they do not have any such documents. Now, this could mean they don't have a copy of the grant of rights (which would seem odd, but is possible because they may want to keep it confidential and therefore do not keep any copies), or it could mean that such a grant was never actually made.

I'll let you know when I hear from other schools.

[Paperback Writer]

A conference championship game doesn't make much financial sense. One media consultant says such a game would be worth only $700,000-$1 million a year per school. Not an insignificant amount but worth having to split with two more mouths to feed?

Think of it in Powerball terms. It's easier to make more money if you and nine friends combined to buy tickets for Wednesday's drawing instead of 12.
[...]

What's not being mentioned by the Big 12 commish is that Texas and OU don't want to play a CCG and damage their chances at playing in a BCS title game or making the 4-team BCS playoff beginning in 2014.

I find it interesting how the math has changed when it comes to a Big 12 CCG. Back when the Big 8 expanded, or the Big 12 was formed, depending on your point of view; the push was for 12 teams in order to hold a CCG. Why didn't the Big 8 just add Texas and Texas A&M, renegotiate their TV contract, and call it quits? Did the additions of Texas Tech and Baylor justify the extra revenue from a CCG and having to divide the pie two more ways? Further, it was Nebraska that voiced concerns about the CCG harming a school's chances of playing for a national championship (and that concern proved accurate in the inaugural Big 12 CCG in 1996).

It was Texas that insisted the Big 8 take four SWC teams despite UT and A&M being the only programs that added any real value. Perhaps the math worked differently back in 1996. As far a CCG, both UT and OU were rebuilding and didn't have any concerns about being upset in a CCG and losing a shot at a national championship.

But now the shoe is on the other foot. OU and Texas are back on the national stage (actually Texas fell off the stage but the Longhorns will soon be back on it). Texas barely avoided the upset and nearly lost a chance at playing in the BCS championship in 2009. And now there's all this concern about splitting the pie two more ways even though Boise St. and BYU probably add more value now than Texas Tech and Baylor did back in 1996.

[Paperback Writer]

So I'm not sure if this would go under B12 expansion or something else, but I have requested a copy of the grant of rights (or any documents in which any B12 schools grant any media rights to the B12 or any other entity) from several B12 schools. Iowa State just wrote back to me and informed me that they do not have any such documents. Now, this could mean they don't have a copy of the grant of rights (which would seem odd, but is possible because they may want to keep it confidential and therefore do not keep any copies), or it could mean that such a grant was never actually made.

I'll let you know when I hear from other schools.

I've heard different stories on Big 12 members grant of rights to the conference. I do remember that there was a media announcement that such an agreement had been reached. But I've also heard that the documents have never been formalized and signed. Since one was a press release and the other was a message board, I thought that the grant of rights occurred. What may have happened is that Missouri and Texas A&M were in talks with the SEC during the process of signing over memebers rights and then stonewalled it. And after they left for the SEC, Texas and OU may have had second thoughts.

[Uncle Ted]

I've heard different stories on Big 12 members grant of rights to the conference. I do remember that there was a media announcement that such an agreement had been reached. But I've also heard that the documents have never been formalized and signed. Since one was a press release and the other was a message board, I thought that the grant of rights occurred. What may have happened is that Missouri and Texas A&M were in talks with the SEC during the process of signing over memebers rights and then stonewalled it. And after they left for the SEC, Texas and OU may have had second thoughts.

Yeah, I would guess that only TCU and WVU had to sign grant of rights docs. UT and OU most likely filed those docs in the garage can.

[The_Douger]

I guess I just can't see Colorado giving support for bringing Texas in to the PAC.

Texas was a big reason Colorado didn't want to continue in the Big 12. Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools won't like being relegated to a division with Texas, Oklahoma, and whoever else due to that somewhat cutting off their access to the California side of things.

Sure, they can make inroads in Texas, but I think those schools would prefer the California side of things more than the Midwest.

[Uncle Ted]

I guess I just can't see Colorado giving support for bringing Texas in to the PAC.

Texas was a big reason Colorado didn't want to continue in the Big 12. Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools won't like being relegated to a division with Texas, Oklahoma, and whoever else due to that somewhat cutting off their access to the California side of things.

Sure, they can make inroads in Texas, but I think those schools would prefer the California side of things more than the Midwest.

What is this Colorado that you speak of? Is that the 1-11 team in the PAC-whatever?

[Mormon Red Death]

I guess I just can't see Colorado giving support for bringing Texas in to the PAC.

Texas was a big reason Colorado didn't want to continue in the Big 12. Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools won't like being relegated to a division with Texas, Oklahoma, and whoever else due to that somewhat cutting off their access to the California side of things.

Sure, they can make inroads in Texas, but I think those schools would prefer the California side of things more than the Midwest.

Pac16 solves that by putting Oklahoma schools in the North and Texas Schools in the South and switch them every 4 years so every one of the 16 gets to play them. Then have an arrangment like the Cali Schools in which the Texas Schools always play the Oklahoma Schools.

Pac 16 North
Oklahoma
Ok St
Wash
Wash St
Oregon
Oregon St
Cal
Stanford

Pac 16 South
Texas
Tex Tech
Utah
Colorado
Ariz
Ariz St
USC
UCLA

[Uncle Ted]

Pac16 solves that by putting Oklahoma schools in the North and Texas Schools in the South and switch them every 4 years so every one of the 16 gets to play them. Then have an arrangment like the Cali Schools in which the Texas Schools always play the Oklahoma Schools.

Pac 16 North
Oklahoma
Ok St
Wash
Wash St
Oregon
Oregon St
Cal
Stanford

Pac 16 South
Texas
Tex Tech
Utah
Colorado
Ariz
Ariz St
USC
UCLA

What part of "Texas/Oklahoma isn't leaving for the Pac-12" do you people don't understand?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What part of "Texas/Oklahoma isn't leaving for the Pac-12" do you people don't understand?

No kidding.

[Paperback Writer]

What is this Colorado that you speak of? Is that the 1-11 team in the PAC-whatever?

Yeah...that's the one...Otherwise known at Utah's new rival.

[Uncle Ted]

Yeah...that's the one...Otherwise known at Utah's new rival.

Oh, the same guys that always made the children of the corn look good.