The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[shoganai]

Of course there would be grounds for a lawsuit. Those teams have past experience of getting paid big $$$ to be a part of the BCS. You take that away from them under what grounds? Because they don't deserve it? Well what teams that DO deserve it aren't getting a cut? BYU and BSU need in under that legal argument.

The problem is, the BCS is on its face anticompetitive. Unlike the professional leagues, they don't have legally supported and tested waivers for remaining an illegal cartel. But cartels just don't disappear because they're illegal. Someone has to sue to get rid of them. There has never been anyone with a really strong case challenge them - and everytime a team got close to having that strong case, they were bought off by the BCS.

Kick four teams out, and there will be four teams with VERY strong cases, and at least two more (BYU & BSU) who would be willing to jump in. And the Attorney General of a State (Utah) who has been constructing a case against the BCS for several years.

This is not a fight the BCS wants to get in. They don't need to either. Going to five Super Conferences takes away all those with the strongest evidence of damages. It's going to be really tough for Utah State or SUNY Buffalo to argue that they have been hurt by not having access to the BCS games or BCS money. They've never come close to such success within their inferrior leagues, why should a court believe that they've been damaged by officially being cut off from such access by being left out of the Super Conferences?

But Iowa State, Baylor or Vandy could make VERY compelling cases that they had been damaged by the SC's exclusive practices.

What does the BCS have to do with any of this? If super conferences go down, the BCS is history right along with it.

[dabrockster]

I don't think there's the slightest chance there was half that much thought behind what he said.

Of course he will now claim otherwise.

[statman]

What does the BCS have to do with any of this? If super conferences go down, the BCS is history right along with it.

It might change its name, but it will absolutely exist - and will have even stronger control of who plays which post-season games. It will be MORE anticompetitive than it currently is...

[ERCougar]

I still don't get it. There's a pile of cash out there for college football this year. The TV revenue will be distributed according to eyeballs. Switching around conferences is not going to change which games people decide to watch. So Colorado, for example, is going to deliver the same revenue to the Pac this year as it did the Big 12 last year. How is all this shuffling making any real impact on the financials of the member institutions of the conferences? The logic just doesn't seem there.

Completely agree. This has never made sense to me. If, by all reports, the Big 12 was all stoked to get rid of the dead weight that they call Colorado, why again is it a major coup for Larry Scott to land them, in a deal with a mid-major who doesn't even come first in its own media market? I guess it may have scored them a new TV deal, but in the end, it seems to me that their new deal would have been just as good or better with the former 10 (on a per-team basis) or Fox will be pissed that it got hoodwinked into believing that adding a mid major and a BCS deadweight was actually going to bring them more money. My guess is the former--at least Fox can claim to have wrested two markets away from espn/comcast--and that like you point out in another post, USC could look for greener pastures.

[shoganai]

It might change its name, but it will absolutely exist - and will have even stronger control of who plays which post-season games. It will be MORE anticompetitive than it currently is...

Once the NCAA puts its stamp of approval on a new division, it's all settled.

[Mormon Red Death]

Completely agree. This has never made sense to me. If, by all reports, the Big 12 was all stoked to get rid of the dead weight that they call Colorado, why again is it a major coup for Larry Scott to land them, in a deal with a mid-major who doesn't even come first in its own media market?

Do you have a link for this claim?

[statman]

Once the NCAA puts its stamp of approval on a new division, it's all settled.

NCAA doesn't control the bowls. Bowls = the money. NCAA DOESN'T control the money.

And neither the NCAA nor the bowls have a waiver to actively engage in uncomeptitive behavior like the pro leagues do. Nothing is settled.

[jay santos]

Do you have a link for this claim?

Which? Utah #2 in its media market or Big 12 glad they lost CO? Neither seem so outlandish.

[Mormon Red Death]

Which? Utah #2 in its media market or Big 12 glad they lost CO? Neither seem so outlandish.

that the big 12 was "Stoked" to get rid of colorado. I am not saying its outlandish I am just asking if he has some verification. I've never heard it.

[Babs]

that the big 12 was "Stoked" to get rid of colorado. I am not saying its outlandish I am just asking if he has some verification. I've never heard it.

There's no indication that Colorado was a liability.

[Surfah]

I thought this was pretty funny.

[Green Monstah]

How do you lay claim to exclusive catch phrases? Do you just dibs them or is it more like adverse possession? If the former, I'd like my CUF catch phrase to be "I'll cut you, bitch!"

[jay santos]

that the big 12 was "Stoked" to get rid of colorado. I am not saying its outlandish I am just asking if he has some verification. I've never heard it.

Not totally sure I buy it, but this was going around a lot last year when it went down. Colorado' was arguably a bottom 3 Big 12 team, revenue wise. Basic math would imply dropping anyone in the bottom half would increase average revenue across the league.

[shoganai]

Completely agree. This has never made sense to me. If, by all reports, the Big 12 was all stoked to get rid of the dead weight that they call Colorado, why again is it a major coup for Larry Scott to land them, in a deal with a mid-major who doesn't even come first in its own media market? I guess it may have scored them a new TV deal, but in the end, it seems to me that their new deal would have been just as good or better with the former 10 (on a per-team basis) or Fox will be pissed that it got hoodwinked into believing that adding a mid major and a BCS deadweight was actually going to bring them more money. My guess is the former--at least Fox can claim to have wrested two markets away from espn/comcast--and that like you point out in another post, USC could look for greener pastures.

There are many shades of gray in this issue.

The big money incentive is via the championship game, which from what I've heard pushes the new deal past what they could've earned renegotiating as a 10-team league.

In addition, the power conferences have been pressured internally and externally to expand for quite some time so they can all hold championship games. The reason being, it's a step in the process of reorganizing the BCS to avoid legal entanglements, while also positioning for possible power conference creation, or the creation of a new upper-tier NCAA division.

And, there are many that believe Colorado will actually flourish in the Pac-12 and end up being a great addition both financially and competitively. The theory is that CU has really been more of a Pac school all along in terms of recruiting and fan base (tons of Buffs on the west coast - not unlike BYU), and the only reason they didn't join the Pac back in 1994 was because they ink hadn't even dried on the new Big 12 contract. And, while recent history hasn't been kind to them, there's enough success in the past to indicate CU could rise again.

USC has a history of being restless. They threatened to leave the conference back in the mid-70s when the league was dragging its feet on adding the Arizona schools. And, I've heard scattered whispers that they had to push their weight around again (at least to some extent) to get expansion to work this time. Some even feel like Larry Scott was really their hire, and not necessarily everybody else's. Remember, Tom Hansen was a Washington go through and through, while Scott has no Pac ties whatsoever. Would they ever get restless enough to do something drastic such as to go independent or demand BYU be added? Tough to imagine it now, but one never knows...

[shoganai]

NCAA doesn't control the bowls. Bowls = the money. NCAA DOESN'T control the money.

And neither the NCAA nor the bowls have a waiver to actively engage in uncomeptitive behavior like the pro leagues do. Nothing is settled.

I think if you're hoping for legalities to save us from super conferences you're putting your hope in a false promise. If the 4x16 happens, it's going to be done just as Texas A&M's exit from the Big 12 is currently being orchestrated - slowly, deliberately, and bureacratically, with plenty of suits and briefcases behind the scenes making sure there isn't a lot of ammo left over.

The first few steps towards this have already been taken. The next big step is getting the NCAA to allow increases in the value of scholarships, and who really doubts that's going to happen at some point now?

I'm not saying 4x16 is a forgone conclusion, but you can't ignore all the people talking about it, and they're talking about it for a reason.

If you want to avoid 4x16, you better root very hard for the Big 12 to stick together and become strong and stable again. As long as that happens, there will be at least 5-6 power conferences, and BYU will most definitely have a seat at the table.