Back in 2010, KU's estimated added revenue was $46.32 mil (compared to Notre Dame's 47.63), and it's only gone up since then.
so, no it's not dilutive at all
Expansion again in Big 10?
- Thread starter HBK4life
- Start date
Back in 2010, KU's estimated added revenue was $46.32 mil (compared to Notre Dame's 47.63), and it's only gone up since then.
so, no it's not dilutive at all
I think NU was just happy enough that they got into the BiG TeN. I don't think they felt they had much leverage to ask for more.
Link? What was Nebraska's?
If KU's value was that high, why arent they at adult table with OU and Texas in the Big 12?
Ive linked it all before a thousand times. Nebraska's was 54.49. Texas was at like 101. Oklahoma was not included since they weren't seen as a viable alternative back then.
Texas is the only person at the adult table for the Big 12. Oklahoma isn't even there.
And also, whether a school is dilutive or not is not 100% the determining factor. Or at least it shouldn't be. For example, Louisville begged the Big 12 to allow it to join and the Big 12 passed on them. Well, they then went on to join the ACC and gave that conference a new lease on life. The Big 12 might have not been more diluted, but they allowed the teetering ACC to recover and knock the Big 12 down to the bottom spot of the Power 5. This was a decision that may have ultimately sealed the Big 12's demise.
a question
we were brought in to the BIG based on our football past and what was speculated to be a return to relevance. Got the invite after the 2009 season - where we narrowly lost to Texas in the CCG and the program was thought to be on the upswing. The academic issue was a big hurdle to clear.
My question is if we applied for membership today would we be accepted???
we were brought in to the BIG based on our football past and what was speculated to be a return to relevance. Got the invite after the 2009 season - where we narrowly lost to Texas in the CCG and the program was thought to be on the upswing. The academic issue was a big hurdle to clear.
My question is if we applied for membership today would we be accepted???
Took about ten seconds to find. I googled "Frank the tank expansion values"
https://frankthetank.me/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/
Not as good. I want conference implications.
Id take it, but its less likely than them joining imo.
Interesting that the BIG has landed 3 of the 4 top schools on that list, from an article written around 7 years ago.
Nice to be part of a conference with a vision and run by actual adults.
The two seats at the table to get the B1G to 16 should be for Notre Dame and Texas. Both problem children can be managed by the big boys in the B1G. The first requirement is that they dump their TV packages rolling into BTN.
.02 And, Go Cats !!
.02 And, Go Cats !!
Both of those programs (ND & Texas) would be great additions. However both have shown repeatedly that they CAN'T be managed successfully. ND has given the middle finger to the B1G numerous times and Texass is a proven conference killer. Both think they're bigger than anyone else. OU and KU are #15 & #16. It's just a matter of time imo....
GBR
GBR
Kansas has over 100,000 alums within 50 miles of Lawrence. The litany of mistakes their athletic department has made regarding football the past 45 years is astonishing (in 2009 they fired the 2007 National Coach of the Year) has been devastating to their FB fan base. But they are still there. In contrast, two years ago Forbes ranked the Kansas BB program the most valuable in the country. There are 5 or 6 BB programs that are on a different level (revenue) that all others and Kansas is one of them and the BIG is good BB conference. Kansas is AAU and Kansas has the National Cancer Institute designation and has applied for the Comprehensive level which all but two BIG schools already have - remember, it's the Presidents & Chancellors of these universities that vote membership and they have a different set of requirements than an Athletic Director. With cable cutting, the revenue model based on 'bundled cable' in large population states (such as Maryland - Rutgers) is being destroyed faster then Disney thought possible (according to Iger) and as we are seeing, it is ripping up ESPN. It is lessening the value of large populations. The future TV money will come more and more from big FB match-ups (like Nebraska can bring - especially if they return to their historical level of competitive play) and committed fan bases that will actually put their eyes on the screen when their school is playing - like Kansas has.
Now worse than what Pelini said, as head coach.
I wonder sometimes if people think through their desire for top flight program additions to their conference.
Adding Oklahoma and Texas to the B10 west while making a tougher division would guarantee lower team win% over the long run for all teams.
Oklahoma having to play Nebraska, Texas and Wisconsin every year plus throw in a Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State with a smattering of Sparty will ensure that Oklahoma will rarely win a national championship again let alone a playoff position. Ditto that for every team mentioned.
Over time all of the above mentioned teams will gravitate toward .500 vs each other and that is mediocrity jmo.
Send Texas to Pac12 because they actually need a top flight addition to their conference. The Pac12 is comfortable in their own skin and wont be be pushed around by the Horns.
I think I like the Oklahoma and Kansas addition in that each brings excellence their respective sports of football and basketball.
Oklahoma would toughen up the B10 West and assist the perception of balance between the two divisions Kansas is an easy notch and help those long term win%.
Go Blue!
It figures, right about time we get full pay from the big ten, the cable market will tank.
Oklahoma won't leave the longhorns because of recruiting.
and with Oklahoma and texas in the west would just make it harder for NU.
let them go to the pac.
ku, okie state, and the best non longhorn team in texas.
then the borders are connected and there is a foot in texas for recruiting
Oklahoma won't leave the longhorns because of recruiting.
and with Oklahoma and texas in the west would just make it harder for NU.
let them go to the pac.
ku, okie state, and the best non longhorn team in texas.
then the borders are connected and there is a foot in texas for recruiting
A good assessment on what "would" work, I think, but it will never happen that way. OU won't leave Texas. Also, OU and KU will never leave their 'States behind due to political reasons.
I know people go down the list and assume the top guys will just come if asked, but that's not going to be the case, or ND would have been in the B1G years ago. Instead, you're either looking at mid-majors, or catch a team in the right moment. For NU, it was the right moment.
You think? The Big 12, to me, is similar to the Big East around 2010-2012 or the SWC before the merger with the Big 8. A league with a couple of big name schools and a bunch of Rice's Houston's, Cincinnati's, Temple's and UConn's. The top will get cherry picked and the rest will fall to the mid major level.
Texas could attempt to go the independent route of BYU and Notre Dame.
A 12 team Pac12 appears to be the place with the most room, as the ACC, B1G and SEC are already at 14. I just simply believe the Big12 isn't going to survive another round of media rights negotiations.
If I had to bet a significant amount of money, ND goes to the ACC, BYU Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas find spots somewhere, and 5 other schools get gobbled up either due to location within a footprint or a way to create competitive balance within the league.
Yeah it was just my thoughts. Keep in mind, I wasn't really considering the B12 implosion scenario. I think we can all agree it will eventually happen, but it may be tomorrow, or it may be 10 years from now. I was thinking of it more as a scenario where courting behind close doors happen before the collapse (like what happened the last time).
Obviously when things fall apart any team without an escape route pre-planned like we had is going to be scrambling. Texas Tech, and especially ISU are in trouble. KSU to a little lesser degree since, as I said above, I feel they are coupled to Kansas.
Both Colorado and Missouri made deft choices in bolting when they had the chance. Especially Missouri.
How long was this new Fox/espn agreement with the B1G? I say 18-24 months before that expires, posturing begins. The hope would be to get the new members in place before signing the next media rights deal. Because as streaming becomes more prevalent, the next deal is going to rely more on popularity, size of fan base and less on simply TV market and footprint.
Regarding KU/KSU, during the confusion of the spring of 2010, the President of the Kansas Board of Regents came to the microphone and made a statement to clear up the 'tied at the hip' debate. He stated that the Regents would vote for the best scenario for each individual school and that there was no 'agenda' for keeping KU/KSU in the same conference. This was followed by a public statement from the Chancellor of Kansas, Bernadette Grey-Little who reiterated the President of the Regents statement. The Kansas legislature has absolutely no say in this matter and they offered no counter to these statements. The Regents will allow the University of Kansas to do whatever is in the schools best interests regarding any conference realignment. Period. Regarding the breakup of the Big 12 - If the college football playoff goes to 8 teams that could possibly be what holds OU and Texas from going anywhere (according to the Dallas Morning News and Chip Brown). That could be a real game changer for them both when it comes to conference realignment for obvious reasons.
Might have to choose between Ws or dollars.
Would people like to occasionally win a watered down conference/division for $ or be a perennial middle of the pack program in a super conference for $$$$$$.
College football is about $$ and not necessarily wins. In the era of shared revenue it is more important to be a member of a conference flush with cash than be a top dog in a strapped conference.
Attract the best teams and thus the biggest monetary benefit in a super conference and either become one of the big boys or at least reap the monetary benefits that come from being a welfare recipient of the big boys.
ND is ACC bound if they ever join a conference, and I don't think it's even up for discussion. Texas is more of a pain in the a$$ than they're worth. They've destroyed 2 conferences, and the fact is if push comes to shove Texas needs the Big Ten more than the Big Ten needs Texas. OSU and Michigan won't put put up with their $ hit... not to mention us, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa, and PSU... Texas made overtures to the PAC-10 back in the '90's. If they go anywhere my guess is they go west. KU seems a no brainer. The second spot is up for grabs. OU seems obvious, but screw OU. I think the BIG looks east toward UConn or Virginia.
I actually think this is the most likely scenario. If I'm Jim Delaney KU is my #1 target for all of my afore mentioned reasons, followed by a lower tier P5/Mid-Major. UCon, UVA, Cincinnati (although OSU blocks that), Iowa State, etc are all on my radar.
I could see the B1G adding Virginia possibly, but sorry, no chance in hell for UConn or Cincinnati. I said weeks ago earlier in this very thread. Media is changing and so will the TV rights deals with FOX & ESPN. People are cutting their cable cords and watching streaming content. Eventually numbers of subscriptions is what is going to drive these deals. In other words, who has the biggest, most rabid fanbases. What conferences used to look for are TV markets (Rutgers=NYC/NJ & Maryland=DC/Baltimore)...those days are soon to be over. On the athletics side of expansion, fanbase size and digital subscription models will dictate which schools conferences will go after. The B1G will go after OU for sure and probably Texas as well when we get to the end of these current TV deals.
I am all for KU, OU, & UT (and any other Big 12 team) to join the B1G. Bring in as many as those teams as possible. Once the conference gets to 16 teams or hopefully more, it will feel a bit more like we are in our own conference again. Let it get to 20 or 22 teams, so eventually when mega conferences go out of style, the West can break off and we sort of get our old conference back.
Why would we want two more scrub football teams. I want to see some quality matchups. Right now we only have a few good games a year.
will the only expansion/movement before the grant of rights start expiring is the pac12 to 14...?
keep thinking that 16 team leagues (for a 64 team playoff) are diminishing returns. and who wants to split their pie.
i also think when grant of rights start expiring that some who are in might be out...just a gut.
keep thinking that 16 team leagues (for a 64 team playoff) are diminishing returns. and who wants to split their pie.
i also think when grant of rights start expiring that some who are in might be out...just a gut.
I find it a little humorous about people's distaste for Texas because of their greed. Don't we hear time and time again that greed is capitalism and we should encourage someone to maximize what they can to get ahead? Why is it different for a sports team?
My history is a bit shaky, but it appeared that Texas was prepared to destroy the conference from within. Wanting to get ahead on your own merits is a wonderful thing, leaving a scorched earth because you don't get what you want is bad. But deciding what is morally/ethically right and wrong is subjective.
I think you should re-read some of the history. Start with the uneven revenue sharing, who was for that and who was against, then look at how the votes on a tier 3 media went down. Who wanted to keep that revenue to themselves and who wanted to share it with the conference.
The problems became real when all the schools that voted with Texas on the uneven revenue split, you know the schools that deserve more because they bring in more, got pissed because Texas took advantage of that and decided they would make more from a LHN than a Big12 network.
We all have revisionist history because we wanted a Big 12 network. But of course we wanted a bigger share of the revenues than what Iowa St and Kansas St were going to get. Yet when Texas played that card, well then the narrative is they destroyed the league.
The league was set up for failure from the beginning and 2 of the 4 schools that set up the business model left because one school did to them, what they were doing to the 8 other schools for 15 years.
The problems became real when all the schools that voted with Texas on the uneven revenue split, you know the schools that deserve more because they bring in more, got pissed because Texas took advantage of that and decided they would make more from a LHN than a Big12 network.
We all have revisionist history because we wanted a Big 12 network. But of course we wanted a bigger share of the revenues than what Iowa St and Kansas St were going to get. Yet when Texas played that card, well then the narrative is they destroyed the league.
The league was set up for failure from the beginning and 2 of the 4 schools that set up the business model left because one school did to them, what they were doing to the 8 other schools for 15 years.
The likelihood of me reading any more about the Big 12 from 7 years ago is low. I'm old enough to know life isn't fair, and that's not really the point. Even back then there was he said, she said. I wasn't in the meetings to form my own opinion, so I was left to try and piece together perceived events. The result is we are in the B1G.
The common narrative that is used to prop up our move to the B1G was that Texas and others (through Texas urging) were prepared to leave the conference if they didn't get what they want. Effectively burning the conference to the ground. Not the type of partner I would want to do business with. Maybe that's what happened, maybe it's not.
