B12 just can't expand!
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
It doesn't matter anymore. They don't really need to add anyone. The NCAA is expected to deregulate conference championships starting in 2016. The measure was introduced by the Big 12. In order to have a championship you must have at least 12 teams and play a round robin style to determine the match-up. This new legislation will allow conferences with 10 teams to have a championship game which is all they really care about. Not only that but now Ohio State could play Michigan or Penn State for the championship. We may never see a participant from the Big Ten east in the championship game ever again. They want the best possible match-up. The Big 12 needs to start a TV network and then split the money between 10 teams instead of 12. Why add BYU and Cincy or UConn to eat into your profits? It doesn't make any sense with those TV markets. The deregulation of championship games will be a big game changer if it passes and it's expected to.
Are you saying, for example, the Big Ten is a "round robin" within each division (it is) or overall for the conference (it is not)?
Dropping the clowns and adding McNeese State would be a nice upgrade.Who are we gonna find (that wants to join us)
that
will bring (more) value to our conference?
I still think there's going to be another conference that bites the dust. I think the better question is where would the bones of the B12 go to if it folded up shop?
Four 16's...that's the future. SEC, P12, B10, ACC...
Four 16's...that's the future. SEC, P12, B10, ACC...
Completely agree. Texas could make its own choice, as could Oklahoma. These two schools are additive from almost any way you want to look at things (and academics no longer matter in conference alignment).
In current football, Baylor and TCU would be welcome anywhere, but maybe not so much in other sports, and neither has much "tradition". Similarly, in basketball, Kansas would obviously be welcome anywhere.
I think the Big Ten could pick off whoever it wanted, and that Iowa State would end up mostly left out of any major conference (no TV sets and no tradition). Thankfully, Iowa isn't in this same situation, because if you want to be honest, we'd also be screwed if the Big Ten had to fold.
I think you'll eventually see 4 16 team conferences and they'll look close to this:
ACC- Florida St. , Miami (FL), Duke, North Carolina, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Boston College, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame and West Virginia
B1G- Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Penn St., Ohio St., Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St., Maryland, Rutgers, Kansas and Oklahoma
SEC- Arkansas, Florida, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi St., Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, South Carolina, Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas and Baylor
Pac 16- Washington, Washington St., Cal, Oregon, Oregon St., Stanford, Colorado, Utah, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., TCU and BYU
That leaves 3 teams out in the cold:
1. Iowa St.
2. Kansas St.
3. Colorado St. (Who was hoping to join the old Big XII conference)
ACC- Florida St. , Miami (FL), Duke, North Carolina, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Boston College, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame and West Virginia
B1G- Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Penn St., Ohio St., Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St., Maryland, Rutgers, Kansas and Oklahoma
SEC- Arkansas, Florida, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi St., Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, South Carolina, Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas and Baylor
Pac 16- Washington, Washington St., Cal, Oregon, Oregon St., Stanford, Colorado, Utah, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., TCU and BYU
That leaves 3 teams out in the cold:
1. Iowa St.
2. Kansas St.
3. Colorado St. (Who was hoping to join the old Big XII conference)
Who with half a brain predicts this??
To much $$ in the conference championships.
BBall and fball??
Dumb post...
Not so dumb...except a championship game for a ten team conference won't be necessary. I think eventually we'll have five 16-team conferences:
ACC, B1G, Big 16 (not 12), Pac 16, and SEC. That will keep 80 teams in the mix and leave the rest dangling for something.
ACC, B1G, Big 16 (not 12), Pac 16, and SEC. That will keep 80 teams in the mix and leave the rest dangling for something.
I'm not predicting anything... it's happening. There will still be conference championships so I'm not sure what you are talking about in your incoherent post. Yes, they still want a conference championship with 10 teams. Look at last year as an example... TCU and Baylor would have played and the winner may have made the playoff. It's understandable that they would want OSU to play Michigan State or Penn State if they have better records compared to crushing Wisconsin, Minnesota or Iowa in a boring championship game. It's not to our advantage but it does make sense.
Five 16-team conferences seem like a good idea. If this happens all of the present 1-A teams that get left out (KSU, CSU, ISU and those small-ball conferences (CUSA MAC etc) can join 1AA which is where they belong anyway.
Interesting conjecture from Cowherd:
Wednesday, Jul 1, 2015 10:03 am
ESPN Host Colin Cowherd Says Big 12 Will Evaporate, With Oklahoma Joining SEC, Texas To Pac-12
Matt Hladik
Ahh, conference realignment. Always a fun topic in college sports, right?
The major wave of realignment has passed, but new rumors and possibilities continue to creep up in the media and on message boards. The latest report comes from ESPN talk show host Colin Cowherd, who sees the Power Five becoming the Power Four, at the expense of the Big 12.
Well, this is certainly an interesting scenario to consider. Keep in mind, Oklahoma University President David L. Boren recently said he would like to see the Big 12 expand to 12 teams, but the dissolution of the conference could benefit the overall landscape of college football better, as it would even out the number of conferences competing for playoff spots.
Right now, this all just conjecture, but if we’ve learned anything about the world of conference realignment, it is to be prepared for anything.
Wednesday, Jul 1, 2015 10:03 am
ESPN Host Colin Cowherd Says Big 12 Will Evaporate, With Oklahoma Joining SEC, Texas To Pac-12
Matt Hladik
Ahh, conference realignment. Always a fun topic in college sports, right?
The major wave of realignment has passed, but new rumors and possibilities continue to creep up in the media and on message boards. The latest report comes from ESPN talk show host Colin Cowherd, who sees the Power Five becoming the Power Four, at the expense of the Big 12.
Well, this is certainly an interesting scenario to consider. Keep in mind, Oklahoma University President David L. Boren recently said he would like to see the Big 12 expand to 12 teams, but the dissolution of the conference could benefit the overall landscape of college football better, as it would even out the number of conferences competing for playoff spots.
Right now, this all just conjecture, but if we’ve learned anything about the world of conference realignment, it is to be prepared for anything.
The Univ of Houston was ranked #103rd in the last US News & World Report rankings of Public Universities. The current Big Ten members were Michigan 4, Illinois 11, Wisconsin 13, Penn State 14, Ohio State 18, Purdue 20, Maryland 20, Rutgers 26, Iowa 27, Minnesota 27, Indiana 30, MSU 35, Nebraska 45, Northwestern (private).
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...kings/national-universities/top-public/page+4
There are only a handful of schools that make sense to join the B1G when you consider academics, athletics, tv sets and somewhat reasonable geography.
B1G would take for sure if interested
Notre Dame
Virginia
North Carolina
Texas
B1G might take if interested
Missouri
Colorado
Kansas
Oklahoma
Georgia Tech
Anyone else that would have a chance is a long time SEC or Pac 12 school and wouldn't make any sense to change.
Last edited:
I certainly like and agree with the list but my comment was a project pick in Houston. Not that they meet the academic criteria now. They meet some of the other significant criteria. You invite them to join and then put them on a 10 year plan to bolster their academic ratings. If you get them to 50-60 over that time now you have something given their market and access to the state of Texas.
Just the prospect of adding Houston to the B1G might make Texas think.
Colin Cowherd has shown, more than once, that he's way too full of...himself. Even with klunker questions in a klunker interview he's not the klunker, it's the other guy. He's not always right.
Another opinion on XII's expansion discussion; this one addressing the G.O.R. It appears that most XII fans, specifically isu's, think this is the poison pill that will revent, as Cowherd says it, "evaporation" of the big 12:
Myth of the Big 12's Grant of rights
5:28p ET
Posted by Jason Hutzler
By Jason Hutzler
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...e/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights-010313#
That a grant of rights (G.O.R) prevents conferences from being raided is a myth. The Big 12 is still vulnerable becauseTexas and Oklahoma are still in play to be gobbled up in conference realignment. To give you some background, I am a contract lawyer in Phoenix. I litigate a lot of contracts. Some that have liquidated damages clauses and some that don't.
At the end of the day, the liquidated damages clause is essentially an estimate by the parties of the expectant damages in the case of a breach. The liquidated damage clause cannot be used to punish the breaching party, but is used to indemnify the non-breaching party. An exit fee provision is a liquidated damage clause. Because it cannot be used to punish, they are often negotiated down from the stated fee.
Contracts that don't have a liquidated damage clause have two remedies available to the non-breaching party; specific performance and compensatory damages. Contract law enforces the expectancy interests between contracting parties, providing redress for parties who fail to receive the benefit of their bargain. However, courts rarely use specific performance as a remedy, especially in an instance when compensatory damages are easily calculated.
A grant of rights is a contract between each individual school and the conference pledging the school's media rights to conference for a number of year. Like all contracts, it can be broken. School X, member of Conference A who has granted its media rights to Conference A, thinks it can make more money in Conference B. So School X leaves Conference A for Conference B placing its media rights in Conference B. Now School X's games will be distributed by both confernces. At this point School X has breached the grant of rights agreement, Conference A will sue School X over the media rights under the grant of rights agreement.
Conference A would love to force School X to leave its media rights with Conference A, requesting a court require specific performance of the grant of rights. This is the threat of the grant of rights, the tie that binds so to speak. If a court were to elect the specific performance remedy then School X of course provides no value to Conference B. However, because specific performance is often difficult to enforce and requires more of the court's resources most courts rarely ever use this remedy.
Courts are even less inclined to use it when there is an easy way to calculate damages. The resulting damages from a breach of grant of rights are easily calcualable. There is no reason to believe that a court would require specific performance in a suit over a breach of a grant of rights.
The court is going to look at the value and duration of the media rights deal between Conference A and the networks. Then it will look at the duration of the grant of rights by School X to Conference A. Is the media rights deal worth less for the remainder of the grant of rights. If it is then this is the measure of damages School X must pay Conference A. My premise is that the networks have never reduced their payout to an existing contract, and there is no evidence they will going forward.
In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. The Big East added some lesser brands, and their media partners did not reduce their ongoing media deal. 2010, the Big 12 lost 2 schools in Colorado and Nebraska, did not replace those schools, and the Big 12 lost a significant amount of content (1/6th) in football and basketball. The Big 12's media partners did not reduce the payout on existing contracts but actually negotiated for more money on an expiring one. 2011, Texas A&M and Missouri left, the Big 12 replaced them with less valuable TV properties in TCU and WVU, and neither ESPN or FOX required a reduction in the payout to the Big 12. 2012, Maryland leaves the ACC for the Big 10, ACC replaces them with a less valuable media property. Not a single word is mentioned about a reduced payout for the ACC.
Networks, and one specifically, won't reduce the amount they pay to the conferences because it would violate their fiduciary duties to the conferences. Because one network (ESPN) has a hand in every league's media deal (except new Big East if it even exists) it can't in good faith pay one league more for raiding one league, then reducing its payout to league that was raided.
Because there is no evidence there would be a reduced payout to the league, the damages calculation is simple. The media deal for Conference A remains unchanged despite School X leaving, therefore there would be no damages for breach of grant of rights. The Big 12 grant of rights runs concurrently to media deals. So unless the networks change their strategy and go against precedent and start reducing the payouts to leagues, the only thing that binds these schools is money. Once the SEC starts its network there will be a new conference shuffle, and the Big 12 is still vulnerable.
Myth of the Big 12's Grant of rights
5:28p ET
Posted by Jason Hutzler
By Jason Hutzler
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...e/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights-010313#
That a grant of rights (G.O.R) prevents conferences from being raided is a myth. The Big 12 is still vulnerable becauseTexas and Oklahoma are still in play to be gobbled up in conference realignment. To give you some background, I am a contract lawyer in Phoenix. I litigate a lot of contracts. Some that have liquidated damages clauses and some that don't.
At the end of the day, the liquidated damages clause is essentially an estimate by the parties of the expectant damages in the case of a breach. The liquidated damage clause cannot be used to punish the breaching party, but is used to indemnify the non-breaching party. An exit fee provision is a liquidated damage clause. Because it cannot be used to punish, they are often negotiated down from the stated fee.
Contracts that don't have a liquidated damage clause have two remedies available to the non-breaching party; specific performance and compensatory damages. Contract law enforces the expectancy interests between contracting parties, providing redress for parties who fail to receive the benefit of their bargain. However, courts rarely use specific performance as a remedy, especially in an instance when compensatory damages are easily calculated.
A grant of rights is a contract between each individual school and the conference pledging the school's media rights to conference for a number of year. Like all contracts, it can be broken. School X, member of Conference A who has granted its media rights to Conference A, thinks it can make more money in Conference B. So School X leaves Conference A for Conference B placing its media rights in Conference B. Now School X's games will be distributed by both confernces. At this point School X has breached the grant of rights agreement, Conference A will sue School X over the media rights under the grant of rights agreement.
Conference A would love to force School X to leave its media rights with Conference A, requesting a court require specific performance of the grant of rights. This is the threat of the grant of rights, the tie that binds so to speak. If a court were to elect the specific performance remedy then School X of course provides no value to Conference B. However, because specific performance is often difficult to enforce and requires more of the court's resources most courts rarely ever use this remedy.
Courts are even less inclined to use it when there is an easy way to calculate damages. The resulting damages from a breach of grant of rights are easily calcualable. There is no reason to believe that a court would require specific performance in a suit over a breach of a grant of rights.
The court is going to look at the value and duration of the media rights deal between Conference A and the networks. Then it will look at the duration of the grant of rights by School X to Conference A. Is the media rights deal worth less for the remainder of the grant of rights. If it is then this is the measure of damages School X must pay Conference A. My premise is that the networks have never reduced their payout to an existing contract, and there is no evidence they will going forward.
In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. The Big East added some lesser brands, and their media partners did not reduce their ongoing media deal. 2010, the Big 12 lost 2 schools in Colorado and Nebraska, did not replace those schools, and the Big 12 lost a significant amount of content (1/6th) in football and basketball. The Big 12's media partners did not reduce the payout on existing contracts but actually negotiated for more money on an expiring one. 2011, Texas A&M and Missouri left, the Big 12 replaced them with less valuable TV properties in TCU and WVU, and neither ESPN or FOX required a reduction in the payout to the Big 12. 2012, Maryland leaves the ACC for the Big 10, ACC replaces them with a less valuable media property. Not a single word is mentioned about a reduced payout for the ACC.
Networks, and one specifically, won't reduce the amount they pay to the conferences because it would violate their fiduciary duties to the conferences. Because one network (ESPN) has a hand in every league's media deal (except new Big East if it even exists) it can't in good faith pay one league more for raiding one league, then reducing its payout to league that was raided.
Because there is no evidence there would be a reduced payout to the league, the damages calculation is simple. The media deal for Conference A remains unchanged despite School X leaving, therefore there would be no damages for breach of grant of rights. The Big 12 grant of rights runs concurrently to media deals. So unless the networks change their strategy and go against precedent and start reducing the payouts to leagues, the only thing that binds these schools is money. Once the SEC starts its network there will be a new conference shuffle, and the Big 12 is still vulnerable.
Similar threads
