Another (LOL!) from the B12

[HerkyFan]

Imagine the screaming if a 12-0 Big 12 champion gets beat by a 9-3 (2 conference losses plus an OOC loss) 2nd place Big 12 runner-up. Does that mean that the (now) 10-3 Big 12 "champion" gets one of the Top 4 bids or will you select the (now) 12-1 team over a team from one of the other 4 Power 5 conference that also finishes 12-1 and WINS their conference championship game?

Nope isu fans will tell us it doesn't count and must be ignored. Just like when Sparty punked their champion.

 

[CyCity]

Not sure I follow. Why is it funny?

I'm wondering this too, what am I missing here?

 

[whatsup13579er]

Imagine the screaming if a 12-0 Big 12 champion gets beat by a 9-3 (2 conference losses plus an OOC loss) 2nd place Big 12 runner-up. Does that mean that the (now) 10-3 Big 12 "champion" gets one of the Top 4 bids or will you select the (now) 12-1 team over a team from one of the other 4 Power 5 conference that also finishes 12-1 and WINS their conference championship game?

Last year the championship game would have been OU/Ok State a week after OU took Ok State to the woodshed. This is not going to end well for the Big12.

 

[Southerniowacy]

Last year the championship game would have been OU/Ok State a week after OU took Ok State to the woodshed. This is not going to end well for the Big12.

When they announce the split into two five team divisions, they will also play those five games as the first ones on the conference schedule, then play the in division teams the last four games. So no, a rematch a week later will not happen. A lot of people think Iowa will win the west this year, some think that Michigan has a great chance to win the east. The two schools will play in IC this year, and its possible a rematch could happen in the championship game, why is that thought not bothering anybody, but it happening in the Big 12 is such a problem?

 

[whatsup13579er]

When they announce the split into two five team divisions, they will also play those five games as the first ones on the conference schedule, then play the in division teams the last four games. So no, a rematch a week later will not happen. A lot of people think Iowa will win the west this year, some think that Michigan has a great chance to win the east. The two schools will play in IC this year, and its possible a rematch could happen in the championship game, why is that thought not bothering anybody, but it happening in the Big 12 is such a problem?

The Big12 needs to do what you have proposed in regards to scheduling. If Iowa got blown out my Mich in the last week of the season and had to turn around and play the game again a week later there would be outrage. If there are 6 weeks in between the matchups a lot can change in that amount of time so the outrage would be considerably less. The scenario laid out by KuwaitHawk woud be an absolute nightmare for a conference.

 

[icu81222]

I will just leave this here

@Big12Refs: Iowa State got white helmets today. Also, today marks the high point of Iowa State football for 2016.

 

[CyCity]

I will just leave this here

@Big12Refs: Iowa State got white helmets today. Also, today marks the high point of Iowa State football for 2016.

I really like the new helmets but that's really funny. I love that Twitter account

 

[mikesright]

I agree that it almost certainly won't be higher echelon schools, and also that the quality of games would be diluted. But if there is a trigger in the Tier 1 broadcasting contract (like has been reported) that requires ESPN/Fox to pay $250 million for each school thay is added to the conference (not an outrageous sum, as Big 12 schools are already making ~$30 million in Tier 1 rights), I could see the networks being a little less willing to commit more money to the current B1G rights negotiation.

Long term, the SEC and B1G are obviously in a better position than any other power conference. But (and I know it's an unpopular opinion around here because of ISU), I really think it's the ACC that's more likely to dissolve than the Big 12, if (and this is a big if) Texas and OU can get along. Big 12 is currently making significantly more money (per team) than the ACC or Pac 12, and has a pretty significant grant of rights for the next few years.

The Big 12 schools are not making 30 million per school solely from Big 12 football TV deals. This total includes bowl revenue, NCAA tournament credits, and other miscellaneous revenue the conference generates. I had not seen an exact figure, but its a good bet that the Big 12 makes around 16 million from their TV deal per school assuming an 8% escalator right now. Each school has probably collected about 60 million give or take from the ESPN/Fox deal, valuing the rest of their deal per school at 200 million over 9 years. Why would ESPN give a 20% premium for the conference to add another school at this stage?

Its all speculation with the news story because there's never been a cited copy of a television agreement for the claim for another 250 million per school at this stage. It is likely that to some degree both the TV networks and conference protected themselves in the event of expansion - TV probably has an out that they don't have to agree to pay in the event of expansion but for the conference this may initiate a "look in" period or other method to sell off the remaining rights. There is probably an option for the TV folks to pay the conference pro-rata for expansion teams without reopening the contract. This last option is what happened quietly with recent expansion with the Big Ten and SEC - its doubtful the terms are better for the Big 12 but you never know.

In any event expansion is not a slam dunk for any conference because it is a short term gain unless they land a whale. If they dilute the quality of schools they risk losing out when it comes to the other revenue I cited, like NCAA tournament credits.