New Twist on Conference Alignment

[PLaw]

From another board -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally posted by wellendowedUT:

Posted: Today 3:13 AM

Oklahoma leaving the Big XII... with Texas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post is from a friend of mine who goes by the name of Iceman on orangebloods.com. With all the talk of Nebraska and Mizzou leaving, I wanted to get the Sooner opinion of this arrangement: the Western Alliance


__________________________________________________ ______

Despite reports to the contrary, Texas will absolutely listen to any offer from the Big Ten that comes their way. The deal will have to make sense in all areas, competition, culture, rivalries, travel, academics, etc. If the right offer materializes, they'll hop on it. But, they're also actively evaluating other opportunities, which include possibly creating a new conference. As it stands, there is a real fear that Nebraska & Missouri could get plucked by the Big Ten. If they do, it will certainly break the conference. Nebraska & Missouri rank #3 and #4 respectively in terms of conference revenue generation. There is no replacing them.

Contrary to speculation based on pure fantasy, the Big XII will not add any Texas teams to the mix if/when there are defections. There is absolutely nothing gained by adding TCU, SMU, Houston or any other Texas team. And, though some seem to have a hard time grasping this concept, the Big XII will not be adding LSU, Arkansas, Notre Dame or any other program from the SEC, Big Ten or any other conference (or independent) that takes in $10M more per team in revenue than the Big XII. Those teams would have to take a massive revenue pay cut to join the Big XII. It's totally illogical. It'd be cool if it happened, but there's a 0% chance it does.

If Nebraska & Missouri bolt (or Texas and A&M), the conference will look to start a NEW CONFERENCE with members of the Pac-10 (hence the term "Western Alliance"). As it stands for Texas, there will be no "joining the Pac-10" b/c the Pac-10 is in a worse financial position than the current Big XII. The word is, an effort would be made to take the cream from the Pac-10, Big XII and Mountain West, and form an Alliance of teams that span the Pacific, Mountain and Central timezones. I've said it previously, but if Nebraska & Missouri bolt and Texas isn't on the train, you'll probably see this conference emerge.

West:
* USC
* UCLA
* Stanford
* Cal
* Oregon
* Oregon State
* Washington
* Utah

East:
* Texas
* Texas A&M
* Oklahoma
* Kansas
* Colorado
* Arizona
* Arizona State
* BYU, Texas Tech or Iowa State

That right there would bring in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and probably Nevada & possibly even New Mexico (and Iowa if they opt for ISU over TT & BYU). That would give the new conference a footprint of 96M (101M w/ New Mexico & Iowa). The new alliance would start their own network, much like the Big Ten. With a geographic footprint of 96M minimum, they'd have that as a foundation to bring in ungodly sums of revenue from TV deals. To put the 96M into perspective, currently the Big Ten has a footprint of 67M and is receiving an average of $112M per year for 25 years (the actual number escalates from year to year, but the average is $112M/yr). A Western Alliance with a 96M strong footprint could conceivably bring in 50% more than the current Big Ten Network.

If the Big Ten adds Nebraska, Missouri, New York & New Jersey (via Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Nebraska & Missouri), they'd be at a footprint of 103M. Due to the overall lack of interest in college football in NYC, I don't think they'd get max dollar in the city. So, it's conceivable a Western Alliance with 96M strong could become the top dog in terms of TV revenue. That alliance would also benefit from strong weekly matchups w/in the conference, which would greatly increase any deals w/ ABC, CBS or NBC. I was told there would also be a concerted effort w/in the alliance to schedule OOC teams from the Eastern & Central time zones, specifically the ACC, SEC & Big Ten, in an effort to gain greater exposure there and mitigate any residual "western/pacific bias".

Now, if Nebraska is spared, you'll more than likely see the Big XII simply try to add one of the Utah teams and move forward. Or, they could make a run at Arizona & Arizona State b/c we actually have more $$$ to offer each team from TV revenue than the Pac-10 does. That could force USC & UCLA into a position where they either stay in a diminished Pac-10 and earn even less $$$ or join the Big XII + UA, ASU & Utah/BYU to form a new 16 team Big XII.

There are a number of options currently being floated around at Belmont. I've long been a big proponent of a Big Ten move, but I'm starting to think a Western Alliance could be a profitable endeavor for Texas. I'm still firmly in the pro-Big Ten bandwagon, but an alliance of sorts could pay dividends if done right. It'd suck for Washington State, K-State, Oklahoma State, Baylor and anyone else left on the sidelines, but they'll end up merging w/ the Mountain West and may even be able to gain BCS status. The fans in the Pac-10 are pretty ho-hum, but it's conceivable an influx of new blood and rivalries could spur greater interest w/in the conference......especially w/ USC no longer being the predetermined king of the conference each season.

----------------------------------

So that you guys better understand the current TV situation.....and to stoke the fires of anger towards Beebe, here's a little background on each conference's current TV deals. Each conference has 2 main contracts. For the Big XII, ours are with ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Net (FSN). The Big Ten has ABC & the Big Ten Network (BTN). And, the SEC has CBS & ESPN. Here's the payouts for each. These deals include both football & men's basketball, and in the case of the BTN, all conference sports.

Big XII
* ABC/ESPN: $60M/yr, 19 gms/yr, 8 year deal
* FSN: $19.5M/yr, 4 year deal
* Total: $6.625M per team per year

Big Ten
* ABC/ESPN: $100M/yr, 41 gms/yr, 10 year deal
* BTN: $112M/yr, 25 year deal
* Total: $19.272M per team per year

SEC
* CBS: $57M/yr, 15 gms/yr, 15 year deal
* ESPN: $150/yr, 15 year deal
* Total: $17.222M per team per year

The totals above don't include post season revenue for football & basketball, so that's why the payouts aren't as high as you've heard reported. But, as you can see, the Big XII gets royally screwed on their FSN deal. That's why Beebe is hopeful they can dramatically increase revenue through the next contract. Of course, if Nebraska & Missouri bolt, there goes that negotiating power, b/c no one wants to see Kansas State take on Baylor, etc. Plus, ESPN has already let it be known they have no room to pay another max deal for rights to the Big XII or any other conference.

______________________________________________

Thoughts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BOOMER

[CORNholio]

16 teams?
I'd rather see:

East:
OU
OK State
Texas
A&M
TCU
Kansas

West:
Colo
Kansas St
TTech
Utah
BYU
Boise St or Airforce, or AZ State (would work much better if NM had a team worth joining)

[MeMyself&Me]

It'd suck for Washington State, K-State, Oklahoma State, Baylor and anyone else left on the sidelines, but they'll end up merging w/ the Mountain West and may even be able to gain BCS status.

I think this issue is way understated. Old SWC schools that weren't included in the last big shift really lost out. I don't see any reason for the schools left out this time around to see it any different and, as we've seen before, politicians will likely get involved to keep what makes the most sense from happening.

Aside from that, it makes more sense than Texas going to the Big 10 and actually looks like a good conference lineup. I like that the balance of power shifts away from the state of Texas somewhat.



One funny thing to think about, I see no reason that OU would continue to annually play OSU in that scenario. Now, would the one-game-season-poke's season be completely meaningless without the annual not-quite-beddlam game? (LOL, had to misspell that to make it show like I wanted it too.)

[ouleaf]

too many what - if's in all those ramblings for me to really pay attention to what he was saying.

I really don't like the idea of having a conference that spreads out over 3 time zones. That seems a bit much.

[delhalew]

I wouldn't hate it. The one caveat for me in any scenario is I want an annual matchup with Nebraska.

[Stitch Face]

The Big11 teams each make 19 mil a year from TV revenues? Son of a bitch.

[soonervegas]

I am just curious as to why the Big 12 would sit around and wait for a domino to fall? Why not be proactive and make the 1st strike by going after BYU or Utah?

With that being said, I think OU and Texas going anywhere together is going to be problematic because each of us will WANT to bring our baby bother along. (A&M and OSU)

[Stitch Face]

With that being said, I think OU and Texas going anywhere together is going to be problematic because each of us will WANT to bring our baby bother along. (A&M and OSU)

I don't want to take osu anywhere.

[My Opinion Matters]

Northwestern's television contract is three times more lucrative than ours? Hahaha, that's everything that's wrong with the world right there.

[SoonerAtKU]

Metro Chicago has how many more TV viewers than the entire state of Oklahoma?

[NormanPride]

I would be the OU administrative staff couldn't care less what happens to OSU. I would also wager that the OSU administrative staff knows much of their prestige and relevance is tied to us.

If there are any moves made, look for local aggy politicians to try and lump themselves in with whatever we do. What I fear most is that their inability to let us go will screw both of us over, and we'll both sink into irrelevance because of it.

[Stitch Face]

Metro Chicago has how many more TV viewers than the entire state of Oklahoma?

1000? 2000?

I was never good at geography.

[SoonerAtKU]

1000? 2000?

I was never good at geography.

It's at least a couple dozen.

[My Opinion Matters]

Metro Chicago has how many more TV viewers than the entire state of Oklahoma?

And I guarantee you the average Chicagoan is more likely to tune into an OU game than a Northwestern game.

[badger]

One funny thing to think about, I see no reason that OU would continue to annually play OSU in that scenario. Now, would the one-game-season-poke's season be completely meaningless without the annual not-quite-beddlam game? (LOL, had to misspell that to make it show like I wanted it too.)

There is a very good reason to keep this going: in-state revenue.

It is very beneficial to both the Stillwater and Norman communities to have thousands of people - thousands of people ready to spend lots of money - to an event in their cities.

Even if OSU isn't in our conference anymore, I'd want to keep the game going. Besides, if you've had kids that were born after November 2002, they've never had to experience a Poke football loss :D

And let's face it - if Poke couldn't beat us last year, if their best year in recent history and our worst year in recent history - they aren't going to beat us for awhile.

[NormanPride]

The dollars don't care if they come from Poke pockets or Arizona St. pockets. Arizona State would buy more souvenirs anyway.

[SoonerLB]

I have a dream scenario.
All conferences have to have exactly 12 teams. Each team in the conference will play the other 11 teams during the season, no patsy warm-up games.
The conference champions play each other in a series of bowl games to determine a national champion.
Revenues would be shared as determined by the NCAA, not broadcaster's individual contracts.
The country would get to see good football, and a REAL national champion.

Oh, never mind, there's probably too much logic and common sense involved in this plan for it to ever work. ;)

[badger]

Revenues would be shared as determined by the NCAA, not broadcaster's individual contracts.

Didn't we and Georgia sue over this crap a few dozen years ago?

[MeMyself&Me]

There is a very good reason to keep this going: in-state revenue.

It is very beneficial to both the Stillwater and Norman communities to have thousands of people - thousands of people ready to spend lots of money - to an event in their cities.

Even if OSU isn't in our conference anymore, I'd want to keep the game going. Besides, if you've had kids that were born after November 2002, they've never had to experience a Poke football loss :D

And let's face it - if Poke couldn't beat us last year, if their best year in recent history and our worst year in recent history - they aren't going to beat us for awhile.

I would think that the dollars for OU would be bigger if they were to use an out of state team for that date which would involve two different television markets, not that that's kept OU from scheduling Tulsa from time to time. Just don't see a good reason (other than keeping a patsy on the schedule :) ) for keeping an annual date with OSU if OU and OSU were not in the same conference.

I think that would be devastating for OSU though... well, except that maybe they'd actually have a chance to win a conference title in whatever lowly conference they ended up in. LOL

[MeMyself&Me]

Didn't we and Georgia sue over this crap a few dozen years ago?

Exactly what I thought when I read that.

[Dio]

I am just curious as to why the Big 12 would sit around and wait for a domino to fall? Why not be proactive and make the 1st strike by going after BYU or Utah?

Or both.


With that being said, I think OU and Texas going anywhere together is going to be problematic because each of us will HAVE to bring our baby bother along. (A&M and OSU)

Fixed.

[badger]

I would think that the dollars for OU would be bigger if they were to use an out of state team for that date which would involve two different television markets, not that that's kept OU from scheduling Tulsa from time to time. Just don't see a good reason (other than keeping a patsy on the schedule :) ) for keeping an annual date with OSU if OU and OSU were not in the same conference.

I think that would be devastating for OSU though... well, except that maybe they'd actually have a chance to win a conference title in whatever lowly conference they ended up in. LOL

Tulsa resident here - I love the fact that they have games scheduled in Tulsa every few years, and Tulsa loves it too. Suddenly, businesses that charge $5 for parking charge $20 :D

As for outta-state opponent bringing in more, perhaps we'd get a better TV time or TV channel (gawd, I dislike FSN in HD... totally sucks compared to ABC, CBS, ESPN or even regular Fox) but not sure how it would effect otherwise.

[MeMyself&Me]

Tulsa resident here - I love the fact that they have games scheduled in Tulsa every few years, and Tulsa loves it too. Suddenly, businesses that charge $5 for parking charge $20 :D

As for outta-state opponent bringing in more, perhaps we'd get a better TV time or TV channel (gawd, I dislike FSN in HD... totally sucks compared to ABC, CBS, ESPN or even regular Fox) but not sure how it would effect otherwise.

I guess I'm not sure why Castigleon (spelling?) would worry about Stillwater area businesses but I CAN see why he'd worry about TV viewership. Of course I can see how politicians would get involved to insure that the game still happened but is there really that much interest in not-quite-beddlam?

[NormanPride]

Or both.



Fixed.

Baj and I had this conversation one night. I feel that A&M and OSU are aggy in very different ways. The fanbase of A&M definitely feels like the little brother to Texas and always wants to be doing whatever they are in every sport and every academic application. OSU fans, however, are extremely defiant in their secondary status. They think that they don't need us, can live without us, and would be fine if we didn't exist.

The A&M administration, though, KNOWS that they don't need Texas nearly as much as is perceived. They're a huge school with tons of money and great facilities. They bring in butt loads of revenue and TV sets wherever they go, and they don't need Texas to baby them nearly as much as everyone thinks they do.

OSU administrators, also, know they NEED OU. They know that their TV presence, athletic relevance, and thus their donor base heavily rely on the fact that OU exposes them by association to the big boys. Without the rivalry with OU, OSU is relegated to KSU status and their athletic programs suffer. With their athletic programs suffering, getting donations becomes harder and harder as people lose interest in the university.

Ultimately, I think this means two things: One, Texas and A&M aren't necessarily a package deal. They're big enough to survive no matter where they go. Two, the state legislature of Oklahoma will try to keep OU and OSU together. They would want two strong universities (which I think is actually a detriment) and they would see OSU floundering without OU to pair it with. This will make conference realignment nigh impossible for the both of us.

[badger]

On second thought, NP, the way that A&M and Poke State are similar in this argument is that both of their athletic departments, unlike their big brothers uterus and OU, are not self-sufficient athletic departments. OSU needs Pickens and academics to fund their program, while A&M is just running in the red, so they rely on loyal Aggiedom to keep them going (methinks that would work a lot better if they live up their top-25 billing this football season).

Thus, I really don't know if aTm and Pokette could survive at a lower conference level. What they really need is more money, so if Whorn and OU are going to go to a money-making conference, whether that be the Big Ten, the SEC or this "Western Alliance" proposition, I think both Aggie and Aggy will want in... will DEMAND in.

[badger]

However, if there really is room for only one to stay in a big conference, then my guess is that the compromise will be a Scientology Sea Org-style "billion year contract," where the schools agree to continue to play games with each other, home-and-home or neutral site, till the end of time.

[NormanPride]

But A&M runs in the red because their leadership is stupid, not because they can't sell their brand. OSU has a small market to draw on and tries to keep up with the big boys.

[Mr. Nuke]

I am just curious as to why the Big 12 would sit around and wait for a domino to fall? Why not be proactive and make the 1st strike by going after BYU or Utah?

Because expansion isn't just about adding teams to have more of them in your conference. Preferably they should be adding economic value as well. That being said, assume both schools add value to the conference. You still have the issue that the television contract is crap and the revenue distributions pale in comparison to those of the Big 10 or SEC. As long as that issue exists, (and it isn't going away with the Big XII and adding the Utah schools does nothing to fix it) all of the Big XII schools will be sweating about someone leaving.

[humblesooner]

I have heard the argument against OU being in these conversations having to do with TV markets. I know Oklahoma is not a very populates state, but if you include Oklahoma and North Texas (Dallas/Ft Worth), the draw is signicficant.
OU has a very strong following in the Dallas/North texas area.

Now they are not going to draw every sports fan in this area, but Northwestern is not going to draw every Chicago area fan, either.

[soonervegas]

Because expansion isn't just about adding teams to have more of them in your conference. Preferably they should be adding economic value as well. That being said, assume both schools add value to the conference. You still have the issue that the television contract is crap and the revenue distributions pale in comparison to those of the Big 10 or SEC. As long as that issue exists, (and it isn't going away with the Big XII and adding the Utah schools does nothing to fix it) all of the Big XII schools will be sweating about someone leaving.

I got that. I just think doing nothing is essentially throwing in the towel. The chances of the Big 12 getting through a PAC-10, Big 10, SEC expansion fest entact is 0%.

[Mr. Nuke]

I got that. I just think doing nothing is essentially throwing in the towel. The chances of the Big 12 getting through a PAC-10, Big 10, SEC expansion fest entact is 0%.
It isn't a fun situation to be in. That being said, we formed this conference to get a better television situation that we had in the Big 8 and be competitive on the national level in terms of exposure. In that regard, the conference has been a complete failure. I agree the chances of getting through conference Armageddon with the Big 12 intact are 0%. I don't see how adding two schools suddenly convinces Colorado from going to the Pac-10 or Missouri and or Nebraska from going to the Big 12 or you all and anyone else in the Big XII south from going to the SEC. "Essentially throwing in the towel" as you put it does suck, but there isn't much of an alternative if the Big 10 decides to go to 16 teams.

[texaspokieokie]

long time ago, but remember,ou & osu played each other before the big 8.

ou makes a lot more money playing home & home with osu than tulsa

[Mr. Nuke]

long time ago, but remember,ou & osu played each other before the big 8.

ou makes a lot more money playing home & home with osu than tulsa
How do you figure? If we were talking Okie-Light vs. OU or Tulsa then I could see your argument making sense. But for someone like OU that will sell out both games it doesn't hold much weight.

[texaspokieokie]

ou will make more money playing in stillwater than tulsa.

[Mr. Nuke]

ou will make more money playing in stillwater than tulsa.
How so? The visitor ticket allotments are probably fairly equivalent at both places, and if you assume both series are televised on both ends, OU very likely makes more money by playing Tulsa from the conference revenue distributions.

[MI Sooner]

After editing my lengthy post, I've decided to summarize it thusly.

I'm mad, sick of dragging second tier programs around, and people in Oklahoma should start ****ing more in an effort to become a bigger market so OU's TV contract improves.

[fwsooner22]

And I guarantee you the average Chicagoan is more likely to tune into an OU game than a Northwestern game.

My family is from Chicago and I have spent lots of time there. You are dead wrong.

The Illini and Northwestern football are huge there.

[SoonerAtKU]

Hell, I'd imagine Notre Dame is a much bigger deal than OU is. Lots of grads and Catholics in Chicago.

[My Opinion Matters]

But we're not talking about Notre Dame. We're talking about Northwestern, Purdue, and Indiana. The perennial bottom-dwellers in Big 10 football that no one cares about, even their own alumni.

I'll put it to you like this: if you're a college football fan in DFW area are you more likely to watch an SMU game or a USC or Florida game? This is a silly argument.

[goingoneight]

ou will make more money playing in stillwater than tulsa.

And they scored the same amount of points on us last year!

[badger]

And they scored the same amount of points on us last year!

lol no points ;)

[westcoast_sooner]

Because expansion isn't just about adding teams to have more of them in your conference. Preferably they should be adding economic value as well. That being said, assume both schools add value to the conference. You still have the issue that the television contract is crap and the revenue distributions pale in comparison to those of the Big 10 or SEC. As long as that issue exists, (and it isn't going away with the Big XII and adding the Utah schools does nothing to fix it) all of the Big XII schools will be sweating about someone leaving.

Not trying to nitpick here, but the whole idea of conference re-alignment is to add economic value for the members of the conference. So, it isn't just preferable, it is the ONLY thing, IMO.


It isn't a fun situation to be in. That being said, we formed this conference to get a better television situation that we had in the Big 8 and be competitive on the national level in terms of exposure. In that regard, the conference has been a complete failure. I agree the chances of getting through conference Armageddon with the Big 12 intact are 0%. I don't see how adding two schools suddenly convinces Colorado from going to the Pac-10 or Missouri and or Nebraska from going to the Big 12 or you all and anyone else in the Big XII south from going to the SEC. "Essentially throwing in the towel" as you put it does suck, but there isn't much of an alternative if the Big 10 decides to go to 16 teams.

Also, not sure how you figure that the Big XII has been a complete failure in terms of national exposure. How many times since the formation of the conference has either OU or Texas been in the National Championship Game? How many times have these schools played in BCS games?

You are right - adding schools from a less populous state than Oklahoma does nothing to enhance viewership and revenue to the conference, especially if Texas and probably A&M are not with us.

IMO, Missouri and Nebraska bolting would signal the start of the free-for-all. And like it or not, I think OU is better off with Texas in the same conference as the Sooners. Texas is the number 1 school in the country as far as revenue from their sports program. Although I personally could not care less about A&M and OSU, I do think both state legislatures would require that they be part of a package deal.

Finally, it all boils down to viewership and the TV deal. The Fox deal the Big XII has now absolutely sucks compared to the SEC and Big 10. This needs to get fixed. The original post from this thread - I guess originally from Orangebloods - is actually a pretty interesting scenario. I'm not sure what happens to WSU or some of the Big XII schools, but we'll assume that this all works out the way the poster says.

The good thing is that our region would include the Phoenix and Denver areas, along with the entire state of Texas. With the scheduling, we would likely have annual matchups in California as well. Tell me that doesn't help generate viewership and recruiting and ultimately revenue.

[Mr. Nuke]

Not trying to nitpick here, but the whole idea of conference re-alignment is to add economic value for the members of the conference. So, it isn't just preferable, it is the ONLY thing, IMO.
Nitpicking is fine. That was my point though. Any school added to any conference is going to have to add economic value.


Also, not sure how you figure that the Big XII has been a complete failure in terms of national exposure. How many times since the formation of the conference has either OU or Texas been in the National Championship Game? How many times have these schools played in BCS games?

This isn't really what I'm talking about when I say exposure. Yes Nebraska sent one team to the BCS title game and OU and Texas have sent multiple teams during the existence of the Big 12, but the teams would've likely ended up there in any BCS conference. When I'm talking about exposure I'm talking about where (what networks) and how many of the conference's regular season games are televised. Compared to the SEC and Big 10 in terms of money, what networks are involved, and how many games are televised I feel fine in declaring the Big 10 a failure in this regard.


Finally, it all boils down to viewership and the TV deal. The Fox deal the Big XII has now absolutely sucks compared to the SEC and Big 10. This needs to get fixed.

This is the problem and there really isn't a good way of fixing it.

[westcoast_sooner]

Nuke - I think we're both saying a lot of the same things. My point about BCS Championship Games does elevate the stature of the Conference, but doesn't necessarily get eyeballs on the ISU/Baylor game week in and week out - so I get that.

And like them or hate them, ESPN and ABC do a MUCH MUCH better job in presentation than the Fox Sports Net games that are NOT in HD, and can't figure out that most everyone runs a no-huddle of some kind and miss half the action. That doesn't begin to address the financial aspects. I agree, there isn't a good way of fixing this without either some massive restructuring or conference realignment, unfortunately.

[PLaw]

Gas on the fire:

From the DMN:

Big 12, Pac-10 talking about partnership for TV alliance, football schedules


12:18 PM CDT on Friday, May 7, 2010
By CHUCK CARLTON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

Officials from the Big 12 and Pac-10 examined possible TV alliances as well as scheduling partnerships in football during preliminary talks Wednesday and Thursday in Phoenix.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe and Pac-10 counterpart Larry Scott attended, along with conferences athletic directors. The talks came against the backdrop of possible Big Ten expansion.

"Larry and I have talked for several months in regards to collaborating to enhance media value and working in any ways that might aid the two leagues and be a helpful alliance," Beebe said, confirming the talks.

Possibilities include working together on TV contracts or perhaps even a shared network. The two conferences feature 22 schools west of the Mississippi with strong bases in Texas and California markets.

Non-conference scheduling in football for "meaningful September games," Beebe said, could enhance future TV negotiations. The conferences already hold a men's basketball series.

Beebe said the conferences intend to keep separate identities.

"There's no desire to merge the two," he said. "We feel like 12 is the maximum number that operates well in football."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From the LA Times

Pac-10/Big 12 Alliance?
Phil Wallace • May 9 2010 2:51 PM
Reports surfaced on Friday that the Pac-10 and Big 12 are considering an alliance that could include a combined television network and scheduling partnerships. While the two conferences would maintain distinct separate identities, this agreement could have them negotiating television contracts together.

This news adds another interesting wrinkle to what could be a dramatic overhaul of the college sports landscape. The Big Ten is currently front-and-center in the expansion race, looking eastward at schools like Syracuse, Rutgers, and UConn, while considering existing Big 12 schools like Missouri and Nebraska. Notre Dame is also in the mix. The purpose is to get the new Big Ten Network on more cable providers to generate added revenue for its member institutions.

The SEC would rather not expand, but if the Big Ten becomes a 16-team super-conference, they might also poach from the Big 12 and try to add Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma, and possibly look to Miami or Florida State from the ACC.

In the meantime, the Pac-10 has also been considering its own network, and the smart money had them adding Colorado (from the Big 12) and Utah (from the Mountain West Conference), giving the conference a foothold in the Denver and Salt Lake City markets. Add those markets to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Phoenix, and the Pac-10 is in a pretty good spot.

With the Big 12 on the defensive, an alliance with the Pac-10 might represent their best hope for survival. If they lose Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Nebraksa, then the conference would basically morph into a slightly improved Mountain West or WAC. But an alliance could also be beneficial to the Pac-10 too, as a combined network would include several markets in Texas, as well as Kansas City, St. Louis, and Denver. It would also include programs with national followings like Kansas basketball and Nebraska football.

If there is an alliance, it could decrease the odds of Colorado switching conferences, even as the school's Chancellor is making happy noises about the Pac-10. It might also mean that the Pac-10 would add Utah and BYU, allowing there to be a football championship game and keeping the conference's perfect symmetry in place whereby each school has a clear in-state rival. Back in February, I looked at all of the potential options for Pac-10 expansion. Based on comments from Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott, it seems as though he'd like to add two schools and start a conference championship game.

So what will happen? It sounds cliche, but it all comes down to money. I think Colorado would leave for the Pac-10 if invited. So then the question becomes... would a Pac-10 with Colorado, Utah, and its own TV network bring more money to its schools than a combined network a combined TV deal with the Big 12? I don't have enough information to answer these questions, but it sure makes for a fun conversation.

Regardless, I think the Pac-10 is in a pretty good spot, since none of its member institutions seem interested in leaving, but several schools would like to join them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the SportBizJournal:

Big 12, Pac-10 Examining TV, Football Scheduling Partnership


Big 12 and Pac-10 officials "examined possible TV alliances as well as scheduling partnerships in football during preliminary talks Wednesday and Thursday in Phoenix," according to Chuck Carlton of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe confirmed the talks with Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott. Beebe: "Larry and I have talked for several months in regards to collaborating to enhance media value and working in any ways that might aid the two leagues and be a helpful alliance." Carlton notes possibilities include "working together on TV contracts or perhaps even a shared network." But Beebe added that the conferences "intend to keep separate identities." Beebe: "There's no desire to merge the two" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 5/7). In K.C., Blair Kerkhoff writes an alliance between the Big 12 and Pac-10 "could strengthen their position in television negotiations." As the two major conferences west of the Mississippi River, their schools are located "in or near six of the nation's top 13 media markets." The Big 12 has football TV contracts with ABC/ESPN through '16 and with FSN through '12. The Pac-10 has deals with ABC/ESPN and FSN through '12 and is "expected to begin negotiating new deals this year" (K.C. STAR, 5/7). ESPN.com's Ted Miller wrote both the Big 12 and Pac-10 "want -- need -- to sign new contracts that help them keep pace with the SEC and Big Ten" (ESPN.com, 5/6).

EXPANSION ON THE TABLE: The Pac-10's Scott said, "Going forward, we're looking at the value of adding two teams, since that is a requirement by the NCAA in order to have a league championship game. We've been analyzing all of our TV possibilities and having a title game is regarded as a high priority." He noted the Pac-10 will be negotiating "future TV deals over the first half of 2011." Scott: "Therefore, it is important for us by the end of this calendar year to make a final determination whether to expand or not." Scott added, "In our preliminary analysis, a network would have a lot of interest and would be a good model. But, I can't sit here today and say whether we will or won't have a network" (FANHOUSE.com, 5/6).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BOOMER

[MeMyself&Me]

I heard that on Fox Sports on XM radio on Friday. Surprised it took this long to make it to print. I really don't think just combining revenue with the two conferences will be the fix to this issue with the Big 12's shortage of fundage. After all, isn't the Pac 10's deal even worse than the Big 12's? Anyway, the original idea in this thread involved removing the 'dead weight' in these two conferences combined with an alliance. That would seem to fix things but I don't know that that's feasible.

Now, why is it that Colorado would leave the Big 12 for the Pac 10?

[Jdog]

I heard that on Fox Sports on XM radio on Friday. Surprised it took this long to make it to print. I really don't think just combining revenue with the two conferences will be the fix to this issue with the Big 12's shortage of fundage. After all, isn't the Pac 10's deal even worse than the Big 12's? Anyway, the original idea in this thread involved removing the 'dead weight' in these two conferences combined with an alliance. That would seem to fix things but I don't know that that's feasible.

Now, why is it that Colorado would leave the Big 12 for the Pac 10?

I remember them talking about it 20 years ago. Maybe the CU prez thinks they can be more competitive in the Pac 10.

[MeMyself&Me]

I remember them talking about it 20 years ago. Maybe the CU prez thinks they can be more competitive in the Pac 10.

Which part, the revenue alliance that was talked about Friday or Colorado jumping ship to the Pac 10 that was mentioned in a couple places in those articles in the previous post?

[PLaw]

Here's the line that got my attention"

From the DMN: "Possibilities include working together on TV contracts or perhaps even a shared network. The two conferences feature 22 schools west of the Mississippi with strong bases in Texas and California markets."

After watching the Big 10 network over the past several years, I think this would be a great idea.

That said, sometimes you need to be careful about what you ask for.

BOOMER