Big 12 Expansion

Anyone can read this board. However, to post messages, you must register.
Post Reply
Baywave1
Regent's Circle
Posts: 8383
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by Baywave1 »

Reduction in exit fee? Maybe that happens when you get the boot like Idaho from Sunbelt but I’m not aware of any actual examples of this

Do you have a specific one in mind?

Lots of examples of increases in exit fees though.
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

zmanno wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:40 pm I am baffled by conferences that allow reduction in departure fees for those schools jumping ship. Is there some fear that the fees are not enforcible legally? Why would the aggrieved parties accept a penny less ? Why not enforce the dollar amount and time frames specified in the AAC bylaws. This is a critical period of time for the AAC and Tulane and I sure hope Aresco can pull a rabbit out of his hat.
The schools leaving will pay at minimum $10m to the conference. This is the price the league set among all it's members if they give 27 months notice. In order to leave July 1, 2023, which us when they want to leave, they will have to pay a higher rate, not a lesser one since the 27 month commitment won't have been met. UConn did this and paid $17m to leave earlier, quite a bit more than the contract rate. The conference is incentivized to allow schools to leave early because they are leaving eventually anyway and doing so means the conference can reap a greater exit fee. I would look for each leaving school to pay at least $20m/ school, maybe more
User avatar
Private Joker
Navigator Level
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:50 pm
Location: Bainbridge Island USA

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by Private Joker »

Why let them leave early?
gerryb323
Regent's Circle
Posts: 8599
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
Location: We're not in Kansas anymore

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by gerryb323 »

Private Joker wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:55 pm Why let them leave early?
Because they're paying more money?
STOP BUNTING gaddammit!!
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

They are leaving by 2024 no matter what. League rules allow anybody to leave with 27 mos. notice and $10m. Technically they could leave by January 2024 though it's cleaner for them to join for the start of a full slate of seasons which is why July 1 is a preferred date. So we force them to stay the extra year out of spite? There is no way to keep them longer than that extra year at this point and it would cost the league tens of millions in extra buyout revenue.
Baywave1
Regent's Circle
Posts: 8383
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by Baywave1 »

AAC must solve this dynamic: Do you add teams before you settle exit fees and departure dates of departing teams? TBD

Starting to see more spitballing about prioritizing markets over accomplishment. Thus you see more talk of FAU or ODU (instead of Liberty or AppState or Buffalo) or UTSA versus an MWC team or two.
That strategy didn’t work for CUSA.

I’d still go brands and front range MWC teams. I get the argument for UTSA or UAB but that’s about it.

Too bad about USM and RICE. I always enjoyed playing them I just don’t see any avenue for them. Doable road trips from NOLA against CSU.
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 26020
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by PeteRasche »

I'd go for whatever programs get the AAC the highest payout from whatever TV network wants to carry us. I suspect Mike Aresco would agree.

Who are those programs? Based on the number of words typed about it over the past few years, I'd say only the TV executives and the conference officials know. We, the public, and apparently even the sports writers, don't seem to know.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by wavedom »

Going for markets over winners is a bad choice. None of those teams will own that market. What got the conference noticed was having ranked teams. That also draws eyeballs to our games that get on TV. I like Aresco but I hope he doesn't screw this up.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

It does feel an awful lot like the expansion decisions will be Aresco sitting down across from some faceless ESPN executives and saying, "Here are some schools we are thinking of adding. Which combination of these adds the most value to our contract for renegotiation purposes?"

We can push for Buffalo or Rice or UAB or Boise or Air Force or Army, but at the end of the day, those schools only join the AAC if the money is there and the money is only there if ESPN gives their blessing.
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 26020
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by PeteRasche »

tulaneoutlaw wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:09 am It does feel an awful lot like the expansion decisions will be Aresco sitting down across from some faceless ESPN executives and saying, "Here are some schools we are thinking of adding. Which combination of these adds the most value to our contract for renegotiation purposes?"

We can push for Buffalo or Rice or UAB or Boise or Air Force or Army, but at the end of the day, those schools only join the AAC if the money is there and the money is only there if ESPN gives their blessing.
This has been my belief and my opinion (regarding whom to add) for several years now. I think it was made clear when we didn't add anyone after UConn left. I would not blame you if you skipped over my very long responses to GSx the past two days but I basically said exactly this. See the last paragraph of my post about "assigning dollar values to teams". I would not be surprised if the TV folks literally have a very complicated algorithmic table that does this exactly. I suspect they have a $/team number for the Big 12 (what their TV contract actually was)... then with OU and UT gone, they have $/team for the Little 8 as a whole, and that number fell below the $/team for the 4 teams they just added, so those four got "called up". Previously (with UConn gone), we had a conference $/team but there were no other options who were higher, so we stood pat; now with three teams removed the AAC overall $/team just dropped, possibly (likely) below the values of a few of those previously-considered teams, so those would be who we would target.

This is literally a billion dollar industry; the idea that the people in charge are sitting around not trying to better their positions is pretty ludicrous, right?

If it's been posted here once, it's been posted here a billion times... follow the money.
GSx
Emerald Circle
Posts: 18842
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:18 am
Location: Beautiful Dutchtown

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by GSx »

wavedom wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:07 am Going for markets over winners is a bad choice. None of those teams will own that market. What got the conference noticed was having ranked teams. That also draws eyeballs to our games that get on TV. I like Aresco but I hope he doesn't screw this up.
We weren't a winner; Memphis wasn't much of a winner in football. AAC picked us. Now both are.
ECU was a winner, and now they aren't.
The problem with picking winners is that most aren't consistent and most are "winning" against lesser competition (had we stayed in C-USA, we'd have 7/8 winning seasons, if not 8/8).
To me, the list of trustworthy non-AAC G-5 Winners is:
Boise
SD State
Appalachian
then
Marshall
Fresno
And that pretty much does it.
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

GSx wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:30 am
wavedom wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:07 am Going for markets over winners is a bad choice. None of those teams will own that market. What got the conference noticed was having ranked teams. That also draws eyeballs to our games that get on TV. I like Aresco but I hope he doesn't screw this up.
We weren't a winner; Memphis wasn't much of a winner in football. AAC picked us. Now both are.
ECU was a winner, and now they aren't.
The problem with picking winners is that most aren't consistent and most are "winning" against lesser competition (had we stayed in C-USA, we'd have 7/8 winning seasons, if not 8/8).
To me, the list of trustworthy non-AAC G-5 Winners is:
Boise
SD State
Appalachian
then
Marshall
Fresno
And that pretty much does it.
I posted this in the future bandmates thread, but will post it here as well. Below is the 5 year SP+ average for commonly mentioned AAC expansion possibilities. This is not just teams that have had good records, but how they would stack up against other FBS teams. One way you can read this is that App would be on average a 9.7 point favorite against an "average" FBS team on a neutral site.

26 App 9.7
31 Boise 9.3
48 SDSU 5.2
61 Ohio 1.3
63 Toledo 1.3
66 AFA 0.5
67 Troy 0.2
73 WMU -0.9
75 WKU -1.4
78 FAU -1.9
80 Ark St -2.1
81 Fresno -2.2
82 Wyo -2.4
83 ULL -2.4
85 UAB -2.6

I think your list is pretty solid. If we could lure Boise, SDSU, and Fresno, it might make sense to include AF for a western pod. While they rate well, I'm not real interested in MAC schools nor very many Sun Belt schools besides App.
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 26020
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by PeteRasche »

If we have to pick up schools out west hopefully there can be some sort of travel rotation where we don't go there too often. Like how we've been in the AAC like, what, 7 or 8 years now, and our football team has played up here at Cincinnati ONCE.
User avatar
GretnaGrn
Regent's Circle
Posts: 6993
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Gretna, LA

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by GretnaGrn »

Obviously, this is all bad for us at this stage. I do think we'll add teams, and that ESPN will have a large (indeed, likely sole) voice in who they are. As for which, any possibility has warts. I do think that, unlike CUSA, the AAC has a good Commissioner who will make the best possible out of the mess.
GSx
Emerald Circle
Posts: 18842
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:18 am
Location: Beautiful Dutchtown

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by GSx »

App, Boise, SD State. Top 3.
Then you get to Ohio U. Solid outfit under Solich....kind of consistent..... but they lost to FCS Saturday. But not to just any FCS - an FCS that was so depleted that in the game the week before, they cut the 2nd half down to 2 12 minute quarters, at their request. They also never won the MAC under Solich.
The next school is Toledo - I would put them in the top group (as far as winning).

Also for consideration are budgets, access to resources, facilities, etc.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by wavedom »

GSx wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:30 am
wavedom wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:07 am Going for markets over winners is a bad choice. None of those teams will own that market. What got the conference noticed was having ranked teams. That also draws eyeballs to our games that get on TV. I like Aresco but I hope he doesn't screw this up.
We weren't a winner; Memphis wasn't much of a winner in football. AAC picked us. Now both are.
ECU was a winner, and now they aren't.
The problem with picking winners is that most aren't consistent and most are "winning" against lesser competition (had we stayed in C-USA, we'd have 7/8 winning seasons, if not 8/8).
To me, the list of trustworthy non-AAC G-5 Winners is:
Boise
SD State
Appalachian
then
Marshall
Fresno
And that pretty much does it.
We got in based on connections. Memphis got in on basketball. We still aren't a winner YET. Memphis has made a commitment but they also just made a bad hire. We'll see about ECU.

To be clear i am talking about teams that are winning and have made a clear commitment to their programs to keep them winning. Of course Boise is the one everyone talks about. That would of course be a good add. The problem will be that no matter what we do here our payout is most likely to drop to the 3-4 million range so no real incentive for them. Trying to be realistic App. St. fits. UAB fits. Liberty fits. Maybe Marshall fits. Coastal is a possibility too.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 26020
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by PeteRasche »

I should also mention that as much as I dislike almost everything about ESPN, I really hope we remain in a contract with them as opposed to Fox or CBS Sports or NBC Sports or anyone else. At least with ESPN you know every game is getting carried on at least the +. With those other outlets you may or may not have the channel, might have to order an extra tier of sports channels (which $crews folks like me), and there may be some games which are not covered whatsoever (or we go back to All Access type garbage).

P. S. Does anyone know what Boise is currently getting in the MWC, and didn't they have some deal where they got more than anyone else (after nearly leaving a while back)?
tjtlja
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Richmond, TX

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by tjtlja »

I like Charlotte, but I am biased. Hell, let’s go after Vandy, Wake Forest, Illinois, and Florida State for starters.
User avatar
purplehaz3
Breaker Level
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by purplehaz3 »

tjtlja wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:01 pm I like Charlotte, but I am biased. Hell, let’s go after Vandy, Wake Forest, Illinois, and Florida State for starters.
I like the aggression. Sounds much better than the Rice Owls and UTSA Roadrunners. Those 2 add nothing to the conference. James Madison is an FCS team that would add a lot more. Please stop mentioning Rice and UTSA. I would be embarrassed to be in a conference with those 2 teams. We need to be thinking about programs with a national reputation. It’s the American conference after all…
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 26020
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by PeteRasche »

"Hey Vandy, how about you join a league where you can be middle of the pack instead of the doormat and we'll reward you with $3M per year instead of $50M... whatcha think?"

I really want to start hearing rumblings that the P5 are having it "suggested" by the TV networks that they cut the fat at the next contract re-up. The only way we get any of those schools is if there's a serious threat that they're getting kicked to the curb in '24 or' 25. No school is gonna willingly take a $20-to-$45M pay cut just to "be more competitive in their league".
windywave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23006
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by windywave »

tjtlja wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:01 pm I like Charlotte, but I am biased. Hell, let’s go after Vandy, Wake Forest, Illinois, and Florida State for starters.
Image
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
User avatar
purplehaz3
Breaker Level
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by purplehaz3 »

PeteRasche wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:43 pm "Hey Vandy, how about you join a league where you can be middle of the pack instead of the doormat and we'll reward you with $3M per year instead of $50M... whatcha think?"

I really want to start hearing rumblings that the P5 are having it "suggested" by the TV networks that they cut the fat at the next contract re-up. The only way we get any of those schools is if there's a serious threat that they're getting kicked to the curb in '24 or' 25. No school is gonna willingly take a $20-to-$45M pay cut just to "be more competitive in their league".
Exactly. It’s not even in the realm of possibility. While the rumors about the Sun Belt expansion continue to spread, Aresco and the AAC has been very quiet. Could the Sun Belt become the new ‘power’ G5? Sure seems like it. I would much rather be in that conference than whatever is currently left of ours. Dannen needs to be aggressive and make sure we are in the best available conference. Then we need to win that conference and expect nothing less.
User avatar
Poseidon
President's Circle
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by Poseidon »

GSx wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:30 am
wavedom wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:07 am Going for markets over winners is a bad choice. None of those teams will own that market. What got the conference noticed was having ranked teams. That also draws eyeballs to our games that get on TV. I like Aresco but I hope he doesn't screw this up.
We weren't a winner; Memphis wasn't much of a winner in football. AAC picked us. Now both are.
ECU was a winner, and now they aren't.
The problem with picking winners is that most aren't consistent and most are "winning" against lesser competition (had we stayed in C-USA, we'd have 7/8 winning seasons, if not 8/8).
To me, the list of trustworthy non-AAC G-5 Winners is:
Boise
SD State
Appalachian
then
Marshall
Fresno
And that pretty much does it.
I totally agree with GSX about the you can't pick just a winner. TCU made the jump into the Big XII beacuse they were in texas and the dallas metroplex as much as beacuse they were winners. Remember at that time Boise was a bigger winner. If it was about being awinner then USM would have been mopre of a serious target. Markets do matter and the conference has shyed away from the school not in big cities, ECU being the exception.

Petes's also right. ESPN has to give their blessing or seggestion.

FAU has shown some commitment to football. They missed on the pelini borthe, but they didn't cheap out on Kiffen and Taggert may be decent there. They would be replacing a florida team lost. There is a lot of upside with them and they aren't terrible. I think they are a stronger team candidate than morst people think.

Along kinda the same line its hard to imagine the conference not looking to add a texas team as well. I wouldn't rule Rice out, but UTSA makes the most sense. North Texas would likely be blocked by SMU.

That leaves two more slots to fill. Here's where maybe you get a bit creative.

Air Force would add a brand, thought niche one, with out compromising credibility and can be in the same divison as Navy.

UAB appears to be serious about football and is in a decent market. I still have pause because they may be under the thumb of Alabama.

Marshall is serious, has some cache, but lacks the market. Still better brand than most of what is out there. Gives Temple a more regional oppenent.

Send out a flyer to SDSU, Boise, CSU, AFA(above), Fresno if they want to jump. If 3-4 want to jump then consider going to 14.

---In total if ESPN is on board I say go to 14. The AAC might lose 2 more to the big 12 on top of the 3 lost already after UT/OU leave. Large numbers should melp cushion that loss.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Dishonorable mention - Navy
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 26020
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by PeteRasche »

Purple, step from the ledge (and put down the pipe). You want to be with ULL and USA and FIU instead of Memphis, SMU, USF, Navy? Do you even understand the idea of national name recognition?
Baywave1
Regent's Circle
Posts: 8383
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Big 12 Expansion

Post by Baywave1 »

If UTSA brings USAA with it like Fed Ex supports Memphis or Fertitta/Landry’s supports UH, it could matter. For TV, AAC needs winners but every roster often includes someone with a very rich Uncle even if that “player” rides the pine.

I would agree about Rice. Its endowment doesn’t matter. Its Leadership doesn’t care.
Post Reply