Timing of Conference Defections

McGregor's most recent comment that "the Big12 ultimately didn't bite" on a BYU invite made me ponder some of the timing of all of these moves, and at length I decided it could use discussion in its own thread.



The hopeful news for BYU is that there's now no timecrunch. I'm sure we're all hoping the aforementioned "ultimately" refers only to the madness of the past few weeks, and there'll be further options later in the offseason. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Pac wait a while before inviting Utah also (weeks, rather than days, I mean).



So my thought goes something like this: We don't know what the Big12's new earthshattering/recordsetting TV contract looks like, whether it includes provisions for or against expansion, however, I REALLY doubt that with BCS conferences GAINING 12th members and Conference Championships, that the Big12 would be giving one up. Just don't see it. Further, like I mentioned in the other thread, I really do feel like Jerry Jones has a vested interest in the Big 12, and its long term success. He WANTS a BCS game in the Cotton Bowl IN Jerry World. IIRC, he's come out and said it. That vision would take a hit if the Big12 gave up much more than its already given.

More short term, he's already got a contract for the Big12 Championship game through 2013. Doubt he wants the stadium to sit empty that saturday.



I full on admit that now as much as ever, the NCAA ruling on Championship games for under 12 teams is critical. Humorous that it's no longer critical for the conferences everybody ASSUMED it would be, and IS for the Big12, only because the other 2 leagues are now AT 12 (or in the case of the PAC it is assumed they'll be with a Utah invitation) due to theiving the Big12, but I digress. For the sake of leaving this at one argument, lets assume that the NCAA sticks with its original rules. Big12 needs... uh... 12.



All of the sudden timing of moves becomes very important. I've read that Colorado is planning on playing the 2010 AND the 2011 seasons in the Big12, assumably to mitigate the amount of bailout money they'll have to pay the Big12 due to contract. Nebraska, however, is wanting to play in the Big10 starting the 2011 season (or, in other words, they got/expect the cash to pay the higher buyout premium).



Now I honestly don't know what MWC contracts say about leaving the conference, either for required notice, or monetarily. If I were a betting man, however, I'd guess that as a non-BCS conference, they'd be set up generally similarly to the WAC's, of which we're familiar due to Boise's jump. In their situation, they only have to remain in their prior conference the following year, then they can move. I'm guessing the MWC is the same (likely has a July date or something like Boise had, however). The buyout money, however, SHOULDN'T be a problem for a team going from a non-BCS league to a BCS league, as non-BCS buyout is likely a pittance to BCS income. But again, I don't know these particulars. Anyone who does is welcome to chime in.



Anyway, with all those assumpions, here's what I see AS IT STANDS NOW:



For 2010:

-Everybody plays in the same conference



For 2011:

-Nebraska is in the Big10, they have 12 and a Championship game.

-The Big12 has only 11, and doesn't get a Championship game

-The MWC has 10

-The PAC still has 10, waiting for Colorado the next year



So now we look at Utah jumping. Even if they can do so for 2011, if Colorado doesn't until 2012, will the Pac TAKE Utah before the 2012 season? My guess is no.



Now's the BIG question. If the Big12 is "eventually" planning on filling back out to 12, AND they actually want a Championship game uninterrupted, does AT LEAST ONE team have to be invited into the Big12 IN TIME to be a part of the lame-duck Big12North in place of the departed Nebraska??? If so, AND if that's BYU, how soon would we have to be invited and accept such an invite in order for 2010 to be our last year in the MWC???

Dude... Don't count on an invite to the Big XII

Well, I'm not, but I think that's a question to be addressed. Unless Nebraska stays through 2011 (which they've said they won't), that puts the Big12 at eleven members for the 2011 season. Ten, if for some reason Colorado left after 2010 as well (which, however, THEY'VE said they won't).



All I'm saying is that it's my bet they'll have/want a Championship Game still, and if they DO plan on expanding back to 12 eventually anyway, it'd kinda be cutting off their nose to spite their face giving up the 2011 Championship game because they didn't want to bring anyone in the extra year early.



Not at all unreasonable question, I think.

Sounds like they're gonna test the water with 10 schools. Big XII's commish said their tv contract is set up for 10 schools. No need for them to add two more schools.



With them only losing something like 8-12% with the departure of Colorado and Nebraska... I don't know how important a Championship game would be for them now.



I know they've relied on the Championship games the past ONLY because their current deal was crap. Now it sounds very lucrative IMO.



I don't know if this even answered your question??? I guess just my opinion.

I think your argument is very reasonable. I think it is very possible because I cannot figure this TV deal out at all. Fox or ESPN or whoever is reportedly willing to pay a buttload more money for less teams? Less teams mean less games to broadcast and they won't even have a championship game to broadcast either. That just doesn't add up to me. Maybe somebody can enlighten me on the subject but it seems like the TV networks would want 12 teams instead of ten and it seems like they would want a conference championship game especially if the networks are going to be paying the kind of money that the Big 12 commish is promising.

If the tv deal is $200M a year, that is $20 M a team. Add two more teams that is $16.7M a team. The champtionship game does not cover the two extra teams. Perhaps they could rent a team for 2011 to keep it at 12.



To leave the MWC, the due date is September.

scott715 wrote:
Perhaps they could rent a team for 2011...

Rent to own sounds like a good plan to me!!!

:love: :love: :love:

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
Now I honestly don't know what MWC contracts say about leaving the conference, either for required notice, or monetarily. If I were a betting man, however, I'd guess that as a non-BCS conference, they'd be set up generally similarly to the WAC's, of which we're familiar due to Boise's jump. In their situation, they only have to remain in their prior conference the following year, then they can move. I'm guessing the MWC is the same (likely has a July date or something like Boise had, however). The buyout money, however, SHOULDN'T be a problem for a team going from a non-BCS league to a BCS league, as non-BCS buyout is likely a pittance to BCS income. But again, I don't know these particulars. Anyone who does is welcome to chime in.A

Wrubell in his blog writes:



"The Mountain West's liberal departure policy is such that any school wishing to leave the league need only give nine months notice with no financial penalty. For example, if the Big 12 were to eventually look BYU's way and offer membership effective in the summer of 2012, let's say, the league and school would have until September of 2011 to do that deal."



http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=11174974

Yeah, I just saw that one a few minutes ago. Kinda cool.



Now THIS is me getting really blue-goggled, but when I read that, after "discovering" what I did about the Big12 needing a 12th in 2011 for a Championship game, I couldn't help but think, wouldn't it be HILARIOUS if BYU were extended an invitation to the Big12 this August, making 2010 their final MWC swansong, and leaving Utah to sweat it out until this time NEXT YEAR for an invite to the PAC in 2012??? Talk about poetic justice. That'd be AWESOME!!!



(Yes, I know it's an EXTREMELY long shot, no, I can't even dare to hope it'd happen, but what if it could???)

scott715 wrote:
If the tv deal is $200M a year, that is $20 M a team. Add two more teams that is $16.7M a team. The champtionship game does not cover the two extra teams. Perhaps they could rent a team for 2011 to keep it at 12.



To leave the MWC, the due date is September.

I understand this completely. I totally understand why the teams in the Big 12 would want less teams to split the money with. What I DO NOT understand is why the TV networks would want to fork over these huge amounts of money and get less in return. If I was a TV network negotiating contracts with the Big 12 I would want 12 teams and I would want a conference championship. Especially since it will be played in Jerry World.



These TV networks are essentially paying more for less. That's the part I don't understand.

Just heard Schad on ESPN say that when the Big-12 first voted on a conference championship game the poll was 12 votes against it. The coaches didn't like the idea of playing yourself out of a national championship game. Could it be that the Big-12 is happy to be down to 10 teams so that the conference champ doesn't have the potential of dropping a conference championship game and lose out on a national championship?



I would love to see the Cotton Bowl played as a BCS game with the MWC as an AQ and another at-large berth added.

Mars wrote:

I cannot figure this TV deal out at all. Fox or ESPN or whoever is reportedly willing to pay a buttload more money for less teams? Less teams mean less games to broadcast and they won't even have a championship game to broadcast either. That just doesn't add up to me. Maybe somebody can enlighten me on the subject but it seems like the TV networks would want 12 teams instead of ten and it seems like they would want a conference championship game especially if the networks are going to be paying the kind of money that the Big 12 commish is promising.

Let me attempt to make sense of this:



It seems to me, that ESPN just paid huge money to the SEC ($2 BILLION) and to the ACC ($175MM/year) to buy up their football TV rights for an extended period of time. The four-letter network put a lot of time and money into these deals (lawyers, producers, etc). And they almost saw it all go up in smoke.



If the PAC-10 goes to 16 schools, both the Big Ten and the SEC are motivated to do the same. The Big Ten was looking at Maryland. The SEC was looking at Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and Georgia Tech. The ACC could be devastated. Perhaps then they would have taken the less-valuable Big east and Big XII leftovers, along with some more C-USA schools, to get to 16 themselves. And this would force ESPN to rip up their contracts with both conferences and start trying to draft new ones all over again, almost from scratch. Except with Washington State and Oklahoma State making $20MM/year now, now every SEC and ACC school would be expecting to get paid even MORE money...



ESPN protected their rights to the SEC and ACC by overpaying Texas, and letting the Big Ten and PAC-10 settle at 11 and 12 schools. Probably smart of them too!

This makes a lot of sense Mars, Finally somebody answers my question!!!



So when all of the dust settles and everybody calms down a little bit does the TV network, and Jerry Jones I might add, then put a little pressure on the Big 12 to go back to twelve teams? I guess we will just have to wait and see.



The waiting game always sucks

The other thing to consider is that since the last TV deals for many conferences, CFB interest has gone through the roof. NCAA FB is now the clear #2 in the USA for sports fans. The NFL is #1, but many people prefer the NCAA over the NFL due to the college tie in, Saturday play, and the rah-rah aspects of it and more of an emotional tie in to your team. CFB is really taking off, and as a result, the TV rights are now worth more because the interest is so great. This results in a bidding war between networks who want those rights to broadcast because they think they can more some good coin off of it.