Jun 4, 2016
12:14:05am
12:14:05am
Midnight Musings. Feeling somewhat more optimistic about Big12 expansion & BYU
Maybe it's just because I spent most of the evening in a fireside for the Youth/YSA in our stake being taught by Elder Bednar. Awesome experience and he's a gifted teacher ... but I digress.
A few points that some have brought up:
1) Expansion is definitely not dead. They've been playing this media circus for months now and I'm sure all the Big12 school leaders are getting tired of the ongoing saga of expansion (fans and school officials filling up inboxes, junk mail, Tweet barrages, etc ...) . If they were definitely not going to expand, they would have announced that today and then they could live out their summer in peace. Here's a couple of tweets showing that they are moving forward on exploring expansion.
2) It's good that they did SOMETHING! A move to a CCG is a move... even with just 10 teams in 2017. Hopefully there's now some inertia to carry into actual motion towards expansion. A body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
3) Boren may be in the middle of pulling off a masterful political maneuver. He probably knew he could never get Texas to give up the LHN, but he went after it pretty hard and put Texas on the defensive there. They bit back and so Boren just retreated to try to get his other two wishes, and he already has one of them ... a CCG. Now that that's approved he can point to the DATA they already have about increasing chances of getting in the CFP by expanding AND the $$ factor of expanding (pro rata data discussed below). This kind of tactic of asking for what you know you can't get and then to pull back from that to get what you really wanted in the first place is a tried and true negotiating technique. Hopefully Boren can see that play all the way to the finish line.
SO IS THERE STILL A REALISTIC CHANCE OF EXPANSION THEN?
There will be positive and negative pressures on them to expand:
1) See these tweets:
A 10 team Round robin with divisions is just simply odd. I get why they have done it (to assure no quick rematches by doing all the cross-divisional games earlier season), but there is a perceived weakness/weirdness about it.
2) The Navigate research data showed a 6% increased chance of making CFP by doing what they announced today (10 RR with a CCG) but the figure nearly triples to 15% with the 12 team, 8 Conf games, then a CCG format. They paid good money to have Navigate figure that out, and it would be strange for them to go against that data. But despite what the data show, you have to agree with the sentiment in this tweet:
So there could be some solid positive pressure to expand and go to 8 Conf games to "follow the data" and make entry into the CFP much more likely.
3) The pro rata data! We could count on some good old greed as a MAJOR reason for the Big12 to expand. Dodd has been beating this same $1 Billion-dollors-on-the-table-via-expansion drum for 3-4 days now. His most recent article on it is also the most interesting ... with how the Big12 may be hamstringing ESPN/Fox to keep it them from being able to buy B1G content/rights. http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/expansion-still-in-play-for-bold-big-12-and-it-could-affect-the-big-ten
Key quotes:
"The $1 billion non-decision: We know its television partners have to pay the Big 12 as much as $1 billion if it expands by as many as four teams. That's $1 billion ESPN and Fox theoretically won't have at the same time the Big Ten goes to market to finalize the second half of its deal. Fox is reportedly paying $1.5 billion to the Big Ten for the first half of those rights.
But ESPN/Fox has to pay the Big 12 in expansion if it comes to that. They want the rights to the Big Ten. See how the Big 12 could upset a lot of folks by cashing in? "I'm aware of that," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said, dryly. "It's probably not fair to say it's a zero-sum game, but it's not unrelated."
Oklahoma president David Boren said the discussion over adding teams was "ongoing." He continued: "There was no feeling we're going to slow our look at expansion."
...
One Big 12 official gave a "So what?" shrug to the prospect of upsetting its rightsholders. Wow. Before that moment, who would have thought the Big 12 could throw its weight around in a phone booth?
...
Raising the profile, just not a network: The whole idea of this exercise was to not only raise the conference's revenue but raise its profile. The league was told by its consultants last month it had a 62 percent chance of getting in the CFP if it stayed status quo. By adding a championship game and expanding, that average grows to 75 percent.
So, no, expansion can't be dead."
Wow. Playing hardball with ESPN and Fox? Maybe that's why the Red River Rivalry was just relegated to FS1, eh? I remember being disappointed that our game vs UT in Austin was on FS1 ... and I remember Utes making fun of that. Imagine how slighted TWO top-tier programs (with a top5 rivalry game) feel ...
THE BIG12 NETWORK (that never was?):
Not having a Big12 Network is definitely a blow to expansion (if it had been approved then expansion would have been a given/necessity), but it actually could be a blessing in disguise for BYU:
1) It decreases the attractiveness of some serious contenders/competitors for Big12 expansion.
UConn, USF, CSU, Houston and UCF all have us beat on media market size. Their chances all took a big blow because a Big12 network would have favored programs with more concentrated fanbases in large media markets over a program like BYU where around 60% of our fanbase is in the Mormon diaspora (outside the SLC/UT media market and hard to capture in local cable program subscriber fees). I think the Big12 still wants strong media markets and presence over weak ones, but it no longer has to be THE driving force/metric behind who to add. Now it can be more about overall fanbase size and Football/Athletic program strength where BYU smokes all the competition.
2) The wording of the news today was that there was no chance at a TRADITIONAL Conference Network ... that the current climate/market data wouldn't support it and they couldn't work around the LHN issue. However, implicit in that wording is that they are probably looking at newer age Conference Network options, like selling the non-Texas school 3rd tier rights to someone like Amazon Prime, or Netflix, or Apple TV.
These streaming services work perfect for a dispersed fanbase like ours and make our school more attractive to the Big12 if they want to "shop" the idea to those providers. Just rambling now, but you get what I mean I'm sure.
3) With Perrin appearing to single out UConn as undesirable geographically 2 days ago, and the no Conf network news today, the hopes of UConn to the Big12 are essentially microscopic in my opinion.
That's very good news for BYU because UConn was (still is?) a serious contender to be team 11 or 12. In all my data metrics they were clearly a stronger overall add than Cincinnati in just about everything but Football and Geography (but those are VERY important). I guess we'll see. I think they'll take one eastern program (probably Cinci), but grabbing TWO more eastern schools (and UConn is REALLY far east) takes the geographical center of the conference much further away from the I-35 corridor. Alternatively, adding BYU pulls the geographic center a bit more back towards where it should be.
4) BYUtv cannot be brought up anymore as a "con" against BYU being added to the Big12. Texas gets to keep its LHN, and so does OU, KU, and (potentially) BYU (assuming a digital or streaming conference network deal mentioned above doesn't get done). If we do get added and get to keep 3rd tier rights through BYUtv that's absolutely GREAT news for our church, school, and fanbase ... especially for the Olympic sports! As a fan, I would view that as much better than hoping a Big12 Conference network would show our MVB or Women's soccer game.
These meetings have reiterated the criteria for expansion candidates: Boren used the word that teams should not be "dilutive" to the Big12 in Fanbase, Athletics, Academics/Research (then how the heck did TCU get a spot in the Big12?!?!). On those three metrics you'd have to go with the following non-dilutive ranking:
1)BYU
2)UConn
3) Cinci
4) UCF
5) CSU/USF
And although this article http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/06/03/why-big-12-expanding-one-way-but-not-other/85379550/?hootPostID=87bb6a839043d883da4b1fbb72dedfff includes the phrase : "Expansion is highly unlikely" it also contains some other intersesting quotes from Boren/Bowlsby.:
"That’s not official, of course. As expected, they punted any final decision about adding teams until later. They’ll have an answer probably this summer, or almost certainly this year — but hey, who really knows, because it’s the never-ending story.
"And Oklahoma president David Boren, the current chairman of the league’s board of directors, dropped just enough vague phrases for fans of schools to parse and remain hopeful about the possibilities. Boren said the league’s presidents asked consulting firms Navigate Research and Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures (BHV) to do more research.
“We are certainly continuing to consider possible expansion and what that might do,” he said, “in terms of how it might impact the conference, both positively and negatively. We’re looking at the whole picture.”
"But Boren also said this:
“The data for the championship game was absolutely compelling. The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”
"If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:
“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued, “but you have to weight that against reputational impacts. In other words, our fans want to see our teams play against great teams. They don’t want to see them play mediocre teams. We have to determine what that’s going to do to the longtime reputation of the brands at each of the schools and what quality of opponents we’re having.
...
"And around the Big 12, the topic has always generated mixed sentiments. As Boren suggested, some might favor expansion “in the abstract,” but the problem is in the details: Which schools?
“There were still some questions raised,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said, “about whether adding members was going to be the right thing or whether in the end, it was dilutive.”
"A day earlier, “dilutive” had been Boren’s buzzword, too. As in: “We want to make sure (expansion candidates) are not dilutive,” he said, referring to athletics, academics, fan bases, media markets, etc."
You cannot look at my data http://goo.gl/ppGJIF and conclude that BYU would be Dilutive to the Big12. Heck, if they consider us a "Mediocre team/program" what does that make them since we have gone 3-1 vs their top 2 teams over the last few years?
Let's start making some "BYU: We're Additive and not Dilutive" signs, OK? Of course, the problem might end up being that there's no other program/school that fits the bill along with us ...
One thing I feel pretty safe in predicting is that, if they expand, they would probably only do two teams (highest CFP chance and least dilutive ... and I'd predict those two to be BYU and Cinci.
Now, some may say that none of this matters at all, because Texas is against expansion and Texas always gets what it wants. You may be proven right in the end, but consider this.
I"m sure not giving up hope yet. I may be just prolonging the pain and suffering ... but I'm a BYU fan ... I'm good at that.
A few points that some have brought up:
1) Expansion is definitely not dead. They've been playing this media circus for months now and I'm sure all the Big12 school leaders are getting tired of the ongoing saga of expansion (fans and school officials filling up inboxes, junk mail, Tweet barrages, etc ...) . If they were definitely not going to expand, they would have announced that today and then they could live out their summer in peace. Here's a couple of tweets showing that they are moving forward on exploring expansion.
https://twitter.com/kbohls/status/738820818621190148Expansion for Big 12 is not dead. Maybe not even wounded. David Boren: "I wouldn't say it's cooled. I'd say it's ongoing."
— Kirk Bohls (@kbohls) June 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/ChuckCarltonDMN/status/738803707937062912Board authorizes Big 12 staff to work with consultants on conference composition, Bowlsby said.
— Chuck Carlton (@ChuckCarltonDMN) June 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/kbohls/status/738821828752216064Money talks. The 20% hike in Big 12 payouts with more $ that could come from expansion changed all B12 leaders' minds. B12 strong and alive.
— Kirk Bohls (@kbohls) June 3, 2016
2) It's good that they did SOMETHING! A move to a CCG is a move... even with just 10 teams in 2017. Hopefully there's now some inertia to carry into actual motion towards expansion. A body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
3) Boren may be in the middle of pulling off a masterful political maneuver. He probably knew he could never get Texas to give up the LHN, but he went after it pretty hard and put Texas on the defensive there. They bit back and so Boren just retreated to try to get his other two wishes, and he already has one of them ... a CCG. Now that that's approved he can point to the DATA they already have about increasing chances of getting in the CFP by expanding AND the $$ factor of expanding (pro rata data discussed below). This kind of tactic of asking for what you know you can't get and then to pull back from that to get what you really wanted in the first place is a tried and true negotiating technique. Hopefully Boren can see that play all the way to the finish line.
SO IS THERE STILL A REALISTIC CHANCE OF EXPANSION THEN?
There will be positive and negative pressures on them to expand:
1) See these tweets:
https://twitter.com/schadjoe/status/738816289645469696Any division with less than 6 teams weakens the perceived value of divisional championship.
— Joe Schad (@schadjoe) June 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/klyttleAAS/status/738808271113457665Without expanding, it's silly to play #Big12 title game when you have full round-robin sked where everyone ALREADY has played everyone.
— Kevin Lyttle (@klyttleAAS) June 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/738811843141992449If the Big 12 is going to be a guaranteed rematch, why not just go best of 7?
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) June 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/ArtDirectorBYU/status/738808803529916417Championship game/divisions make sense a step toward expansion. On their own, rematch championship game and round robin divisions are crazy.
— Greg Welch (@ArtDirectorBYU) June 3, 2016
A 10 team Round robin with divisions is just simply odd. I get why they have done it (to assure no quick rematches by doing all the cross-divisional games earlier season), but there is a perceived weakness/weirdness about it.
2) The Navigate research data showed a 6% increased chance of making CFP by doing what they announced today (10 RR with a CCG) but the figure nearly triples to 15% with the 12 team, 8 Conf games, then a CCG format. They paid good money to have Navigate figure that out, and it would be strange for them to go against that data. But despite what the data show, you have to agree with the sentiment in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/davidubben/status/738818732701540353No question about it now: Big 12 has the toughest road to the CFP. Nine-game round robin + title game + Power 5 nonconference requirement.
— David Ubben (@davidubben) June 3, 2016
So there could be some solid positive pressure to expand and go to 8 Conf games to "follow the data" and make entry into the CFP much more likely.
3) The pro rata data! We could count on some good old greed as a MAJOR reason for the Big12 to expand. Dodd has been beating this same $1 Billion-dollors-on-the-table-via-expansion drum for 3-4 days now. His most recent article on it is also the most interesting ... with how the Big12 may be hamstringing ESPN/Fox to keep it them from being able to buy B1G content/rights. http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/expansion-still-in-play-for-bold-big-12-and-it-could-affect-the-big-ten
Key quotes:
"The $1 billion non-decision: We know its television partners have to pay the Big 12 as much as $1 billion if it expands by as many as four teams. That's $1 billion ESPN and Fox theoretically won't have at the same time the Big Ten goes to market to finalize the second half of its deal. Fox is reportedly paying $1.5 billion to the Big Ten for the first half of those rights.
But ESPN/Fox has to pay the Big 12 in expansion if it comes to that. They want the rights to the Big Ten. See how the Big 12 could upset a lot of folks by cashing in? "I'm aware of that," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said, dryly. "It's probably not fair to say it's a zero-sum game, but it's not unrelated."
Oklahoma president David Boren said the discussion over adding teams was "ongoing." He continued: "There was no feeling we're going to slow our look at expansion."
...
One Big 12 official gave a "So what?" shrug to the prospect of upsetting its rightsholders. Wow. Before that moment, who would have thought the Big 12 could throw its weight around in a phone booth?
...
Raising the profile, just not a network: The whole idea of this exercise was to not only raise the conference's revenue but raise its profile. The league was told by its consultants last month it had a 62 percent chance of getting in the CFP if it stayed status quo. By adding a championship game and expanding, that average grows to 75 percent.
So, no, expansion can't be dead."
Wow. Playing hardball with ESPN and Fox? Maybe that's why the Red River Rivalry was just relegated to FS1, eh? I remember being disappointed that our game vs UT in Austin was on FS1 ... and I remember Utes making fun of that. Imagine how slighted TWO top-tier programs (with a top5 rivalry game) feel ...
THE BIG12 NETWORK (that never was?):
Not having a Big12 Network is definitely a blow to expansion (if it had been approved then expansion would have been a given/necessity), but it actually could be a blessing in disguise for BYU:
1) It decreases the attractiveness of some serious contenders/competitors for Big12 expansion.
https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/738821146808705024Totally agree. Expansion debate alive/well. But w/ network off table, could change way Big 12 views candidates https://t.co/AkdAcxBOlt
— Jake Trotter (@Jake_Trotter) June 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/738915516056641537If Big 12 did expand without a network what would be the point of going into Florida? Probably bad news for UConn as well.
— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) June 4, 2016
UConn, USF, CSU, Houston and UCF all have us beat on media market size. Their chances all took a big blow because a Big12 network would have favored programs with more concentrated fanbases in large media markets over a program like BYU where around 60% of our fanbase is in the Mormon diaspora (outside the SLC/UT media market and hard to capture in local cable program subscriber fees). I think the Big12 still wants strong media markets and presence over weak ones, but it no longer has to be THE driving force/metric behind who to add. Now it can be more about overall fanbase size and Football/Athletic program strength where BYU smokes all the competition.
2) The wording of the news today was that there was no chance at a TRADITIONAL Conference Network ... that the current climate/market data wouldn't support it and they couldn't work around the LHN issue. However, implicit in that wording is that they are probably looking at newer age Conference Network options, like selling the non-Texas school 3rd tier rights to someone like Amazon Prime, or Netflix, or Apple TV.
https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/738831001200168960League gonna definitely examine the digital options. Smartest move IMO. Traditional network would've been DOA https://t.co/MKCTlUJeUZ
— Jake Trotter (@Jake_Trotter) June 3, 2016
These streaming services work perfect for a dispersed fanbase like ours and make our school more attractive to the Big12 if they want to "shop" the idea to those providers. Just rambling now, but you get what I mean I'm sure.
3) With Perrin appearing to single out UConn as undesirable geographically 2 days ago, and the no Conf network news today, the hopes of UConn to the Big12 are essentially microscopic in my opinion.
https://twitter.com/Joseph_Duarte/status/738152812845010946Sounds like UT AD Perrin has eliminated UConn. 'It’s tough to play West Virginia a lot … would be tough to play someone similar like that.'
— Joseph Duarte (@Joseph_Duarte) June 1, 2016
That's very good news for BYU because UConn was (still is?) a serious contender to be team 11 or 12. In all my data metrics they were clearly a stronger overall add than Cincinnati in just about everything but Football and Geography (but those are VERY important). I guess we'll see. I think they'll take one eastern program (probably Cinci), but grabbing TWO more eastern schools (and UConn is REALLY far east) takes the geographical center of the conference much further away from the I-35 corridor. Alternatively, adding BYU pulls the geographic center a bit more back towards where it should be.
4) BYUtv cannot be brought up anymore as a "con" against BYU being added to the Big12. Texas gets to keep its LHN, and so does OU, KU, and (potentially) BYU (assuming a digital or streaming conference network deal mentioned above doesn't get done). If we do get added and get to keep 3rd tier rights through BYUtv that's absolutely GREAT news for our church, school, and fanbase ... especially for the Olympic sports! As a fan, I would view that as much better than hoping a Big12 Conference network would show our MVB or Women's soccer game.
These meetings have reiterated the criteria for expansion candidates: Boren used the word that teams should not be "dilutive" to the Big12 in Fanbase, Athletics, Academics/Research (then how the heck did TCU get a spot in the Big12?!?!). On those three metrics you'd have to go with the following non-dilutive ranking:
1)BYU
2)UConn
3) Cinci
4) UCF
5) CSU/USF
And although this article http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/06/03/why-big-12-expanding-one-way-but-not-other/85379550/?hootPostID=87bb6a839043d883da4b1fbb72dedfff includes the phrase : "Expansion is highly unlikely" it also contains some other intersesting quotes from Boren/Bowlsby.:
"That’s not official, of course. As expected, they punted any final decision about adding teams until later. They’ll have an answer probably this summer, or almost certainly this year — but hey, who really knows, because it’s the never-ending story.
"And Oklahoma president David Boren, the current chairman of the league’s board of directors, dropped just enough vague phrases for fans of schools to parse and remain hopeful about the possibilities. Boren said the league’s presidents asked consulting firms Navigate Research and Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures (BHV) to do more research.
“We are certainly continuing to consider possible expansion and what that might do,” he said, “in terms of how it might impact the conference, both positively and negatively. We’re looking at the whole picture.”
"But Boren also said this:
“The data for the championship game was absolutely compelling. The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”
"If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:
“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued, “but you have to weight that against reputational impacts. In other words, our fans want to see our teams play against great teams. They don’t want to see them play mediocre teams. We have to determine what that’s going to do to the longtime reputation of the brands at each of the schools and what quality of opponents we’re having.
...
"And around the Big 12, the topic has always generated mixed sentiments. As Boren suggested, some might favor expansion “in the abstract,” but the problem is in the details: Which schools?
“There were still some questions raised,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said, “about whether adding members was going to be the right thing or whether in the end, it was dilutive.”
"A day earlier, “dilutive” had been Boren’s buzzword, too. As in: “We want to make sure (expansion candidates) are not dilutive,” he said, referring to athletics, academics, fan bases, media markets, etc."
You cannot look at my data http://goo.gl/ppGJIF and conclude that BYU would be Dilutive to the Big12. Heck, if they consider us a "Mediocre team/program" what does that make them since we have gone 3-1 vs their top 2 teams over the last few years?
Let's start making some "BYU: We're Additive and not Dilutive" signs, OK? Of course, the problem might end up being that there's no other program/school that fits the bill along with us ...
One thing I feel pretty safe in predicting is that, if they expand, they would probably only do two teams (highest CFP chance and least dilutive ... and I'd predict those two to be BYU and Cinci.
Now, some may say that none of this matters at all, because Texas is against expansion and Texas always gets what it wants. You may be proven right in the end, but consider this.
I"m sure not giving up hope yet. I may be just prolonging the pain and suffering ... but I'm a BYU fan ... I'm good at that.
Originally posted on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:14:05am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:23:27am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:28:02am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:29:50am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:32:57am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:49:40am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:58:32am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 1:08:06am
Message modified by BamaCoug on Jun 4, 2016 at 1:44:35am
- Bio page
- BamaCoug
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2001
- Last login
- May 1, 2024
- Total posts
- 10,459 (424 FO)
Would ACC teams be more interested in the big 12 now? (05COUG, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:16am)
Messages
Time
