Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[BayIslandBull]

2 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

True but they are still an autonomy conference whose teams will make about $15/16 million more than we will. 

Don't see them getting more than $15 million per school. Even their commissioner has said that's what they are worth now

[Bull94]

1 minute ago, NewEnglandBull said:

True but they are still an autonomy conference whose teams will make about $15/16 million more than we will. 

they won't make anywhere near that amount more. The other programs offered Texas and Ou $20M more a piece and they left. They knew that if they left that the money would leave with them.

[Bull94]

3 minutes ago, BayIslandBull said:

Don't see them getting more than $15 million per school. Even their commissioner has said that's what they are worth now

I'd be surprised if it's that much. SI says that OU and Texas may bring an extra $256M in payouts to SEC(+$14M per team).

Kansas basketball is the only money generator for big 12 now

[puc86]

22 minutes ago, hm101 said:

VPMK didn't hire zombie Strong. He hired Scott who is too early to judge. 

He didn't hire Gregory. 

We have an IPF with broken ground. 

We may just agree to disagree that VPMK isn't doing well. I personally think he is at worst neutral if not a major asset. 

As measured by wins have things gotten better or worse? 

[Bull Gooner]

1 hour ago, BayIslandBull said:

I'll preface this comment by saying that if we were going to the B12, then I'd take it as well.

UCF has had years of systemic success on the football field, and are reaping the rewards... maybe.

TCU? Do they still play football? The struggles of WV have been well chronicled since they joined the B12 due to them being stuck out on an island. They have virtually been relegated to irrelevancy. Now, a bone has been thrown their way with the addition of UC. Guess who is now out on the island 1000 miles away from the nearest conference mate? Could it work? Sure.

But then there is UT and UO leaving. The B12 without them is on par with the ACC. Who are the juggernauts? Baylor, OSU, KSU? Baylor did win the NCAAB, but let's not fool ourselves, this is about football. UT and UO left because the rest of them were not elite. The TV revenue would have been slashed to levels closer to the AAC than the P4.

So what is this about, then? This is a flailing B12 desperately trying to hold onto their P5 status by creating as much distance as possible from the AAC, whose status was on the rise. So instead of B12 improving their brand, their strategy is to dilute the AAC. Will it work? Maybe in the short term, but this is the Big East 2.0, gasping for air after VA Tech and UM left. We know well how that ended.

No back to UCF, they peaked 2 or 3 years ago. Now they have to sustain. Can they? We'll see. But now they will get marginally more TV revenue, travel expenses will go up considerably, and they will have $10-15 buyout owed to the AAC. That would be a calculated risk if that's were it ended. But the legacy schools know that the B12 trajectory is headed in the wrong direction. They all think they are worth more and will be looking for greener pastures. What happens if the PAC12 or B10 goes after Baylor, OSU, KSU? They would jump in a heartbeat leaving UCF in no man's land with less revenue and astronomical travel expenses. 

We'll see what happens, but it's not a forgone conclusion that this will be a good move for them since the B12 is a shell of is former self. Joining declining conferences has yet to work out anywhere that I can remember. 

A lot of good points here. And yeah, I would have been happy to get an invite as well.

But - aside from a little more TV revenue (increased expenses noted) the Big 12 isn't necessarily a gold ticket to the promised land. If the playoffs ever expand to allow the Plebes a chance at participating, it's almost a non-issue. The remaining Big 12 schools aren't close to the (football) brands of Ohio State, Alabama, etc. and I think the TV contract will probably reflect that.  

[pascobull]

40 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I don’t think anyone is mad at them specifically about what happened more than 10 years ago they are mad at them for the portion they have been here and that from those moments things have been on a constant death spiral and are objectively the worst they have ever been. These are very nice people but from a results perspective they are the embodiment of failure.  

And if the new president evaluates and determines to clean house of certain people so be it. There is some good people there but systemic failures are undeniable. How much of that failure is attributed to those that pulled the rip cord on golden parachutes...Im glad I'm not the person to figure that out. 

[NewEnglandBull]

19 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Anyone that has the smallest amount of expectations cannot be happy with him at least not if they measure by results, it’s a directly declining line 

I have to admit I have started to sour a bit on him. But he has time to come around. 

[Bull Gooner]

2 hours ago, MSBulls said:

 

Too bad this focus on an IPF and visionary commitment to an OCS didn't happen a decade ago.

[hm101]

28 minutes ago, puc86 said:

As measured by wins have things gotten better or worse? 

Objectively better. We just had our highest ranking in the Directors Cup in 6 years. That is a fact. 

[puc86]

7 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

I have to admit I have started to sour a bit on him. But he has time to come around. 

I’m not sure I am as sour as I sound, I just want for him to do better and I see no motivating factor because most of our fanbase drones on about how USF football is a dumpster fire but what a great and amazing job he is doing. I think there is a major cognitive disconnect between the fact he is completely in control of the program and it has gotten worse year over year with every passing great and wonderful decision. He is nice and establishment that’s what he does well, we are the anti-establishment and don’t have the luxury of that approach.