SMU to the Pac 10?

[couch 'em]

A quick search of your posts with "TCU Big East", just a few from the first page of results:

There is nowhere for TCU to go. They're stuck. Forget the Big East or Big 12. That is just stupid. They're nowhere near the top for consideration for those conferences. They've cast their lot with the MWC. The ball is squarely in BYU's court, not TCU's.

So you're willing to bet on TCU to the Big East? Am I hearing that right? Deep down what do you really think is going to happen to TCU? Think with your head. They ain't going anywhere.

BTW, the Big East isn't in the danger of losing AQ most people think. Its the Big East. Lots of big money, major markets, and big players in their existing conference. I could see them adding Memphis or Central Florida way before they would consider TCU.

Froggie,


Haha! Explain yourself dude. I mean really. TCU to the Big East huh?!

And my favorite

No f'ing way in hell the Big East takes TCU. Seriously.

[mrydel]

I am sure he rues the day he said those things.

[gostangs]

he needs to get stallion to write his rebuttle as to why it doesnt really say what it says.

[Undercover Frog]

I've heard it rumored that the Pac 10 desperately wants to somehow get a hold of the DFW TV market... with TCU going to the Big East, and the Big 12-2 staying together, i've heard talk of SMU potentially getting an invite... I can't reveal my identity or reveal where i got this information, but there is serious speculation of this potentially happening in the near future... for now we must just wait and see. PONY UP

[Samurai Stang]

Perhaps this thread was begun as a foolish joke, but it does not change that there is some intelligence in the suggestion.

The Pac-10 did not finalize the agreement to add 6 Big 12 teams due to Texas' desire to pursue its own network. Thus, one can rightly assume that Texas remains undesirable for the same reason.

Were the Big 12 to break apart, A&M and Oklahoma would join the ranks of the SEC, which is supported by their being previously invited. They also would easily fit into the SEC culture.

Cal has stated that they oppose Baylor due to its perceived religious extremism. Whether or not such extremism is actually present does not change that the judgment has been made.

That leaves Texas Tech as the lone Big 12 school remaining in Texas, a program which was mildly tolerated in past plans in order to attain larger prizes. Tech's academics and location would prevent it from joining.

Which leaves Houston, SMU, and TCU as the only alternative options within the state. USC considers SMU to be its Texas counterpart, while it is also aided by its academics and location. TCU is similar in such attributes, with obviously stronger football at this moment.

Houston will most likely fall victim to its own poor academics. Were Houston selected, it would instantly be the worst academic school in the conference. This is particularly important for the Pac-12 as it both an athletic and academic conference. The commuter culture of Houston is the opposite of the image the Pac-12 has worked so hard to create.

If the Pac-12 were to actually want in the Texas market, TCU and SMU would make logical travel partners that preserve the conference's image. Unlikely? Yes. Absurd? No.

[Sammy 11]

Perhaps this thread was begun as a foolish joke, but it does not change that there is some intelligence in the suggestion.

The Pac-10 did not finalize the agreement to add 6 Big 12 teams due to Texas' desire to pursue its own network. Thus, one can rightly assume that Texas remains undesirable for the same reason.

Pac10 commish was quoted as saying the network was not an issue. People float it as a big deal but really the Texoma 4 came back after UT and OU were set to get the same payout either way once ESPN assured them of 20mil per year. Once that happened other concerns made the Pac undesirable compared to the B12. Considerations such as travel, being outvoted 12-4 on important league matters, having to play ATM out of conference on top of a 9 game league schedule and BU political backlash all factored in. If the tv money for UT is equal in each league there is no logical reason to risk the negatives in a move.

Were the Big 12 to break apart, A&M and Oklahoma would join the ranks of the SEC, which is supported by their being previously invited. They also would easily fit into the SEC culture.

ATM yes, OU no because OU would stick with UT who is politically handcuffed to TT and won't go indy. They already get all the benefits of indy and a better non-fb situation.

Cal has stated that they oppose Baylor due to its perceived religious extremism. Whether or not such extremism is actually present does not change that the judgment has been made.

That leaves Texas Tech as the lone Big 12 school remaining in Texas, a program which was mildly tolerated in past plans in order to attain larger prizes. Tech's academics and location would prevent it from joining.

Which leaves Houston, SMU, and TCU as the only alternative options within the state. USC considers SMU to be its Texas counterpart, while it is also aided by its academics and location. TCU is similar in such attributes, with obviously stronger football at this moment.

Houston will most likely fall victim to its own poor academics. Were Houston selected, it would instantly be the worst academic school in the conference. This is particularly important for the Pac-12 as it both an athletic and academic conference. The commuter culture of Houston is the opposite of the image the Pac-12 has worked so hard to create.

If the Pac-12 were to actually want in the Texas market, TCU and SMU would make logical travel partners that preserve the conference's image. Unlikely? Yes. Absurd? No.

Your entire premise is based on UT being a no-go for network purposes. That is not the case as it is only using the rights a major contract does not pick up. The Pac is not expanding with anyone not named UT or OU involved as it is questionable whether the others provide enough revenue to justify splitting the pie into two more slices.

[Samurai Stang]

Pac10 commish was quoted as saying the network was not an issue. People float it as a big deal but really the Texoma 4 came back after UT and OU were set to get the same payout either way once ESPN assured them of 20mil per year. Once that happened other concerns made the Pac undesirable compared to the B12. Considerations such as travel, being outvoted 12-4 on important league matters, having to play ATM out of conference on top of a 9 game league schedule and BU political backlash all factored in. If the tv money for UT is equal in each league there is no logical reason to risk the negatives in a move.

Your entire premise is based on UT being a no-go for network purposes. That is not the case as it is only using the rights a major contract does not pick up. The Pac is not expanding with anyone not named UT or OU involved as it is questionable whether the others provide enough revenue to justify splitting the pie into two more slices.

Yes, the Pac-10 commissioner provided a pathetic excuse that made all parties come away looking innocent, instead blaming "Texas politics." This is to be expected, as the commissioner is not bound to tell the truth, but is only concerned with the conference's image and increasing revenue. As though Baylor could possess such political clout in a world where Ann Richards is dead. To believe that "Texas politics" brought an end to the potential Pac-16 is to believe that Texas is subject to the whims of Baylor. The official story is not simply incomplete, but entirely unconvincing.

But then you only mention politics as a minor point, instead claiming that a greater television contract preserved the existence of the Big 12. You are casually picking and choosing which aspects of the Pac-10 commissioner's statements with which you agree and disagree. That demonstrates that even you question the validity of what he has said.

All reports make it clear that the Texas network was a key concern. Texas demanded unequal terms by requiring that it be allowed to begin its own network, and the Pac-10 was not willing to abide. The Pac-10 already distributes revenue equally, and the Texas network would have created a tremendous wealth gap that would have bred dissent. To believe that the Pac-10 schools would not be opposed to bringing in a new member that would disrespect them by maintaining a network of such value that it could not even by equaled by USC is suggesting that they have no sense of pride.

In regards to the value of schools not named OU and Texas, one must only look to the Big 10 network's television agreement, what as the Pac-10's network does not yet exist. In states that possess a Big 10 member, the subscription fee for the Big 10 network rises from 10 cents to 70 cents per month. That means that if a state is large enough, such as the state of Texas, even adding the likes of UT-San Antonio would be extremely lucrative. I assure you, SMU and TCU are not as unattractive as you believe them to be.

[Sammy 11]

Yes, the Pac-10 commissioner provided a pathetic excuse that made all parties come away looking innocent, instead blaming "Texas politics." This is to be expected, as the commissioner is not bound to tell the truth, but is only concerned with the conference's image and increasing revenue. As though Baylor could possess such political clout in a world where Ann Richards is dead. To believe that "Texas politics" brought an end to the potential Pac-16 is to believe that Texas is subject to the whims of Baylor. The official story is not simply incomplete, but entirely unconvincing.

IMO the only way Texas politics killed it was UT splitting from ATM with a smaller consideration relating to BU. Those 2 considerations AT BEST slowed it down.

But then you only mention politics as a minor point, instead claiming that a greater television contract preserved the existence of the Big 12. You are casually picking and choosing which aspects of the Pac-10 commissioner's statements with which you agree and disagree. That demonstrates that even you question the validity of what he has said.

Unless we were in the room or on the calls we can't be sure but looking at the reasons for UT to jump or not jump it makes far more sense that the revenue from ESPN was the tipping point. Everything was going forward until a dramatic 180 right after ESPN shows up. Once the money is equal I think the other considerations made staying a simple decision.

All reports make it clear that the Texas network was a key concern. Texas demanded unequal terms by requiring that it be allowed to begin its own network, and the Pac-10 was not willing to abide. The Pac-10 already distributes revenue equally, and the Texas network would have created a tremendous wealth gap that would have bred dissent. To believe that the Pac-10 schools would not be opposed to bringing in a new member that would disrespect them by maintaining a network of such value that it could not even by equaled by USC is suggesting that they have no sense of pride.

Pac10 has shared more equally than the B12 but it has not exactly been equal per se. If it meant the difference between 20 million a year and 12 million like was projected you can bet they would swallow their pride. Especially with the lack of money out in California right now, the Pac10 schools are leaner in the wallet these days.

In regards to the value of schools not named OU and Texas, one must only look to the Big 10 network's television agreement, what as the Pac-10's network does not yet exist. In states that possess a Big 10 member, the subscription fee for the Big 10 network rises from 10 cents to 70 cents per month. That means that if a state is large enough, such as the state of Texas, even adding the likes of UT-San Antonio would be extremely lucrative. I assure you, SMU and TCU are not as unattractive as you believe them to be.

That 70 cents is an average and is purely dependent on how much attention the schools warrant in that market. SMU and TCU combine for around 80,000 alumni in DFW and get little loyalty compared to the big schools elsewhere. TCU and SMU would get additional fans but probably not enough in DFW to quadruple that number. We are slightly larger but very much in the same boat.

Taking the 320k quadruple number X .70 cents (which I dont think any combo of SWC schools not including UT or ATM would come close to getting) we end up with 224,000 dollars in revenue. Split 14 ways this adds 16,000 per school. Not nearly enough to cover the lost revenue from splitting the pie 2 more ways. SMU and TCU are coming from leagues that make between 1 and 2 million a year in tv money and are not the biggest tv impacts in those leagues, it is doubtful that the combined input of the 2 would account for the 24 million needed to break even on the addition in the normal contract. TCU could not even get the MWC's contract on normal cable in dfw despite having a regular top 25 team. Combining with SMU would help but not enough to make financial sense for the Pac.

The perfect example of how the subscription fee for networks varies is the Big Ten selecting NU. Rutgers, Pitt, Mizzou, Syracuse, Maryland and others all have larger home markets and theoretically would generate more revenue. However the B10 can essentially name their price wherever large amounts of nebraska fans reside. They may have only 900k tv households in state but they bring a ton of revenue per set and get a fair chunk of the KC and St Louis markets as well. This drastically changes things and really puts schools like yours, mine, and the frogs at a position of offering little unless we are paired with someone possessing a much larger fanbase. This is why the addition of someone like a UTSA as you gave the example of would not be lucrative.

SMU, TCU, Baylor, and others do bring solid value, however that is not the argument. The argument is that value enough to get a network to spend over 12-14 million (what the per school take is in the P12) to justify expansion. The answer is sadly no and in no way am I trying to say BU is any different if the situations were reversed, in fact I am going to great lengths to show the opposite.

The Pac will wait on the Texoma 4 as they have nobody else who makes enough money to warrant AND is a cultural + academic + competitive fit. This is no disrespect to SMU, my alma mater is in the same boat if this B12-2 ship goes down.

[Samurai Stang]

I respect your reasonableness on this matter. Perhaps the future will reveal a single truth.

[Fijistang]

There was a Pac 10 official with credentials on the sidelines before the UCF game.

[smupony94]

There was a Pac 10 official with credentials on the sidelines before the UCF game.

Maybe ucf to PAC 10

[RE Tycoon]

There was a Pac 10 official with credentials on the sidelines before the UCF game.

Good thing we made such a good showing.

[Samurai Stang]

That 70 cents is an average and is purely dependent on how much attention the schools warrant in that market. SMU and TCU combine for around 80,000 alumni in DFW and get little loyalty compared to the big schools elsewhere. TCU and SMU would get additional fans but probably not enough in DFW to quadruple that number. We are slightly larger but very much in the same boat.

Taking the 320k quadruple number X .70 cents (which I dont think any combo of SWC schools not including UT or ATM would come close to getting) we end up with 224,000 dollars in revenue. Split 14 ways this adds 16,000 per school. Not nearly enough to cover the lost revenue from splitting the pie 2 more ways.

On this matter you are entirely wrong.
The Big 10 network is not based upon individual subscribers in all states, as it is offered on expanded basic cable in all states within the Big 10. In this way, customers do not actually pay extra money or even have to watch in order for the Big 10 to benefit financially.

In the words of one reporter

If the Big Ten were to expand east and get its network on basic cable in New York City, it would instantly receive 70 cents from 7.5 million subscribers - per month, and regardless of whether any of them actually watch or not.

The number of cable subscribers in the state of Texas is what counts, not the fanbase. And the number of cable subscribers in Texas is far greater than 320,000.

[Comet]

Ditto coit & 635

I almost crashed there once.

[Dutch]

good lord. enough with this b.s. thread. '94, get the picture.