|
Goetta posted:Hello Nope
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Thoguh posted:News: Viacom stock is tumbling after their latest earnings report Does Viacom own one of the conference networks?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Is there anything preventing them from having tiebreaker conditions to determine the champion if multiple teams have the same number of wins? Why does it matter? If the two top teams have the same record, then everyone (the bowls included) pretty much acknowledges that the one that one the head to head is the de facto champion. Maybe they both get trophies, but who gives a poo poo? The selection committee in 2014 basically said, "gee, we sure wish the Big 12 hadn't forced us to use critical thinking to make a choice between Baylor and TCU", which is their entire job, and is such a colossally stupid stance to take that I wish the conference hadn't even dignified it with a response. Football worked this way for literally 100 years, conferences swapped to having championship games out of necessity (and money), not because everyone suddenly decided it was the superior way to do things. General Dog fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:There was a tiebreaker. There had to be a tiebreaker to determine who would represent the Big XII in the Champions Bowl. It was actually a really short tiebreaker, too, since it was just H2H. The rules said they would be declared co-champions but the winner of tiebreakers would represent the Big XII in the top auto-bowl. Yeah, and all the Big 12 did was reiterate what the rules are. It's absurd to think the Big 12 coming out and saying, "we're going to declare Baylor the for real, uncontested champ, contrary to our existing rules" would have made one bit of difference to anyone. If committee members are waiting with baited breath for someone to tell you what you need think about team A's head to head win over team B, then they are literally too stupid to live. General Dog fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
The best solution is for the Big 12 to kick out KSU after Snyder retires and then invite Cincy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Dr. Gitmo Moneyson posted:If OU gets fed up with the Big 12's poo poo and leaves for another conference (not that they would, or could) would Texas stay put in the Big 12, or would they try to follow OU? Are you asking if Texas would follow OU to the same conference after OU left of their same accord? No. Texas might leave shortly thereafter because the writing would be on the wall at that point, but I can't imagine them going the same place as OU, because a) pride and b) the SEC is the only conference I could see taking OU as a standalone, and Texas is never joining the SEC. General Dog fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Neil Armbong posted:I understand the sentiment, but there's no way any school would pass up the longhorn network deal if they were offered an equivalent. It's not so much the LHN thing as it is just everything in general.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Take a hike, Idaho and New Mexico State Who lasts longer as an independent before giving up and dropping down to FCS?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
oldman posted:Idaho is in the Big Sky for its Olympic sports, and they have football but NMSU is still in the WAC. Where could the Aggies play? The only hope for either of them is that there are enough teams in the west that are interested in moving up to FBS that they can start a new conference, like some kind of Sun Belt West.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Haven't all those top tier MVC and Big Sky schools been pretty vocal that they'd rather be big fish in FCS than struggle to be viable in FBS? Yeah, I don't see the scenario I said happening, but it's more likely than Idaho or NMSU getting an invite from any existing conference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
New Mexico is a giant poo poo hole
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Some conversation about the Big Ten led me to wonder, did the Big Ten have a massive shift in philosophy in the couple of years between inviting Nebraska and inviting Rutgers and Maryland? Because they basically represent opposite schools of thought- Nebraska brings an established brand and a reliably competitive program (or so they thought), but basically nothing in terms of regional footprint and BTN subscribers, whereas Maryland and Rutgers bring basically nothing but the cable subscribers. Did the Big Ten have a change of heart, or did they already have designs on expanding the network with Northeastern markets and invited Nebraska to try to mitigate the brand dilution? Also, we've gotten a lot of mileage out of Missouri getting rejected, but it really seems like they would have been a good middle route between the two extremes, with both a decent population and a reasonably competitive football program. General Dog fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:They never anticipated the Big XII blowing up. Delany started talking heavily to Rutgers in 2010, and the AD at the time was not exactly coy about hiding that fact. I think the plan was to blow up the Big East and force Notre Dame's hand. When it looked like the Pac 16 was going to happen, Rutgers was nearly finalized as #13 before Texas backed away from the ledge. At that point Delany told Pernetti to be patient and it would happen soon, which it did two years later. They just needed a partner, which waited on ND to pass and MD to get in really bad financial shape. They didn't expect the conference to be destabilized when they grabbed Nebraska?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
News: Is the Longhorn Network Killing the Big 12? Views: No The idea of a profitable Big 12 network seems like fools' gold to me. The footprint is too small, and there really isn't enough content. There's a maximum of five conference games per week, by the time ESPN and Fox have taken their share, you're going to be left with some pretty meager morsels. It would be good for basketball, but that's not where the money is. General Dog fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
quote:Boren has said that until the Big 12 does all three, it will be "psychologically disadvantaged." What a load of stupid horse poo poo. OU is the only team that cares about expanding, and they just made the playoff, and with a terrible loss on their record to boot! It's a dead certainty that the playoff is expanding in the next decade and this will all be a moot point. Please chill and don't do something stupid like adding Cincy and USF because you're afraid a team may miss the playoffs once every five years or so. General Dog fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
whiteyfats posted:Man, them not taking FSU, Miami, GT and Clemson is looking worse in hindsight. There's no way on earth that this was an actual thing that had a chance of happening, unless it was contingent on some outrageous demand like 50% of the conference's overall television revenue or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Where are the votes going to come from for this to happen? How do you talk Baylor, TCU, Tech, Iowa State, the Kansas schools, anybody really, into this being in their best interests? OU is dead set on expansion for whatever reason, and I'm sure WVU would like a couple of travel partners; but other than that I don't see where the support is coming from. General Dog fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:please let us join somewhere The MWC should be a pretty big deal in 25 years if football lasts that long.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:MWC was on track to being a pretty big deal a decade ago but instead they just got raided of some teams and had others fall off. Yeah, even if they just still had Utah and BYU (TCU was never going to stay forever), they'd be pretty salty, or that would at least be the perception.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:What does Tulane bring besides academics and an excuse to travel to New Orleans? A game Texas can probably win :iamafag:
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:It really is funny how vehemently Tech/TCU/Baylor fans oppose UH. Scared?? That's a lot of dead weight to add just to have a conference championship game. The markets are okay in theory, but it the cable bubble is really about to burst it's not going to mean much. I'm stealing this talking point from this week's Shutdown Fullcast, but once the cable package as we know it bites the dust the conference's value is going to swing back to being tied more to just how much fans want to watch it. Quality, not quantity. If that's the case, they may be best suited just taking Houston and BYU, because they're good at sports and can probably be counted on to be good at sports going forward. General Dog fucked around with this message at 19:28 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
There's infighting at Oklahoma over potential Big 12 expansion So apparently even the OU regents don't have Boren's back on this, if this is to be believed. His one-man crusade for expansion just makes less and less sense, I have no feel for what his angle is here.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Memphis is willing to spend half a billion to get into the Big 12, which is really like the saddest way to spend half a billion.  I want to boil this comment down to a pure  resin and inject it into my bloodstream
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Without reading the spoiler, is it wrestling?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Dr. Gitmo Moneyson posted:The Big 12 just voted unanimously to bring back the conference championship game in 2017. This is not necessarily saying that they will expand, and they still haven't decided on expansion candidates, but the game is back. That's stupid
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:Hot take: ANY* school in the AAC would be an overall upgrade to Baylor, should the Big XII decide to kick them out as a result of their refusal to release a written or Oral PH report. Powerful take, but no
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:"May as well save some money and go to Wyoming" I've been to Chyenne and thought it was nice. It kind of reminded me of the Windows XP default desktop background. I'd say Wyoming is the perfect place for you if you hate people, but not enough to live in New Mexico. General Dog fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:Big XII... hasn't decided on whether to expand or not yet? they won't
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
I don't see how adding 2-4 programs that are going to be absolute dead weight adds either value or stability to the Big 12. They've already been cleared to hold a championship game, which is stupid but fine, they get another check to split 10 ways. Even if you jump to 12 or 14, a conference network is still going to be a non-starter as long as LHN is out there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Dr_Strangelove posted:NO. We need good posters pls don't go They won't add Houston, but I'd also be stunned if they added four teams from the AAC. You'd be getting down to Tulsa/Tulane/UConn grade poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:With the ACC's new deal and seemingly greater stability, it's either expand and try to stay alive or stay pat and know that if any of the 4 other major conferences wants to go to 16, you're going to be the conference that they target. I agree that the Big 12 is in a vulnerable position, but I think it's stupid for the decision makers to think that the conference is going to get better by getting worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
The Big 12 as currently constituted has no conference network and is dead the day Texas or OU decides to leave, not before or after. A 14 team Big 12 with Cincy, UCF, USF, and UConn/Memphis/whatever has no conference network and is dead the day Texas or OU decides to leave, not before or after. Another thing to consider is that when the cable bubble bursts and everything is about streaming services, the quality of the content that a conference provides is going to be much more important than its geographic footprint. Regardless of where the viewers live, the only question that will matter is whether or not they want to watch your games. General Dog fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
CaptainYesterday posted:You can't have a conference network with only 10 teams. Almost all the games are televised nationally as it is! Yeah, but the point is that 1)LHN is a big obstacle to the establishment of a conference network no matter what and 2) if expanding to 12 or 14 just means adding a pu pu platter of non-Houston AAC teams, then the slate of tier 3 games that they'll be peddling will be worthless dogshit anyway. I guess you can count on ESPN overpaying for those rights anyway to maintain their monopoly, but that gain is diluted by having to split the revenue 14 ways. Imagine someone calling up Time Warner Cable, demanding that they add the B14Net so they don't miss the Kansas State-Memphis game. General Dog fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:So is your point that everyone should just grab what cash they can before things crumble apart? Because the second it's more profitable for Texas to leave they're gone. My point is that adding teams isn't going to make the conference any more likely to survive if Texas leaves. If we were talking about adding Arkansas and LSU, or he'll even BYU and CU it would be different, but Cincy, bless their souls, isn't changing anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:For what it's worth here is my preference: I'm not sure why BYU as a football-only affiliate hasn't been brought up more. Their other sports already have a home, so it wouldn't really be an issue for them, and the Big 12's (perceived) imperative to expand really only applies to football anyway. I know adding full members is preferable in a vacuum, but BYU is head and shoulders above the competition as far as fanbase, brand, and competitive floor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I am slowly accepting the inevitable. We're going to the SEC together in a decade. I think Texas still thinks it's too highbrow for the SEC. If they move I still think it would be to be the PAC, because they've flirted with it several times, and also where else is the PAC going to expand? If the cable bubble bursts before the GOR is up there's no telling what will happen. The Big 12 might be more palatable in that world.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Why is 16 the magic number? Why did we all decide in 2011 that this was the manifest destiny of college football? When is adding four MWC teams ever going to make sense for the PAC?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Who officially accounts for the Houston TV market right now, Texas? I don't mean that to sound snarky, I just honestly don't know. A&M. If you mean for the Big 12, the other four teams probably make up a pretty big share.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
DJExile posted:OK yeah I meant that from a B12 perspective, i know college station isn't far outside of town I mean, Houston is a formidable program, and I'm sure they draw a good amount of eyeballs when they're good, but if you're concerned about the carriage fee you'll be able to get for a hypothetical Big 12 Network in Houston, getting UH isn't going to give you appreciably more leverage than you already have with Texas/Tech/Baylor/TCU. But like I've said, ten years from now the equation may be totally different and adding a good team for the sake of adding a good team might make sense again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Dr. Gitmo Moneyson posted:Is it bad to hope Dan Patrick gets shot? Dan Patrick is so bad that I didn't even vote for him. I just left Lt. Gov. blank.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 03:52
|
|