|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on May 18, 2012 11:58:30 GMT -5
The sip mouth pieces part was mainly directed at all the tv contract talks. We've heard all these big numbers thrown around, and then just like the A&M buyout numbers they end up right around where everyone thought. Not to mention they are locked in for 13 years, at which point that deal will probably be the lowest in the nation. All this other noise is based on what one BOT member said, and frankly was kind of a no brainer. It makes sense to look around and check out your options, but I'm guessing it didn't take long for them to realize the Big ?? is nothing more than a dumpster fire. The GOR deal is for 13 years, not the TV deal. Besides, the TV deal is graduated depending on who is added. I saw something that said by the time the SEC's next TV deal is completed UF will make $125M more than FSU according to the rumored ACC figures. The B12 can deliver more than the ACC and allow them 3rd tier rights. If there's any way for them to make a dent in the 125M figure they'll jump at the chance. |
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 18, 2012 13:13:27 GMT -5
I wish I could live in the little world I made for myself like stubbs does.
Other than texas and OU the Big 12 has zero legit football schools. none.
The ACC has Fla. State, Clemson, Va. Tech, Miami, and Ga. Tech who would all rank in front of every Big 12 school except for OU and texas when it comes to prestige. To argue otherwise is proof of ignorance.
Why would FSU leave the conference with the largest footprint to go to a conference that is lopsided in fairness and has a smaller footprint and is halfway across the country? For very little revenue increase, no less.
If you think the Big 12 is stable you are an idiot. Period.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 18, 2012 13:23:02 GMT -5
this quote is direct proof of your ignorance, on a couple of levels.
First, why are you on Texags? A&M is not in your conference and we aren't on the schedule. Sounds like some frogs are the ones who are obsessing a bit.
Second, Might not be too wise to make a sweeping statement about a fan base by what is on Texags, a site that is renown for trolls, fake screen names, and opposing fans (like yourself) who like to patrol looking for stuff to prove how obsesses Aggies are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on May 18, 2012 15:54:04 GMT -5
This guy is either pandering or is the dumbest school president out there. 2. Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M left the Big 12, at least in part because the Big 12 is not an equal share conference. Texas has considerably more resource avenues and gains a larger share (and I say this as a former dean of the University of Texas at Austin - I watched the Big 12 disintegration with interest). So, when fans realize that Texas would get more dollars than FSU, always having a competitive advantage, it would be interesting to see the fan reaction. This guy must not have been paying close attention. The B12 now shares equally first and second tier rights. This was the reason why the conference almost imploded in the first place and something that Aggies fought hard to prevent from happening. They didn't want to share with the ISU's and Baylor's of the world but now they don't mind sharing with Vanderbilt. Texas will get more b/c of the LHN but FSU would also have the opportunity to make a significant amount of money off these rights and would put them in the top 3 of the conference in potential earnings. So he's worried about Texas making more but Florida can go and make their additional 125M and it's of no concern. If FSU alums buy that then their academic reputation is SEVERLY overestimated. Isn't the B12 the only conference that gives reimbursement for travel expenses? They can't fill their stadium as it is! Do you think their fans give a rip between Wake Forest and Iowa State? Duke? UNC? They've had attendance issues the last 5 years. Schedule them in OCC. Win the B12, play UM and UF in OCC. You'll be regarded with ND as far as schedule strength. Or, convince them to come along. You played them 48 other times out of conference. Why make a big deal about it now? The B12 helped WVU and will surely help you. Weak. Good to see your tenured chemistry staff is making football decisions. When was the last time an FSU grad put on their resume that they were in a conference with Duke and UNC? You knew how to read prior to 1990 and I doubt you'll forget once you leave. FWIW, I hear FSU and ISU's engineering departments are working on a joint venture. So FSU will only work with 13 other schools if they stay in the ACC? See A&M. You report to the Board of Trustees who report to the alums (and the governor). |
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on May 18, 2012 16:07:01 GMT -5
I wish I could live in the little world I made for myself like stubbs does. Other than texas and OU the Big 12 has zero legit football schools. none. The ACC has Fla. State, Clemson, Va. Tech, Miami, and Ga. Tech who would all rank in front of every Big 12 school except for OU and texas when it comes to prestige. To argue otherwise is proof of ignorance. Why would FSU leave the conference with the largest footprint to go to a conference that is lopsided in fairness and has a smaller footprint and is halfway across the country? For very little revenue increase, no less. If you think the Big 12 is stable you are an idiot. Period. Tell me why the SEC chose to work a deal with the Big 12 instead of the ACC? If they didn't think it was a better conference and unstable they wouldn't have done the deal. If it's as bad as you say then Silve needs to be fired for making such an association. You take your prestige and your traditions and good luck to you in the SEC. You will not find one reputable outlet or expert that ranks the ACC about the Big XII in football. |
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on May 18, 2012 16:08:53 GMT -5
this quote is direct proof of your ignorance, on a couple of levels. First, why are you on Texags? A&M is not in your conference and we aren't on the schedule. Sounds like some frogs are the ones who are obsessing a bit. Second, Might not be too wise to make a sweeping statement about a fan base by what is on Texags, a site that is renown for trolls, fake screen names, and opposing fans (like yourself) who like to patrol looking for stuff to prove how obsesses Aggies are. I read a lot of schools message boards. If that's not ok then please let me know and I'll cease and desist. Your thoughts about the B12 are almost uniform with everyone else on Texags. |
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 18, 2012 16:47:42 GMT -5
You type way way too much incorrect bull crap to keep up with.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 19, 2012 8:43:38 GMT -5
You were right about the SEC killing the ACC, though. I hadn't seen that yesterday.
ACC is done. FSU will have to go to the Big12 now, unless somehow Florida lets them in the SEC. Same with Clemson. Sucks for them. They have not got any good options at all.
The Big 12 may survive. But its anything but stable. There are 2 football schools with any clout, and a bunch of teat sucklers. If FSU and Clemson comes, that gives them a little more credibility, but it seems like too much of a forced marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on May 19, 2012 10:30:09 GMT -5
You were right about the SEC killing the ACC, though. I hadn't seen that yesterday. ACC is done. FSU will have to go to the Big12 now, unless somehow Florida lets them in the SEC. Same with Clemson. Sucks for them. They have not got any good options at all. The Big 12 may survive. But its anything but stable. There are 2 football schools with any clout, and a bunch of teat sucklers. If FSU and Clemson comes, that gives them a little more credibility, but it seems like too much of a forced marriage. I agree almost 100%, except that the B12 is a good option...for now. Ten years down the road? Maybe not. But I hold the same thought for A&M and Mizzou. I think 10 years from now common sense will prevail and we'll see a more sensical shift but for now the money talks. There may be only 2 schools with any clout in your eyes but nearly every school, despite what happens on the field, puts football first. You can only legitimately say that about 4 schools in the ACC-FSU, CU, UM, and VT. GT is nearly split with basketball and BC...I really don't know what they care about. This, in addition to the money, is what FSU wants. The ACC revolves around Tobacco Road basketball. They'd rather be bulied by Texas about football than by UNC and Duke about basketball. For evidence, check this out: espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/38884/maisel-unc-reprimanded-not-fined. The ACC voted to not fine UNC for their football infractions by a margin of 7-4. Care to guess who the four were? Clemson and NCST have the biggest ax to grind with UNC and conference commish Swafford. Miami, facing their own problems, was a no vote. FSU and VT? Probably. Most likely, the four yea votes came from the four schools with the biggest grudges against Tobacco Road and the four rumored to be ready to split once a better offer is presented. ------ The agreement between the SEC and B12 could be HUGE. They get to set the terms-the naming rights, the ticket sales, the concessions, the TV package, ect. They'll have to share with whoever hosts the venue but even if you have two conference #2s it would easily be the most-watched postseason game outside of those in a +4 model. The BCS paid around 17M a team (except for a non-AQ) to be divided among the conference. What could this generate? 30M? 40? 50 a team? Mark Cuban put together some revenue models for a playoff a couple years ago and this would fall in line with what those models would generate. The SEC would not have agreed to this if they didn't think the B12 wasn't going to 12, and probably 14, without some big hitters. In fact, they are probably behind the scenes helping propel the situation. Why would they, with 14 schools, agree to such an agreement with a conference of 10? BIG and the P12 have their agreement and now the SEC and B12 do as well. That leaves the ACC out in the cold. Hopefully they'll rotate between Jerry World and the Super Dome. I've heard that the Georgia Dome, Reliant, and KC could all be involved but I think Arlington and New Orleans should be the only two settings for a game of this magnitude. Will this lead to an agreement between like BIG andthe P12 have as far as scheduling OOC games? Wouldn't that be fun? All the rumored playoff models are based on conference champions, not rankings so this could potentially eliminate the creampuff games against Jacksonville St (Mike lols) and UNT. Now there's no reason to fear losing a shot a MNC if you play a top team OOC. Imagine the revenue a UT/Bama matchup would generate. OU/LSU. Even A&M/FSU. USC and Clemson could still have their rivalry. FSU could still play Florida and Miami. This agreement ushers in a new era of college football, even moreso than the BIG /P12 agreement that was already 50% in place for the last 70 years. The SEC has said "we are the top dogs and we think the B12 is the only conference worthy of sniffing our poop. It eliminates the BCS, which probably wasn't going to survive beyond 2013 anyway, and culminates with the creation of the superconfereces. I don't know if I like it. The geographic alliances don't make sense. It seems almost so big it can't help but fail. The little guys get left behind and coming from TCU I have a soft spot for them, but that's not our problem anymore. I hate that college athletics are ruled by money and ESPN but that's the world in which we live. One thing it does do is force ND to finally decide what to do with that crusty turd that's been poking out for the last 20 years. Who knows? Maybe in 10-15 years A&M wants to go back to playing their traditional rivals. Maybe BIG has an opening for Mizzou. Maybe the SEC relents and wants FSU and CU. No matter what the case, I think we can all agree that college football is better when rivalries are dictated by proximity rather than voracity. |
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 19, 2012 12:39:13 GMT -5
Ok, some of that post had some good points.
Exalt!
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on May 19, 2012 13:44:26 GMT -5
Ok, some of that post had some good points. Exalt! Just thought i should document this and file it away. |
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 21, 2012 8:05:37 GMT -5
I was right about one thing. The ACC has a lot more desirable "football" schools than the Big 12. That is the reason the deal was made with the Big12 instead of the ACC.
The SEC figures on raiding the ACC for four of its most desirable schools. The Big 12 has 2, 1 of which wants nothing to do with the SEC. By making the deal with the Big12, the SEC can add the most attractive schools from the ACC, further strengthening the league, and killing its most direct competition in the southern U.S.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on May 21, 2012 11:06:56 GMT -5
I'm not following. The ACC is a better conference because other conferences want to raid it? By that logic the Big East was better than the ACC because 3 teams have actually gone to other conferences.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on May 21, 2012 13:04:07 GMT -5
No, I said it had more attractive football schools than the Big 12 does. The SEC has a lot of interest in stealing 2-4 of those schools from the ACC. If they were to have made a deal with the ACC, then it wouldn't be as easy to get those teams to switch conferences, or if they did switch, it'd make the deal fall through.
Now, though, the SEC should be able to snag whichever teams it wants.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on May 21, 2012 23:30:02 GMT -5
Just another brilliant move by Mike Slive. Big 12 was very fortunate to be included.
|
|
