The Big 12 is about to be a power basketball conference

[Sawyer]

stoops4pres, I agree about WVU > MU in 2007 (they did beat OU, which we failed to do twice). My point was MU would have won in their place.

***

Boca,
The Big 12 is adding two teams that have recent football success and mediocre historical reputations. By any historical measure that takes more than the past few years into account, there is no net gain there. The same applies to basketball. West Virginia went to a final four a couple years ago. Aside from that one win in March, WVU and MU are even by every measure for the past 50 years.

The data on TV sets isn't even remotely disputable. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's a fact that conferences with their own network make more money on teams in large states than they do in small ones. Missouri has three times as many people as West Virginia, and even when you factor in out-of-state fans, Missouri is a bigger TV draw. There isn't any evidence at all suggesting otherwise.

I don't know if the SEC could have added Miami or FSU 20 years ago or not. I do know there was no interest in doing so now because they don't want teams in states they already control. Mike Slive wasn't involved with the SEC when Arkansas and South Carolina were added, and I'd bet the leadership (athletic and institutional) at most SEC schools is different, as well.

This board's repeated over and over that the SEC wanted Oklahoma but OU said no. That kinda throws a wrench into your theory about MU and A&M to the SEC, as well...

 

[tycat947]

mediocre historical reputations.

This sounds like the definition of Mizzou athletics forever!

 

[Sam]

Sawyer will you still post here when toiling away as a mid level SEC program?

 

[thebigabd]

The Big XII is adding 2 teams that have won the 2006 Sugar Bowl, 2008 Fiesta Bowl, 2011 Rose Bowl and made the 2010 Final 4 in exchange for 2 teams that have never won a BCS Bowl or been to the Final 4. How stupid are you?

As for TV sets West Virginia brings significantly more. The SEC could of added Miami and FSU but opted for Arkansas & South Carolina. Their strategy is clear, add mediocre programs that will never win but have dumb fanbases that will chant SEC!!!! Missouri & aTm are the perfect fit!! WVU would actually win their share.

I mean, what else really needs to be said?

The data on TV sets isn't even remotely disputable. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's a fact that conferences with their own network make more money on teams in large states than they do in small ones. Missouri has three times as many people as West Virginia, and even when you factor in out-of-state fans, Missouri is a bigger TV draw. There isn't any evidence at all suggesting otherwise.

Ugh... Good product = TV sets. Cities dont = TV sets.

Sawyer will you still post here when toiling away as a mid level SEC program?

I hope so.

 

[BigTime]

Sawdawg,

I know a good Georgia board...

 

[bocabull]

Ugh... Good product = TV sets. Cities dont = TV sets.

Bingo. I guarantee you more people in this nation have tuned in to watch West Virginia play football and basketball over the past decade than Missouri and it's not even close. I have by a wide margin because West Virginia is relevant on the national scene and Missouri is not.

I just heard a guy on sportsfan national radio saying that after all is said and done the Big XII has somehow managed to upgrade the conference.

As for all these conference networks count me skeptical. They only have access to excess inventory that was decided as unworthy for broadcast in the first place. Texas took ESPN to the cleaners is what will be revealed.

 

[thebigabd]

Bingo. I guarantee you more people in this nation have tuned in to watch West Virginia play football and basketball over the past decade than Missouri and it's not even close. I have by a wide margin because West Virginia is relevant.

I just heard a guy on sportsfan national radio saying that after all is said and done the Big XII has somehow managed to upgrade the conference.

As for all these conference networks count me skeptical. They only have access to excess inventory that was decided as unworthy for broadcast in the first place. Texas took ESPN to the cleaners is what will be revealed.

I have lived in Colorado and Oklahoma for the past 6 years and have seen more West Virginia football games than Missouri ones. Why? Because WVU is really good and on national tv all the time and Missouri sucks.

And, you can't tell me you would be more excited to play Missouri in basketball anymore either. WVU is clearly a better program/team. They had a fantastic coach who was building the program that everyone thought Missouri could be on the hardwood, and he left for Arkansas in a bizarre move. Mizzou has a brand new basketball arena, awesome facilities, he was recruiting very well, winning, etc. Seemed to have everything going, then he leaves for Arkansas and Mizzou will sink back down into the abyss of average teams.

 

[Sawyer]

I'll post here as long as you guys talk about Mizzou. That's what brought me here in the first place and that's primarily what I've talked about since then.

I've never disputed that Mizzou as an overall athletic department has been mediocre. We haven't had consistent success in football on the level of OU or basketball on the level of kansas, and we haven't cleaned up on the sports no one cares about like OSU has (50 national titles, zero that are actually relevant.

I have said MU athletics are improving, and by every measure we have. I actually sat in on a Q&A with Mike Alden this evening and he mentioned the progress we've made in his 14 years here. We've gone from inarguably the bottom of the Big 12 in facilities and resources to solidly in the middle. So no, we're not UT. We're not Oklahoma. But we're not Iowa State or kansas state, either (ksu's recent success in both sports notwithstanding, they've historically been a pathetic athletic department).

A good product does help earn TV sets. If you're a conference that bases its TV revenue entirely on number of viewers, that's important. But the data doesn't support the claim that WVU is a more attractive draw. You can keep your anecdotal evidence. The truth is more people watch Missouri. No doubt Rich Rodriguez made West Virginia an interesting team to watch, but even at their peak they weren't drawing better than Mizzou.

Skepticism of conference networks is even more ridiculous. The Big 10 has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's a major moneymaker. You can pretend it won't work if you want (probably because you know it won't for the Big 12), but not a shred of evidence supports you. Conference networks make money. That is fact. It's also fact that they make more money when there are more TV sets in their footprint, whether people are watching it or not.

It's cool you guys are happy with West Virginia and are excited to play them. I'm pretty excited about all 12 of Mizzou's likely new conference allies. Will we enter the conference below the top level players in football? Sure. That doesn't make the games less exciting (or if it did I couldn't imagine you being hyped about playing West Virginia in basketball).

You guys seem to be getting what you want. We get what we want. Seems like everyone who isn't stuck in the leftover Big East is happy. Not sure why some of you feel the need to be ****s in your celebration.

 

[stoops4pres]

stoops4pres, I agree about WVU > MU in 2007 (they did beat OU, which we failed to do twice). My point was MU would have won in their place.

***

Boca,
The Big 12 is adding two teams that have recent football success and mediocre historical reputations. By any historical measure that takes more than the past few years into account, there is no net gain there.

I see what you're saying about 2007 now. And I agree with that hypothetical.

As for your historical argument, hasn't your main stance for why Missouri will do much better in the SEC than some on here have opined is because of Missouri's "recent" success? Don't get me wrong, I have agreed with you based on that logic, but now it seems like you're on both sides of the fence here.

Based off recent success in football (i.e. last 5-10 years), the combination of TCU/West Virginia is without a doubt an upgrade over Texas A&M/Missouri, simply because A&M has been pretty pathetic save for the last season or two.

Historically, I agree there's no net gain and probably a little bit of a drop-off, but much closer than you think (all things considered, it wasn't like TCU was A&M's stepchild throughout the duration of the Southwest Conference). But as you've implied before, recent success is typically a better indicator to predict how a program will do in the future than historical success is.

 

[Sawyer]

I responded with history because I was under the impression people were using a historical angle. For the most part there is little difference between the four programs historically.

Yeah, I've argued MU will compete better in the SEC than their overall history might suggest. I think WVU will hold its own in the Big 12, as well. I don't know about WVU's long-term potential in the Big 12 (I could see it hurting their recruiting since they're so focused on the east coast). Joining the SEC will significantly boost MU's athletic budget (as much as $10 million/year more from SEC TV contracts immediately, plus an anticipated big boost in donations), and I feel we'll retain most of our Texas recruiting while gaining a small foothold in the southeast, so I don't have the same questions about MU that I currently have about WVU.

So the short answer is I don't think WVU's or TCU's history really matters. I mentioned it because other people did. Whether or not TCU or WVU surpass what MU's done recently in the Big 12 remains to be seen. I have questions about both (much more with WVU).

 

[skyvue]

This sounds like the definition of Mizzou athletics forever!

I'm with you -- I couldn't believe Sawyer accused other programs of having "recent football success and mediocre historical reputations" without acknowledging/realizing the irony of a Mizzou fan characterizing another program in that way.

 

[stoops4pres]

I responded with history because I was under the impression people were using a historical angle. For the most part there is little difference between the four programs historically.

Yeah, I've argued MU will compete better in the SEC than their overall history might suggest. I think WVU will hold its own in the Big 12, as well. I don't know about WVU's long-term potential in the Big 12 (I could see it hurting their recruiting since they're so focused on the east coast). Joining the SEC will significantly boost MU's athletic budget (as much as $10 million/year more from SEC TV contracts immediately, plus an anticipated big boost in donations), and I feel we'll retain most of our Texas recruiting while gaining a small foothold in the southeast, so I don't have the same questions about MU that I currently have about WVU.

So the short answer is I don't think WVU's or TCU's history really matters. I mentioned it because other people did. Whether or not TCU or WVU surpass what MU's done recently in the Big 12 remains to be seen. I have questions about both (much more with WVU).

I see what you're saying. I would counter, however, that West Virginia could actually raise their stature with this transition. Not only could they maintain a significant portion of their east coast recruits, but also give recruits in Texas more incentive to commit there than before. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[bocabull]

TCU has 2 national championships and there is a little award named after a guy you might have heard of named Davey Obrien who played there. West Virginia has been a strong program for decades. Bobby Bowden & Don Nehlen won a few ballgames before their recent success.

Would Missouri of won the Big East in 2007? Of course not. Water always finds it level and there is nothing to suggest they would have been anything but middle/bottom of the pack.

As for the Big 10 validating these conference networks as a business model that is far from certain. They distributed $7.9 million per school last year. An online subscription service priced at $9.99/month that provided access to the same content would produce more revenues with 66,000 customers without even taking into account advertising revenues. As streaming to connected TVs continues to explode via the Netflix model watch this business model become wildly more profitable for individual schools.

 

[bocabull]

I see what you're saying. I would counter, however, that West Virginia could actually raise their stature with this transition. Not only could they maintain a significant portion of their east coast recruits, but also give recruits in Texas more incentive to commit there than before. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Of course WVU will get more Texas recruits, as will TCU. And they will be at the expense of Missouri.

 

[Sawyer]

I'm with you -- I couldn't believe Sawyer accused other programs of having "recent football success and mediocre historical reputations" without acknowledging/realizing the irony of a Mizzou fan characterizing another program in that way.

The point was quite clearly not that MU was superior, but that WVU was no better. I have never claimed MU's athletic department has been anything but mediocre over its cumulative history.

 

[Sawyer]

I see what you're saying. I would counter, however, that West Virginia could actually raise their stature with this transition. Not only could they maintain a significant portion of their east coast recruits, but also give recruits in Texas more incentive to commit there than before. It will be interesting to see what happens.

With half their games being played in the midwest, I could see some dropoff in their traditional recruiting territory, although I'll be honest that I don't know a whole lot about where they typically recruit. With a new coach I doubt they have very many well established relationships out there.

I'm also not sold on their ability to recruit Texas well. They should gain some entry into that market, but they're so far away I'm not sure it would matter (twice as far from Morgantown to Austin as it is from Columbia to Athens, GA, for example).

 

[Sawyer]

TCU has 2 national championships and there is a little award named after a guy you might have heard of named Davey Obrien who played there. West Virginia has been a strong program for decades. Bobby Bowden & Don Nehlen won a few ballgames before their recent success.

Would Missouri of won the Big East in 2007? Of course not. Water always finds it level and there is nothing to suggest they would have been anything but middle/bottom of the pack.

As for the Big 10 validating these conference networks as a business model that is far from certain. They distributed $7.9 million per school last year. An online subscription service priced at $9.99/month that provided access to the same content would produce more revenues with 66,000 customers without even taking into account advertising revenues. As streaming to connected TVs continues to explode via the Netflix model watch this business model become wildly more profitable for individual schools.

Bobby Bowden was 42-26 at West Virginia. Nehlen's winning percentage was about the same. Certainly not bad, but let's not act like they were winning national titles there. They've had some very good teams. But they are not a top program.

TCU's national titles came in '35 and '38... the same time Davey O'Brien played there. I'm not sure anything from the leather helmet era is all that relevant today.

If you think you can find 66,000 people willing to pay $120/year to watch third tier Oklahoma content (and maybe you could), good for you. But Iowa State can't. Baylor can't. kansas state, Texas Tech, TCU, WVU, OSU... they're not going to get the same benefits from an online network that an OU, UT or maybe kansas would get. That's great for those few teams who can make it work, but bad for the conference as a whole. That $8 million/year isn't just going to Ohio State and Michigan. Northwestern's getting that, too. In a hypothetical SEC Network, Vanderbilt's going to get the same chunk (likely a lot more than $8 mil/year) that Alabama gets. That's good for the conference.

You're obviously happy being the Yankees or Red Sox in the Big 12. I'd rather be any NFL team than settle for being the Orioles.

 

[NickZepp]

Now there's rumors saying ND may be coming into the conference in everything but football. They aren't that bad in basketball either.

 

[stoops4pres]

With half their games being played in the midwest, I could see some dropoff in their traditional recruiting territory, although I'll be honest that I don't know a whole lot about where they typically recruit. With a new coach I doubt they have very many well established relationships out there.

I'm also not sold on their ability to recruit Texas well. They should gain some entry into that market, but they're so far away I'm not sure it would matter (twice as far from Morgantown to Austin as it is from Columbia to Athens, GA, for example).

They recruit all over, and are kind of like Missouri in which they recruit many players in Florida that the big schools pass over (like Mizzou with the state of Texas). I wouldn't see much of a drop-off in those areas.

As for Texas, coaches typically sell recruits and their families on the likelihood of going to the school in which they can see each other more. Say they recruit a kid out of Dallas, they could sell that recruit on the fact that they will have a few league games around that area (TCU, Texas, OU, etc.) each year. Plus, Holgersen was a coach in Texas for over 10 years, he would have a closer connection/relationships with high school coaches in the state then realized.

 

[WTSooner]

Now there's rumors saying ND may be coming into the conference in everything but football. They aren't that bad in basketball either.

Link?

I think that would be a terrible idea. I'd take them if they brought their football team, but no way I'd want then without it.