Big XII Expansion

[jonathanjoseph]

Correct. Current Big12 deal runs through 2024.

Agreed and well known.

But if you're ESPN, and the Big 12 is about to add two (or 4) schools that you don't think add value to the conference, wouldn't you rather re-negotiate than pay an additional $46 or $92 million for a product that you think is less attractive?

I'm not the first, or only one that thinks this is a possibility.

Dude. Yes you are. I'll go ahead and tell you how that would play out.

ESPN: "Hey Bob Bowlsby, we'd like to renegotiate the contract. We don't like it any more".

Bowlsby: "Go pound sand. See you in 2024."

[jonathanjoseph]

Correct. Current Big12 deal runs through 2024.

Agreed and well known.

But if you're ESPN, and the Big 12 is about to add two (or 4) schools that you don't think add value to the conference, wouldn't you rather re-negotiate than pay an additional $46 or $92 million for a product that you think is less attractive?

I'm not the first, or only one that thinks this is a possibility.

Yes they'd rather renegotiate, but the Big12 wouldn't have to. They'd probably sit, knowing that by 2024 the media landscape will be so different there will be things we can't even think of now. No reason for Big12 to want a deal longer than that. So there's nothing ESPN really has to offer.

Except for the fact that the ACC, which didn't have to do anything either, just signed a new 20 year deal. If you don't get that Big 12 expansion is all about money, then we're having two entirely different conversations. The impetus for change is TV dollars, nothing more, nothing less.

This is incorrect and the ACC got a cable network out of it.

[DfromCT]

Yes they are reflecting what other FANS are thinking. Fans are not thinking about the same things that the Presidents and ADs are thinking about. That the reaction is "laughing" is the tell that they don't know what they are talking about. We are being discussed and for the obvious reasons, no matter how many are "laughing". Even if our chances were 20%, that's still far above the level of "laughable".

Meanwhile, your ability to acknowledge UConn's upside while completely refusing to believe that Tulane can improve is also pretty indicative. The Dickson Disease runs deep.

Now who is putting words in who's mouth? When did I ever say Tulane had no upside? When?

What makes it hard to grow a fan base at Tulane is the fact that we're a very small school, with alumni that stretch across the country rather than staying in greater New Orleans. I've watched it slowly shrink from my time at Tulane to the present. Getting into a P5 would jump start the fan base, but it would take years to get to the point where we'd have any positive impact on the TV ratings, and attendance of the Big 12. That's why I said we'd be more of a bottom feeder than an asset. And don't you think the Presidents and AD's think that is a factor as much as anything else? Is there a reason that MOST (but not all) articles that discuss expansion candidates don't even mention Tulane, or if they do, they put us in the long shot category?

The Big 12 has consistently stated that any expansion needs to add to the conference, not take away from it. If our chances are 20% I'd be shocked. 5% is much more realistic.

[winwave]

Yet many, if not most of us, are calling Coach Fritz to be the man that takes Tulane Football to the promised land, before he's even coached a game.

I think he's one heck of a good coach. But there's a distinct possibility that he doesn't succeed here. If not, he'll leave us with a team tailored to an offense his successor will not be running. There's a whole lot of pressure on Coach Fritz, I hope it all works out as we think it will. But it's far from a done deal that everything comes up roses.

That's one of the scariest things about this. Our class isn't great at all, but it appears to be loosely tied to Fritz's philosophy, and, if Fritz doesn't work out, our new coach will inherit a pathetic roster and our recruiting maintains this pace and talent level. We have 10 total commits with three unrated, and we are sitting at #91 nationally. We beat a bunch of FCS teams plus Sunbelt Texas State for this kid, and kids at that level aren't going to help us that much.

My personal expectations for 2017 are starting to lower.

What's scary is that if we don't get in the Big XII and WF doesn't work out it will be over with for Tulane . Our reputation as a coach killer will be cemented. This is do or die.

[jonathanjoseph]

Yes they are reflecting what other FANS are thinking. Fans are not thinking about the same things that the Presidents and ADs are thinking about. That the reaction is "laughing" is the tell that they don't know what they are talking about. We are being discussed and for the obvious reasons, no matter how many are "laughing". Even if our chances were 20%, that's still far above the level of "laughable".

Meanwhile, your ability to acknowledge UConn's upside while completely refusing to believe that Tulane can improve is also pretty indicative. The Dickson Disease runs deep.

Now who is putting words in who's mouth? When did I ever say Tulane had no upside? When?

What makes it hard to grow a fan base at Tulane is the fact that we're a very small school, with alumni that stretch across the country rather than staying in greater New Orleans. I've watched it slowly shrink from my time at Tulane to the present. Getting into a P5 would jump start the fan base, but it would take years to get to the point where we'd have any positive impact on the TV ratings, and attendance of the Big 12. That's why I said we'd be more of a bottom feeder than an asset. And don't you think the Presidents and AD's think that is a factor as much as anything else? Is there a reason that MOST (but not all) articles that discuss expansion candidates don't even mention Tulane, or if they do, they put us in the long shot category?

The Big 12 has consistently stated that any expansion needs to add to the conference, not take away from it. If our chances are 20% I'd be shocked. 5% is much more realistic.

When? Literally and ironically immediately after you asked the question.

[DfromCT]

Let me make one point clear: I don't think, nor am I pushing for UConn to get into the Big 12

I do think we're a long shot, but I would love if the stars aligned and we got in. But we have a whole lot more to overcome than those of you wearing Olive Green and Sky Blue glasses are willing to admit.

[DfromCT]

Yes they are reflecting what other FANS are thinking. Fans are not thinking about the same things that the Presidents and ADs are thinking about. That the reaction is "laughing" is the tell that they don't know what they are talking about. We are being discussed and for the obvious reasons, no matter how many are "laughing". Even if our chances were 20%, that's still far above the level of "laughable".

Meanwhile, your ability to acknowledge UConn's upside while completely refusing to believe that Tulane can improve is also pretty indicative. The Dickson Disease runs deep.

Now who is putting words in who's mouth? When did I ever say Tulane had no upside? When?

What makes it hard to grow a fan base at Tulane is the fact that we're a very small school, with alumni that stretch across the country rather than staying in greater New Orleans. I've watched it slowly shrink from my time at Tulane to the present. Getting into a P5 would jump start the fan base, but it would take years to get to the point where we'd have any positive impact on the TV ratings, and attendance of the Big 12. That's why I said we'd be more of a bottom feeder than an asset. And don't you think the Presidents and AD's think that is a factor as much as anything else? Is there a reason that MOST (but not all) articles that discuss expansion candidates don't even mention Tulane, or if they do, they put us in the long shot category?

The Big 12 has consistently stated that any expansion needs to add to the conference, not take away from it. If our chances are 20% I'd be shocked. 5% is much more realistic.

When? Literally and ironically immediately after you asked the question.

Your ignorance is surpassed only by your inability to read and understand what someone who doesn't share your opinion is saying.

[winwave]

Correct. Current Big12 deal runs through 2024.

Agreed and well known.

But if you're ESPN, and the Big 12 is about to add two (or 4) schools that you don't think add value to the conference, wouldn't you rather re-negotiate than pay an additional $46 or $92 million for a product that you think is less attractive?

I'm not the first, or only one that thinks this is a possibility.

Yes they'd rather renegotiate, but the Big12 wouldn't have to. They'd probably sit, knowing that by 2024 the media landscape will be so different there will be things we can't even think of now. No reason for Big12 to want a deal longer than that. So there's nothing ESPN really has to offer.

Except for the fact that the ACC, which didn't have to do anything either, just signed a new 20 year deal. If you don't get that Big 12 expansion is all about money, then we're having two entirely different conversations. The impetus for change is TV dollars, nothing more, nothing less.

It's absolutely not the only thing driving it. It's not even first. This all started w/their concerns about being viable for the playoffs. They want to stay relevant and they know they can't stand pat.

[DfromCT]

Correct. Current Big12 deal runs through 2024.

Agreed and well known.

But if you're ESPN, and the Big 12 is about to add two (or 4) schools that you don't think add value to the conference, wouldn't you rather re-negotiate than pay an additional $46 or $92 million for a product that you think is less attractive?

I'm not the first, or only one that thinks this is a possibility.

Yes they'd rather renegotiate, but the Big12 wouldn't have to. They'd probably sit, knowing that by 2024 the media landscape will be so different there will be things we can't even think of now. No reason for Big12 to want a deal longer than that. So there's nothing ESPN really has to offer.

Except for the fact that the ACC, which didn't have to do anything either, just signed a new 20 year deal. If you don't get that Big 12 expansion is all about money, then we're having two entirely different conversations. The impetus for change is TV dollars, nothing more, nothing less.

It's absolutely not the only thing driving it. It's not even first. This all started w/their concerns about being viable for the playoffs. They want to stay relevant and they know they can't stand pat.

BULL SH!T.

The Consulting firm mentioned that it gets their conference chances of making the Playoff 15% greater. Then they talked about the $$ implications. The ACC signed a big $$ deal with ESPN and the very next day the move to expand was revived. It's all about money. Nothing more nothing less. If you don't get that, you are extremely naive.

[nawlinspete]

Winwave, did you hear " that ' it's do or die' " from a Tulane athletic staffer at the Committee meeting ? If you did that is a great sign....

[winwave]

Correct. Current Big12 deal runs through 2024.

Agreed and well known.

But if you're ESPN, and the Big 12 is about to add two (or 4) schools that you don't think add value to the conference, wouldn't you rather re-negotiate than pay an additional $46 or $92 million for a product that you think is less attractive?

I'm not the first, or only one that thinks this is a possibility.

Yes they'd rather renegotiate, but the Big12 wouldn't have to. They'd probably sit, knowing that by 2024 the media landscape will be so different there will be things we can't even think of now. No reason for Big12 to want a deal longer than that. So there's nothing ESPN really has to offer.

Except for the fact that the ACC, which didn't have to do anything either, just signed a new 20 year deal. If you don't get that Big 12 expansion is all about money, then we're having two entirely different conversations. The impetus for change is TV dollars, nothing more, nothing less.

It's absolutely not the only thing driving it. It's not even first. This all started w/their concerns about being viable for the playoffs. They want to stay relevant and they know they can't stand pat.

BULL SH!T.

The Consulting firm mentioned that it gets their conference chances of making the Playoff 15% greater. Then they talked about the $$ implications. The ACC signed a big $$ deal with ESPN and the very next day the move to expand was revived. It's all about money. Nothing more nothing less. If you don't get that, you are extremely naive.

Thanks for proving my point. The truth is nothing got revived. They had a series of meetings set up. They got that info. at one and it was then followed up on at the next set. It will continue to be followed up on and very likely to result in the expansion candidates being picked in Octobers meetings. What's naive is to think this is only about TV money.

[Wave755]

It's nice to dream isn't it? Please don't get too consumed in your dreams...we can't afford to lose too many of you when you become suicidal after this opportunity passes us by. I apologize for being a negative nelly, but we are just a fat pig with some lipstick, perfume, a great personality, and a fancy dress. We just don't bring the tangible things to the table at this time and too many others are the girl with really good bodies, fun to be around but with that mole you can't stop staring at. We're a 3 and they're all 6's. None of us are the ideal girl you want to date, but the Big12 isn't going to pass up the money so they'll take several 6's. Unless the decision comes later rather than soon and we miraculously become competitive in the major sports plus start drawing crowds, we don't have a realistic chance. Please, please take off your olive green shaded glasses and see the truth. While we have many positive things going for us in the past 6 months, it's frankly too late in this process. I hope i'm wrong...

Austxwave, as late as 2009 Baylor was 4-8, and 1-7 in the Big Twelve; Fitts and Dannon must convince the Big Twelve we are now serious for Div. 1 athletics and as Bowden said, "Tulane can be anything it wants to be for college football."

[DfromCT]

Tulane is an outlier in that it plays in a football crazy state, only competes with one other P5 team in the state and is rated the top sports destination city in the world. So if Tulane were an 8-9 win team, Texas would bring 25K-30K by themselves. In 2002, they brought more than 20K for a glorified scrimmage.

Where do you find this rating? USA Today ranks New Orleans as the 9th best city in the US (not the world).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/de ... /17204303/

Travel and Leisure puts New Orleans 4th, behind Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/slidesh ... d-cities/5

[DfromCT]

I guess you missed the articles and headlines in June saying the Big 12 had postponed expansion, most suggested it was postponing expansion for a number of years. Then the ACC TV deal came out, their TV consultants were called back to make another presentation and less than 48 hours after the ACC TV network was announced, all of the sudden Big 12 expansion is now being explored. It is about money. Why do they desperately want an in to the playoff? Money. Why do they want to have a Big 12 Network? Money.

[Robert1969]

Tulane is an outlier in that it plays in a football crazy state, only competes with one other P5 team in the state and is rated the top sports destination city in the world. So if Tulane were an 8-9 win team, Texas would bring 25K-30K by themselves. In 2002, they brought more than 20K for a glorified scrimmage.

Where do you find this rating? USA Today ranks New Orleans as the 9th best city in the US (not the world).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/de ... /17204303/

Travel and Leisure puts New Orleans 4th, behind Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/slidesh ... d-cities/5

World Travel Awards 2013

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/ ... top_n.html

[winwave]

It is about money but it's not just about talking about expansion to get more money but having no intention to really expand. We'll know shortly. There was media speculation but Bowlsby had those meetings set up to keep the discussion and presentations going.

[DfromCT]

World Travel Awards 2013

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/ ... top_n.html

Thank you! I've been looking for that, off and on, since it's become one of JJ's go to arguments. New Orleans was named top city in North America for sports destinations based upon hosting the Super Bowl, Final Four, PGA Golf, Pelicans Basketball, and a WWE event the following year. They mention everything except college athletics. Has the City won or been a top 5 since?

Personally, having been to three Super Bowls, I think the NFL should consider the SuperDome as the permanent host to the Super Bowl. It would also make a great place to play a Power Conference Championship game!

[HoustonWave]

Funny, I think around the same time you were speaking to your OU buddy, I was speaking to two friends, one is a UT alum, the other an OU alum. They work together in the DFW area. The UT alumnus is VERY active in UT Athletics and Big 12 sports. He was shocked that I thought Tulane was even being considered. He laughed when I mentioned AAU status, geography, etc. He thinks Tulane is probably a small mark way down on a long list. The OU guy felt that OU would get out of the Big 12 if it added teams "like Tulane".

If fans were making this decision we would have little chance--though many of the fans at Big XII schools do comment on the fun they've had in N.O. Fortunately, school presidents will make the decision. Boren is the primary instigator behind expansion. I bet OU will leave the Big XII if they don't expand.

[RobertM320]

Funny, I think around the same time you were speaking to your OU buddy, I was speaking to two friends, one is a UT alum, the other an OU alum. They work together in the DFW area. The UT alumnus is VERY active in UT Athletics and Big 12 sports. He was shocked that I thought Tulane was even being considered. He laughed when I mentioned AAU status, geography, etc. He thinks Tulane is probably a small mark way down on a long list. The OU guy felt that OU would get out of the Big 12 if it added teams "like Tulane".

Well if he's "laughing" at AAU status and geography then he doesn't really know what he's talking about. You can argue how important they are relative to on field performance, but it's well understood that they are factors.

That was exactly my point as well. They're obviously the typical college football fan who doesn't understand the real dynamics of what's going on.

[DfromCT]

So, you don't think that the ACC network, which will add roughly $8 million/year to each school ABOVE AND BEYOND what they're currently getting from TV rights deals, had anything to do with Big 12 re-considering expansion? Or the fact that the ACC deal means the Big 12 is the only "Power" conference without a TV network of it's own had nothing to do with re-opening expansion talks less than 48 hours after it was announced? If that is the case, you're opinion is much different from the mass media, which thinks the ACC network announcement brought the Big 12 back to the expansion table.

Oklahoma president David Boren said the ACC Network "indicates that we live in a very fast-changing world" and the Big 12 needs to be proactive. It was a complete reversal from Boren's comments a month earlier and ran counter to the idea many people in the Big 12 had that expansion would be tabled for now.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footba ... a-channel/

[RobertM320]

Yes they are reflecting what other FANS are thinking. Fans are not thinking about the same things that the Presidents and ADs are thinking about. That the reaction is "laughing" is the tell that they don't know what they are talking about. We are being discussed and for the obvious reasons, no matter how many are "laughing". Even if our chances were 20%, that's still far above the level of "laughable".

Meanwhile, your ability to acknowledge UConn's upside while completely refusing to believe that Tulane can improve is also pretty indicative. The Dickson Disease runs deep.

Now who is putting words in who's mouth? When did I ever say Tulane had no upside? When?

What makes it hard to grow a fan base at Tulane is the fact that we're a very small school, with alumni that stretch across the country rather than staying in greater New Orleans. I've watched it slowly shrink from my time at Tulane to the present. Getting into a P5 would jump start the fan base, but it would take years to get to the point where we'd have any positive impact on the TV ratings, and attendance of the Big 12. That's why I said we'd be more of a bottom feeder than an asset. And don't you think the Presidents and AD's think that is a factor as much as anything else? Is there a reason that MOST (but not all) articles that discuss expansion candidates don't even mention Tulane, or if they do, they put us in the long shot category?

The Big 12 has consistently stated that any expansion needs to add to the conference, not take away from it. If our chances are 20% I'd be shocked. 5% is much more realistic.

But is this really true? Let's say three years from now, Fritz takes us to a major bowl, and we knock off a top SEC or Big 10 school. The next year he does the same. Don't you think at that point our TV ratings would soar just because, regardless of whether or actual attendance is 15K or 30K? Use Boise State as an example. Once they pulled a couple of major bowl upsets and flirted with being a BCS buster, everyone wanted to watch them when they were on. What makes you think it would be any different if that was us instead?

[RobertM320]

Tulane is an outlier in that it plays in a football crazy state, only competes with one other P5 team in the state and is rated the top sports destination city in the world. So if Tulane were an 8-9 win team, Texas would bring 25K-30K by themselves. In 2002, they brought more than 20K for a glorified scrimmage.

Where do you find this rating? USA Today ranks New Orleans as the 9th best city in the US (not the world).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/de ... /17204303/

Travel and Leisure puts New Orleans 4th, behind Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/slidesh ... d-cities/5

Also, the sentence says "sports destination city" not "best city".

[DfromCT]

Funny, I think around the same time you were speaking to your OU buddy, I was speaking to two friends, one is a UT alum, the other an OU alum. They work together in the DFW area. The UT alumnus is VERY active in UT Athletics and Big 12 sports. He was shocked that I thought Tulane was even being considered. He laughed when I mentioned AAU status, geography, etc. He thinks Tulane is probably a small mark way down on a long list. The OU guy felt that OU would get out of the Big 12 if it added teams "like Tulane".

Well if he's "laughing" at AAU status and geography then he doesn't really know what he's talking about. You can argue how important they are relative to on field performance, but it's well understood that they are factors.

That was exactly my point as well. They're obviously the typical college football fan who doesn't understand the real dynamics of what's going on.

Except one of them has helped two different Universities explore moving from FCS to FBS and is very active within the UT hierarchy. He knows more about College Football than most, if not all, posters on this board. I'm sure he knows more about college sports, and has probably forgotten more than JJ will ever know.

The other guy played golf for OU and is active, but not to the same extent, within the OU Athletics department. What I don't understand is why I'm being labeled as someone that doesn't want Tulane to get into the Big 12, or a Cow/Dick apologist simply because I'm trying to be realistic about our chances? Virtually ALL media say we're a long, long, long shot to get an invite. But folks on this board obviously know more and know better than people that are paid to know what's going on.

[DfromCT]

But is this really true? Let's say three years from now, Fritz takes us to a major bowl, and we knock off a top SEC or Big 10 school. The next year he does the same. Don't you think at that point our TV ratings would soar just because, regardless of whether or actual attendance is 15K or 30K? Use Boise State as an example. Once they pulled a couple of major bowl upsets and flirted with being a BCS buster, everyone wanted to watch them when they were on. What makes you think it would be any different if that was us instead?

Because I think it will take more than three years for Coach Fritz to take us to a New Years day bowl and beating the runner up in the SEC. If his recruiting is as bad as others are lamenting, we're going to have a tough time competing with teams that are routinely getting top 10 recruiting classes.

[Robert1969]

World Travel Awards 2013

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/ ... top_n.html

Thank you! I've been looking for that, off and on, since it's become one of JJ's go to arguments. New Orleans was named top city in North America for sports destinations based upon hosting the Super Bowl, Final Four, PGA Golf, Pelicans Basketball, and a WWE event the following year. They mention everything except college athletics. Has the City won or been a top 5 since?

Personally, having been to three Super Bowls, I think the NFL should consider the SuperDome as the permanent host to the Super Bowl. It would also make a great place to play a Power Conference Championship game!

Well, technically, D, the Final Four is college athletics.