I’m guessing it will pay off for UH, Cincy, BYU, and UCF though.
You’re talking about the difference between AAC money and P5 money.
"Donor contributions often went down, including at Nebraska (which moved from the Big 12 to the Big Ten). Ticket revenue fell, too, perhaps because schools lost some of their biggest draws (rivalry games) and replaced them with new, less appealing opponents from outside the region."
Makes sense for some schools but UH to B12 = the opposite.
Undoubtedly, it will pay off for our Coogs - significantly more tv revenue, better recruiting, increased football and baseball attendance, potentially better sponsors, more national and (hopefully) local publicity, etc. etc.
I can see it falling off for Neb but like mentioned, the big12 will help us a lot. It’s a case by case issue.
I think the “maybe didn’t materialize immediately” is the key.
I don’t see how you can compare what A&M would have been making in the B12 over the last decade, to what they’ve made in the SEC over the last decade.
Finishing with one of the highest rated recruiting classes of all time (yes, bought and paid for, but Texas and OU didn’t land them, did they?).
Also, Heisman trophy and a lot more visibility. It might not make sense for everyone, but it worked for A&M, and I can’t see how it would possibly NOT be a home run for us.
AAC → Big 12 : Immediate payoff
Big 12 → PAC : No immediate payoff
I want to see the research the Georgia State professor did, seems like a load of bs. Also, just seems like a jealous USF reporter using “research” (https://news.gsu.edu/2021/11/11/college-conference-realignments/. More like just general statements from an online article from GSU) trying to downplay their rivals’ move up.
Anyway, seems like they’re just trying to use specific cases as a way to generalize what sometimes happened immediately after the realignment (instead of using both short and long-term cases).
The realignment will benefit UH and the other newcomers (probably OUT too). Will it have an immediate negative effect on us, not likely more like a massive payoff. It just depends on who’s realigning and to where.
One size does not fit all.
See Rutgers. See Nebraska. Watch Houston.
I’m sure Nebraska didn’t pay off.
That’s why I sure wish that we could lure Nebraska and Colorado back into the Big 12.
75% of this article is debatable. However her conclusion is right on point.
"“Shame on all of us,” Herbst-Lucke said. “We so badly wanted to win. We so badly wanted bragging rights. We burned it all down for one chance to get ahead.”
College football P5 conferences and the same P5 conference definition is IMO highly detrimental to the future of the sport. College Football became so popular due to regional rivalries (see other thread) The latest CFP ratings numbers speak for themselves.
Nebraska boosters are notorious for punishing losers with their wallets. And they’ve done a lot of losing in the B10.
I worked with a senior VP Neb alum. They wanted her to come to the field before the game. She apparently had dropped coins in the past.
She told them to go blow.
How much more will the new Big 12 make on a per-member basis than the current AAC? My guess is that the new big 12 drops below the PAC 12 and ACC and lands somewhere in the 15-20 million per school in yearly payouts. At that point, the “P5” term becomes archaic since it mostly derived from revenue distribution.
Not really because, even assuming, just for argument’s sake, that that’s the payout (it could very well be much higher) that would still be SEVERAL TIMES the average per member payout of the AAC.
In light of that, given the huge gap that will still remain between the revenues of the Big 12 and the highest earning G5 conference (not to mention the huge gap in the level and quality of athletic competition from top to bottom), the term P5 will remain, and continue to be applied to the Big 12.
And of course, there are the NCAA by laws which likewise recognize a distinction between the P5 (including the Big 12) and other conferences.
That isn’t likely to change either.
Based on Yahoo, the AAC member can expect a payout of only about $7 million; that will likely be even less once it loses UH, Cincy, and UCF, and takes on the Charlottes of this world.
The Big 12 will still pay AT LEAST twice, if not 3-4 times as much per member.
In light of that, yeah, the P5 designation will remain. The gap between the worst case scenario Big 12 payout and the best case scenario G5 payout is THAT BIG!!!
I think $18-$25 million tier 1/2 rights (most likely $20 million). With the tier 3, Big 12 championship, Sugar bowl, NCAA Championship adding around $10-$14 million (excludes CFB payouts). So the payout should be substantially bigger than the AAC ($ 7 million), with the most likely payout being in the $30-34 million range including tier 1-3 rights and the other lump-sum payouts.
I would say worst-case, lets say OUT leaving takes away 50% of tier 1-2 revenue, that’s still $13 million tier 1-2 and whatever the lump sum additions are (maybe $5-$10 million more). The payout would still be 2-4 times more than the AAC.
Even if the Pac12 offered more $$ than the Big12, I still wouldn’t be interested.
They start their football and basketball games at 9pm CT.
Our fanbase would read the score in the paper next day. No ones staying up til midnight to watch us play Oregon St or Wazzu.
We would get treated like little brother. No respect from the USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal alum
Nebraska went from being a major player with old rivalries in the B8/B12 to a middleweight with no real rivalries in the B10. No wonder they declined.
UH has no real rivalries in the AAC that are any more than the old SWC rivalries now in the B12. The closest thing we have to an old rivalry in the AAC is SMU and possibly Memphis. However, these don’t move the needle like TT or any more than TCU and BU. The fact that there are 3 Texas schools to play plus Okie St has a chance to make the rivalries flourish.
The above is just about football, but with BU, KU, TT, Ok St., Iowa St, and UH, the basketball scene of the new B12 is superb and has a real possibility to emerge as the top BB conference. Lots of bucks to be made in the NCAA tourney.
This seems to be a weak study, but even worse this is a horribly written article. Here’s an older article from November that makes more sense assuming there’s not a new study.
Biggest difference, the other article says it includes P5 changes. If it only counts P5, I don’t think there were 47 changes.
And when the Tampa article says things like "Not USF, which went to the AAC after the Big East split. Or UCF, which moved from Conference USA to the AAC. " it makes no sense. USF didn’t move to a new conference, P5 or otherwise. UCF didn’t come from or move to a P5 conference.
It only includes the 4 years after the move too, a very short time to determine impacts.