Sly Fox wrote:There is almost no upside to inviting small market teams with practically no fanbases to join a league and split of revenue to 12 instead of 10. Memphis will continue to be a SEC market regardless of what the Tigers do. Cincy will continue to be a B1G market regardless of what the Bearcasts do. Neither schools is close to even the most popular college team in their markets. Both bring some positive hoops history and horrendous football history. Yeah, sign em up!
Using BCS as a measure of today's standards in ridiculous. The BCS was rigged by Roy to make sure there was at least one if not two SEC schools in the championship game. That system is thankfully gone. The Big XII will have a team in the playoffs most every year moving forward. And television ratings do just fine when the Sooners & Longhorns are playing well. The Horns having been holding up there end of the bargain the past couple of years. And still TV ratings are strong based on a 10-team league.
As for attendance ...
Source
Sly, let's take a little virtual walk around the FlameFans trail, shall we? Your first statement is exactly what is wrong with UT and it's why they aren't actually supportive of any expansion. UT is simply money hungry. When forced to choose between money and competitiveness, UT chooses money. Adding two more schools to the Big12 means less money and less power for Texas. That's the story behind the story.
Now, goal of adding Cincinnati and Memphis is not to take over markets currently owned by the Big10 and SEC. The goal is to tread on territory. Nobody has said that Ohio or Tennessee would become Big12 markets. For what it's worth, if you added FSU, Florida wouldn't become a Big12 state either. What Cincinnati and Memphis bring to the Big12 is EXPOSURE. Instead of fans watching Tennessee vs Ohio, you can give them a chance to watch Memphis host Texas. Instead of Big10 fans watching Ohio State host Rutgers, fans can watch Cincinnati host Oklahoma. Is it a perfect fit? Nope. But both schools provide SOME value and allow you to have a conference championship game.
The BCS was not rigged. That's ridiculous. With the exception of QB's, the NFL is currently dominated by former SEC players. Simply placing the blame for the Big12's struggles on a conspiracy theory is a weak, but typical Texas, argument. The SEC had more talent and better coaches for the better part of a decade. No one rigged the system.
Why will the Big12 have a team in the playoffs consistently? Two years ago, you didn't have a team in the playoffs BECAUSE you didn't have a conference championship game. Last year, you ONLY had a team because Oklahoma made an incredibly improbable run that included numerous factors outside of their control. And it's now confirmed that the Big12 is at a 5-6% disadvantage every year they don't have a conference championship. So, please explain why you have such confidence in the conference's ability to produce a consistent playoff contender. If it weren't for one bad TCU possession, you would be staring two straight years without a team in the playoff.
TV ratings aren't strong. lol. Are you even researching this before you post? The Big12 had the worst TV numbers of any P5 conference last year. The WORST.
And what about those attendance numbers? Your third....based on an average. Is that really something to be proud of? To be third in average attendance per game? Truthfully, I would be more concerned that the Pac12 had over 300,000 more people watch their games.
- By Dalegarz1
- By PAmedic