Monkeypox

I'm positive both of these QBs are capable enough to show baseline competence running the offense. I'm less-than-positive that either are going to be difference-makers. But Littrell is conservative as a coach (despite his less-than-conservative offense), and he's not in a position where he can take any risks, coming off the losing seasons, so it's not like he's going to gamble at QB for future gains. Unless someone is awful, we aren't really going to learn anything in week 1, because it SHOULD be a blowout win. And unless someone is amazing, we aren't likely to learn anything in week 2, because we will probably crap the bed vs SMU (just based on SL's history). I just see this shaking out like last year unless someone shows they are CONSISTENTLY good, which never happened last year. Someone has to take the reigns this year, but will they?

Someone knows how to Littrell.

Now that we've learned what NOT to do...

Yeah, I think a scheduling agreement to try and get more eyeballs on both their products is more beneficial to the groups.

While it's mostly football, it's still more than JUST football. It's total $$$$. Football brings in the most money, and by a long shot, but Kansas actually brings in a good bit from tournament shares with their consistent greatness as a basketball program. I believe they come in pretty regularly in 3rd place for athletic revenue in the Big12, despite being a crapshow in football. Keep in mind, also, that the Big Ten is home to Illinois, Maryland, Purdue, and Rutgers. They don't necessarily have to be Ohio State or Michigan to be seen as a worthy revenue-generator for the conference. In the long-term, these power conferences might be looking for replacements, not just adds. Iowa State gets left in the cold at some point. Is that point now? I got NO idea. One thing I'm definitely not good at is knowing the true market values of these teams (what does Kansas get you in subscribers vs Texas Tech vs WVU vs Rutgers). There are many, many people who have a better handle on these things than I do, and that's a huge factor. CBS/Fox/ESPN all know this stuff, and they're the ones driving the bus.

The Pac12 has a HUGE issue in their network distribution, and none of their members are happy about the deal. It's very possible they could look for an entry into the Texas market to help them secure better distribution or increase the value of the Pac12 network in order to sell all or part of it to Fox/CBS/ESPN/whomever. I've heard so many conflicting things about the conference shakeup, though. We're clearly still very early in it. But you can bet that the other conferences are all trying to align themselves to make the most $$$ and be a part of the new P2-P4. I really don't know that the remaining Texas schools have a ton of value for the long-term of the major programs, though. Hell, I'm not sure that most of the schools remaining have a ton of value, although an argument could maybe be made for Kansas to B1G and WVU to ACC as overall program/geographic fits (moreso than football, which is the real driver). Think about this.... Baylor and Tech were GOING to be left out after the dismantling of the SWC. TCU already was. What's changed? Is the panhandle or Waco suddenly a market that the network masters are gunning for? TCU does great in Tarrant County, but they're 5th-6th fiddle in DFW. So I could absolutely see the Pac12 maybe taking them for now to help correct some of their distribution ills, shore up something in the near-term, and then dump them when they go to a 40-team Super Conference, because I don't think the Texas market as a whole moves for anyone other than UT, OU, A&M, LSU.

So much irony in this post. Hope it made you feel better, though.

Yeah, but they haven't ever been concerned with ALL Texas universities before, and it's not like they're going "What about UNT and UTEP?"

They can never ACTUALLY move a team to Central Texas, because then the next team couldn't threaten to move to Central Texas when they want a new stadium.

Awww, poor ol' Baylor. I feel SO bad for them.

As a Cowboys fan, I’ve always felt that was the best comparison. The product is the brand, not the football. I mean, they’ve done nothing of note but hire and fire coaches, and they have the most valuable brand in college sports. It’s nuts.

This was you, right? I mean, I showed you how your statement is objectively false. The information, for public schools, is readily available and frequently compiled. Then, when I did, you moved the target. I've proven that UNT is far below AAC teams in its budget even when you remove conference distributions and licensing from the equation, which you stated was the ONLY thing that made them different than us. Yes, our revenue would be better in a better conference. So we should just be in the SEC or Big12, then, and then we'd be as good as TCU and we'd have to expand our stadium to 40-50k. Why are we aiming for the lowly AAC at all? They should just let us in because reasons. So sure, if we were in the AAC, we'd increase our revenue. We'd sell more tickets and get more donors. But so would ANYBODY in CUSA. So, once again, what are we delivering to the AAC, especially if we're not in the top 3rd of our CURRENT CONFERENCE for ticket sales and donations. This means that our program, more than others, is relying primarily on those student fees, university funding, and conference payouts for our revenue. And if I'm picking between 2 or 3 or 8 teams and trying decide who would benefit my conference the most, I'm gonna go with the ones with more fans and more big money donors.

I think he'd have to, since selling one's soul to the devil is about the only way that could happen.

A conference shakeup is only going to happen due to money. So, we aren't going anywhere until we force our way by increasing the value of our program. At this point, that's primarily going to have to come from increasing our fanbase (winning) and donor base (winning, promotion, finding some more deep pockets). The vast majority of the schools that are above us in the pecking order have always been above us in the pecking order when it comes to finances and recruiting, so while it's easy to say "yes, but if we were in the same conference, they wouldn't be", it's simply not realistic, because we've never BEEN in the same conference. And despite the role that politics plays, it's mainly about MONEY. After all, if it were purely politics, then A&M, UT, Arkansas, and OU wouldn't all (about to) be in the SEC while the tattered remains of the SWC lies in the Big12 and AAC wastelands. So, sure, we can chicken-and-egg it and pretend that if we were admitted tomorrow to the Big12, we'd be just as valuable a program as TCU, but the reality is we haven't been, at least in MY lifetime, so it's not gonna happen JUST BECAUSE. That chicken is dead and generations of eggs have hatched in the meantime. Double our ticket sales, double our donor base, THEN we'll have something. Until then, we'll be where we've been since I started school at UNT in the 1990s... at the bottom of the totem pole. And, since you asked, the money that's outside of conference distribution payments from media contracts, as well as licensing, student fees, and university/school funding (annual-2019*). This doesn't count the private schools and schools with state exemptions, as they are not required to report: AAC: Houston - $4-6m in ticket sales, $8-9m in donor contributions. UCONN - $8-10m in ticket sales, $6-7m in donor contributions UCF - $6m in ticket sales, $5-10m in donor contributions Cincy - $6-7m in ticket sales, $4-6m in donor contributions ECU - $6-7m in ticket sales, $6-10m in donor contributions Memphis - $8-10m in ticket sales, $9-13m in donor contributions USF - $3-5m in ticket sales, $2-3m in donor contributions CUSA: ODU - $3-4m in ticket sales, $4-6m in donor contributions Charlotte - $1-2m in ticket sales, $4-5m in donor contributions UNT - $1-1.8m in ticket sales, $2-3m in donor contributions FIU - $600k-$1.2m in ticket sales, $1-3m in donors (only last 3 years, massive variance and diddly before that) UAB - $1.1-2m in ticket sales, $3-5m in donor contributions FAU - $900k-2m in ticket sales, $2-4m in donor contributions (also highly variant, from $1.3-8m) MTSU - $1-1.7m in ticket sales, $2-3m in donor contributions UTSA - $2m in ticket sales, $2-3m in donor contributions UTEP - $1.5-2m in ticket sales, $3-4m in donor contributions Marshall - $3-3.5m in ticket sales, $3-4m in donor contributions WKU - $2-2.4m in ticket sales, $2-3m in donor contributions USM - $2-3m in ticket sales, $3-4m in donor contributions La Tech - $1.5-2m in ticket sales, $4-6m in donor contributions Getting the student fees and school funding that make up 2/3 of our total revenue is certainly value added and demonstrates a firm commitment to athletics, BUT it's also the least desirable and potentially dangerous way to fund a program. * I tried to fairly eyeball/average/estimate based on a range over the last 5-10 years. Some schools have more variance than others. I was generally conservative in trying to find more realistic numbers, as some schools might usually get $3-5m and have a big $8-9m contribution come in one year. Anyone is free to look for themselves, though, and come to their own conclusions. https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances https://sports.usatoday.com/2020/07/05/methodology-for-2019-ncaa-athletic-department-revenue-database/

AAC isn't that exclusive. It doesn't have to be to exclude us. What would we bring to the members of the AAC that's MORE than SMU and Tulsa? Their inclusion is already done, but since I can't get actual numbers from small private schools, I have to kinda get on the Wayback Machine and guess why they were invited. Tulsa might be terrible as a program, and they probably wouldn't be in the AAC if they were forming tomorrow. But, at the time of their inclusion in the AAC, they had won 56 CUSA Championships across their athletic program in 9 years in CUSA (including 7 their final year). And they had successful rivalries from their time in CUSA with SMU, Houston, and Memphis, who had all joined the AAC the year prior. SMU is more successful in athletics, has more money, and gets to live on a reputation that we simply don't have. That's why you see people who don't know anything thinking they'll be on the list of move-up candidates (ignoring the economic realities). They don't do shit for ticket sales, and no, they don't carry the market, but neither do we. And I can tell you, what piddly-ass bit of the market we both have, their share is still greater. But it's 2021, not 2014, so who gives a damn why they took the teams they took, other than "they were pretty good in CUSA at the time" or "they had money" or "included to satisfy media contract" And you're comparing us to the dregs of the AAC, and saying "why not us?" Why would a conference want to add more teams to the bottom of their conference? And, if they do, we are simply on par with a lot of our peers in CUSA and the Sun Belt, not obviously and objectively more valuable. Our overall athletic program is only "more than okay" when compared to CUSA and Sun Belt teams and the bottom of the AAC and MWC. How do we compete athletically in both wins AND REVENUE compared to those we want to join? The answer is: we don't. So no, we wouldn't immediately be competitive in the AAC just because our men's basketball won CUSA and a tournament game one year and our women's sports are very good in CUSA. And yes, SMU probably IS doing everything they can to keep us out. But that's like saying I'm doing everything I can to control the weather. The AAC isn't bucking to the whims of SMU. What ADDITIONAL REVENUE are we bringing the members of the AAC? That's the only thing that matters in this conference juggling talk. We have low ticket sales and low donor contributions.

They keep us out with their presence, not with their vote. We don’t deliver anything different or better than SMU to the conference, so, until/unless we do, we aren’t in. SMU doesn’t keep us out. Our athletic program does.

Baylor and Tech were only in the Big 12 because of intervention from Richards and Bullock, but they were fine letting TCU, Rice, Houston, and SMU die a slow death at the time. The problem today is that many of the largest athletics programs and universities have outgrown state support. The combination of cuts to state contributions and growth of these athletics departments is why Texas and OU could go whichever way they wanted this time around. BUT, that's not to say that politicians don't have ANY influence. The legislators are still very powerful when it comes to schools below that elite level. One of the reasons you'll see me reference UH as one of the choices to add to the B12 despite not being the best match from a fanbase/eyeballs/contributions standpoint is that they have a lot of support in the state government. But there's the rub. The only teams the state government is in a position to influence are the remaining teams in the Big12 and the teams below them... A&M and UT are both in the SEC. That's done. So this meeting was a desperate attempt that really had nowhere to go. What's Abbott gonna do... force schools in the Pac12, Big10, or ACC to take them? Get Colorado back? Nope. They are stuck.

After 2024, sure. But that's still 4 seasons of $37m per team, or 6x what teams in the AAC make, before they need a new home. If ESPN could just NOT pay them at this point, it doesn't make any sense that they'd be trying to dissolve the rest of the conference. That's why I think there will also be lawsuits at this point. Wait out the purge, steal teams from AAC-MWC if needed, try and find homes in remaining Power Conferences. Until all those options have been explored, I don't see them all deciding to go hang out with Tulsa, Tulane and SMU for chump change.

Well, yeah. But the question you asked was "why doesn't the Big12 go and add AAC teams, so they don't forfeit money". If ESPN is stuck with the contract, then the Big12 doesn't HAVE to add anyone in order to keep their money. They can stand pat and not have to share, as long as they stick together and have a championship game. But I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I don't have copies of their media deals, so I could absolutely be wrong. ESPN doesn't want to pay TCU, Baylor, K-State, etc. $37m for a slate that doesn't include UT-OU. If they can steal 3-5 teams to the AAC and renegotiate to pay some amount BETWEEN the $7m AAC and $37m Big12, especially on a long-term contract, they're winning. Then, they've also successfully dissolved the Big12, forcing most of whomever they don't take to try and find a home with some other lesser conferences (because they aren't likely finding homes in the remaining P4). That leads to more of them taking significantly less money. ESPN needs the Big12 to die right now. But to do that, they need to destabilize it beyond just taking Texas-OU. Hence the possible interference involving the AAC. Take the 3-5 most vulnerable and scare them/coerce them into thinking the AAC is their best bet. But, from the remaining Big12 teams' perspectives, here are their options, in order of preference: 1) Find homes in Pac12, Big10, SEC, ACC - this is not happening, and they're likely finding that out. 2) Stick it out through 2025 - At this point, it's possible the landscape has shifted and they can partner up with the other P5(P4) castoffs. Or now that there's nothing left of their contract, steal the tops off the AAC or MWC (contract ends 2026), and renegotiate. You've just gotten 3-4 years of not splitting your cash with them and sticking it to ESPN. 3) Take some combo of AAC/MWC/Indy teams to get back to 10-12. Have to split the money for teams that do really nothing for you. You went from having filet mignon (UT-OU) to truck stop sirloin (AAC/MWC teams) but you can always move on/dump these teams when the super-conference happens. It does help stability, but stability isn't necessarily worth the cash. You only do this if you think there's a real chance of dissolution. 4) Go to AAC/MWC - Big12 dissolves. Take a big money loss and be in a worse conference.

Except playing SMU doesn't do anything for TCU. Nobody watches that. TCU can get the same numbers from playing members of their current conference or just about anybody else of merit. Sure, it helps SMU out immensely, but it's still not gonna pull eyeballs in the metroplex any more than their current slate. These historic rivalries are dead. They might as well be advocating we re-build Reunion Arena to house these games.

They lost me at "Rather than sorting through the broadcast rights and conference contracts..." Do you even college football, bro?

Because the AAC teams are still far below the value of the remaining Big12 teams, even without UT and OU. I don't think they're necessarily forfeiting their ESPN contract, especially if they end up suing ESPN, at which point they'd probably have a court order freezing or extending the contract until settlement. So, unless adding some combo of Houston/Cincy/Memphis/BYU/Boise/Colorado St actually increases or improves their current contract standing or value, I don't think they have incentive to add anyone. They might want to wait out the inevitable move when the remaining P4 powers dump their current conference setups in order to jettison their bottom-feeders. Would the Big12 rather have the top of the MWC and AAC right now, or the teams "not quite good enough" to form that Power 32-40 league? That said, I can still see them taking the MWC/AAC tops off right now, because it could simultaneously weaken your soon-to-be "peers" while stabilizing membership. But denial is not just for college football fandoms. ADs and school administrators aren't going to give in until they have to.

It'll be interesting to see what they do, whether it's standing pat or poaching. I definitely don't see them adding 6 teams. There just aren't that many that wouldn't be a complete drain on them the way they were on UT-OU. Houston and Memphis probably make the most sense, if I'm combining geography, stability, and fanbase into the picture. However, they match up more direcly with the smaller schools like TCU and Baylor in terms of fanbases and eyeballs than they do the Texas Techs and Kansas States of the conference. While UCF and Cincy are also in the same category, I think you'd be adding in travel costs and reducing revenue for no strong reason just to add teams.

As far as I’m aware, that $37m doesn’t go anywhere until 2025 as long as the Big12 stays in business. It should be at least partially mitigated by the fact that Longhorn Network and Sooners whatever it is are separate for their home games. I could be wrong on that, because I have no idea what outs there are in these contracts. But, it makes sense that that’s WHY ESPN would want them to go to the AAC (if there’s any truth to it and not just the Big12 commish running damage control). It’s much cheaper, even if they modified the agreement with the AAC to include more money. But for the Big12 teams individually, it probably makes more sense to poach the AAC than to get in bed with them for less money. Then, in 2025, it’s every man for themselves, if the Big Purge hasn’t happened yet (pretty sure it will have).

Admittedly, I don’t really know how these contracts work. There might be some more media $$$ savvy people here that can answer the questions about this (arkstfan?). But don’t Big 12 teams get around $37m/yr for their media rights? AAC teams get around $7m? So if you’re the Big12 leftovers, don’t you just add teams that you think can bring something to the table for now, and try and use the time until rights expire in 2025 to jockey for position…. or do you stand pat with the current 10? Texas-OU have enough money to buy their way out. ESPN gonna give the others enough dough to make up the buyout and the difference? They ready to give the AAC that much more money in year 1? Yeah, they are screwed the next go round, but it’s not like they can’t go get the AAC money any time they want. So, while I wouldn’t put it past AAC/ESPN to try it, I just don’t see how it could be done from a financial angle. This just seems to be grasping at straws.