ADVERTISEMENT

Expansion: Big12 Network=P5, LHN=Mid-majors

TCWVU

Redshirting
Feb 5, 2003
3
0
121
Texas has to realize that the LHN is not going to exist in the future. What they do with it is their decision. Do they want to be king of the Big12 castle or another cog in a wheel with another conference?


Either morph the LHN into the Big12 Network and grow the Big12 into a super conference with real programs like FSU, Clemson ect. Or add a bunch of mid-majors now and jump ship to another conference (leaving the LHN behind anyway) after OU leaves for better pastures.

IS THE LONGHORN NETWORK A FAILURE? WHAT DOES LHN MEAN FOR TEXAS, ESPN AND THE BIG 12?

excerpt:
The biggest problem with the Longhorn Network may be what it means for the rest of the Big 12. It gives Texas a different playing field than the rest of the conference (a huge part of what led to Texas A&M and Missouri defecting for the SEC), and it minimizes the value of third-tier rights for the other schools in the league. It also adds to rumors about the conference’s potential instability, and it makes it difficult for them to pursue expansion (as Boren wants), making it so they can only really target schools not currently in power conferences.
 
Last edited:
Texas has to realize that the LHN is not going to exist in the future. What they do with it is their decision. Do they want to be king of the Big12 castle or another cog in a wheel with another conference."

Buy that man a question mark.

The other day, Berry Tramel, of The Oklahoman, indicated Texas is quite content with the Big 12 in its existing form. I am not familiar with Andrew Bucholtz or the quality of his reporting, but there isn't a journalist anywhere who knows the Big 12 any better than Tramel.
 
Buy that man a question mark.

The other day, Berry Tramel, of The Oklahoman, indicated Texas is quite content with the Big 12 in its existing form. I am not familiar with Andrew Bucholtz or the quality of his reporting, but there isn't a journalist anywhere who knows the Big 12 any better than Tramel.

And that is the problem that OU's president, David Boren, was talking about. "How many years can this go on?". If Texas doesn't help transform the LHN into a Big12 Network in order to attract teams like FSU/Clemson, then OU will jump ship to another conference.

So yes, Texas is quite content with the Big12 in its existing form. But how long will this existing form last?
 
Texas has to realize that the LHN is not going to exist in the future. What they do with it is their decision. Do they want to be king of the Big12 castle or another cog in a wheel with another conference.


Either morph the LHN into the Big12 Network and grow the Big12 into a super conference with real programs like FSU, Clemson ect. Or add a bunch of mid-majors now and jump ship to another conference (leaving the LHN behind anyway) after OU leaves for better pastures.

IS THE LONGHORN NETWORK A FAILURE? WHAT DOES LHN MEAN FOR TEXAS, ESPN AND THE BIG 12?

excerpt:
The biggest problem with the Longhorn Network may be what it means for the rest of the Big 12. It gives Texas a different playing field than the rest of the conference (a huge part of what led to Texas A&M and Missouri defecting for the SEC), and it minimizes the value of third-tier rights for the other schools in the league. It also adds to rumors about the conference’s potential instability, and it makes it difficult for them to pursue expansion (as Boren wants), making it so they can only really target schools not currently in power conferences.

It seems like Texas and Oklahoma have the best situation in all of college football. 60% of the Big 12 members are within their State borders. They make as much as any other school in the country from TV contracts, bowl games, ticket sales, their own networks, etc., etc. The Big 12 has a great bowl line up including a tie into the Sugar Bowl, and most of the Bowl games are within an easy drive. The Red River Rivalry between TX and OU is one of the best in all of college football. The conference has great basketball and baseball plus a lot of the Olympic sports are national contenders. I really don't see how either one of thes schools could get anything better from the SEC or PAC12.

The conference will probably stay at 10 teams for the next decade and then another shakeup is likely as the conference nears the end of the lucrative TV contracts. If the money in the SEC and BIG10 becomes too attractive for schools in the State of Virginia and North Carolina (targeted states by both conferences), then you will see some members leaving the ACC. That would open up all kinds of oppurtunities for the Big 12 to add schools (FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Pitt)
 
And that is the problem that OU's president, David Boren, was talking about. "How many years can this go on?". If Texas doesn't help transform the LHN into a Big12 Network in order to attract teams like FSU/Clemson, then OU will jump ship to another conference.

So yes, Texas is quite content with the Big12 in its existing form. But how long will this existing form last?

My guess is the Big 12 will happily remain at 10 schools until the ACC falls apart. Florida State and Clemson cannot be happy at bringing in roughly $20 million a year less than Florida and South Carolina. They would approach parity with a move to the Big 12. Money talks. Still.
 
My guess is the Big 12 will happily remain at 10 schools until the ACC falls apart. Florida State and Clemson cannot be happy at bringing in roughly $20 million a year less than Florida and South Carolina. They would approach parity with a move to the Big 12. Money talks. Still.
I think you were corrected on that 20 million dollar number a few days ago. It is less than 10 million. Unless the SEC jumped to somewhere around 38 million that most of us did not hear about.
 
I think you were corrected on that 20 million dollar number a few days ago. It is less than 10 million. Unless the SEC jumped to somewhere around 38 million that most of us did not hear about.

Not sure about the propriety of pasting a Blue Lot conversation on the free board, but I thought BoHed had a great post earlier this week. I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of his numbers, of course, but he sure seems to know what he's talking about.

His post:

On average and based on the projected new TV deals, the revenue in 2018ish on a per school basis is going to be in the neighborhood of this:

ACC - $31.6 (includes avg tier 3 "alternative media")
Pac 12 - $34.8 (includes generous tier 3 estimate from p12 network & AT&T deal)
Big 12 - $42.6 (avg tier 3)
Big 10 - $45
SEC - $49.6

The ACC's is estimated, because while they sold their Tier 3 TV to ESPN (and ESPN sold to Raycom, which is killing their network dreams), they retained other tier 3 media rights. I took an avg est of $4 million based on NC State's...FSU/Clemson is higher, but still doesn't put them close to being competitive.

At the end of the day, OU & UT are going to be right with the big boys. As long as our finances are this competitive, it's going to be tough to justify leaving early and paying a settlement for the grant of rights. The gloves could come off in 2025 when ours and the ACC's deal expires though.

It's also going to be interesting to see if FSU and Clemson continue to stay content earning $20 million less per year than their SEC counterparts.
 
That is still not 20 million - it is 18 million and if they are making an extra 2 on their 3rd tier that makes it 16.

That is a bit of nit picking but it is not 20 million.

And my real point was the difference at the current time - since the post made it sound like the SEC was making 20 million more currently.

And finances will change somewhat - and I still have a problem seeing FSU and Clemson in the Big 12.
 
That is still not 20 million - it is 18 million and if they are making an extra 2 on their 3rd tier that makes it 16.

That is a bit of nit picking but it is not 20 million.

And my real point was the difference at the current time - since the post made it sound like the SEC was making 20 million more currently.

And finances will change somewhat - and I still have a problem seeing FSU and Clemson in the Big 12.

Who is to say that it is only going to be FSU and Clemson. The Big 12 could expand by 4 schools or even 6 schools. Taking the best of the ACC (southern schools) and adding them to the Big 12 would create an awesome conference and my guess is that the money would be as good as any conference.

IMO, the domino that would start the unraveling of the ACC would be a Virginia school or North Carolina school jumping to the Big 10 or SEC near the end of the TV contracts. The money difference is going to significant at that time.
 
Who is to say that it is only going to be FSU and Clemson. The Big 12 could expand by 4 schools or even 6 schools. Taking the best of the ACC (southern schools) and adding them to the Big 12 would create an awesome conference and my guess is that the money would be as good as any conference.

IMO, the domino that would start the unraveling of the ACC would be a Virginia school or North Carolina school jumping to the Big 10 or SEC near the end of the TV contracts. The money difference is going to significant at that time.

This has been addressed. The Big 12 can't offer these schools more money. The Big 12's TV contract only goes up enough to keep the payout the same as it is now. It won't increase by adding more teams. Boren specifically explained this in his comments, and this has been reported several times over the years.

That's the problem. There would be no incentive for Clemson and Florida St to move, because they won't make more money. The only teams that would come would be mid-major teams, because for them it would be more money. But, that doesn't do the Big 12 any good.
 
This has been addressed. The Big 12 can't offer these schools more money. The Big 12's TV contract only goes up enough to keep the payout the same as it is now. It won't increase by adding more teams. Boren specifically explained this in his comments, and this has been reported several times over the years.

That's the problem. There would be no incentive for Clemson and Florida St to move, because they won't make more money. The only teams that would come would be mid-major teams, because for them it would be more money. But, that doesn't do the Big 12 any good.
The Big 12 is already 5 million above the ACC in total money per team right now.
 
IMO, the domino that would start the unraveling of the ACC would be a Virginia school or North Carolina school jumping to the Big 10 or SEC near the end of the TV contracts. The money difference is going to significant at that time.

It all the other 4 conferences decide to poach the B12 - then that would be the key event.

Geographically it makes more sense for 4 B12 teams to go west. 2 to go to the SEC and 2 to the B10 with WVU going to the ACC. Then there would be 4 nice conferences all of which make geographic sense.
It may not happen but I see is a stronger possibility than 2 to 4 ACC schools bolting to the B12.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: American Male
The Big 12 is already 5 million above the ACC in total money per team right now.

No they don't. Last year, the Big 12 paid out $23 million per team. The ACC paid out $22 million per team.

The problem is, the Big 12 can't add more money if new teams come in.
 
No they don't. Last year, the Big 12 paid out $23 million per team. The ACC paid out $22 million per team.

The problem is, the Big 12 can't add more money if new teams come in.

I agree with Woody. The Big 12 is already significantly higher than the ACC and that number is only going to increase over the years. The margin between the ACC and SEC, B10, and B12 will be the widest at the end of the current TV contracts.

The B12 paid out an average of $25 million this year and in WVU's case our 3rd tier contract should add another $7 or $8 million. We don't even know what the ACC payout is for this year because they haven't released the numbers. Why haven't they released the numbers ?
 
The problem is, the Big 12 can't add more money if new teams come in.

Sure they could.... ....but our current contracts would need renegotiated. That would likely be something that actually would happen before adding teams.....

....thus, the power of the TV networks in the game of conference expansion. One network isn't going to f)$& itself by taking a team from one of 'their' conferences and adding it to another conference where they also own the broadcast rights. However, I think if two diff conferences had two diff networks with broadcasting rights then it's game on......
 
No they don't. Last year, the Big 12 paid out $23 million per team. The ACC paid out $22 million per team.

The problem is, the Big 12 can't add more money if new teams come in.
The Big 12 television contracts will adjust to keep the money per school the same - That was the info from Boren that no one knew. Thus the ACC schools would still be better off plus they would have their football tier 3. And this year the ACC will not be receiving money from the Orange Bowl. And the B12 will be receiving money from the Sugar. That will make a big shift.
 
I agree with Woody. The Big 12 is already significantly higher than the ACC and that number is only going to increase over the years. The margin between the ACC and SEC, B10, and B12 will be the widest at the end of the current TV contracts.

The B12 paid out an average of $25 million this year and in WVU's case our 3rd tier contract should add another $7 or $8 million. We don't even know what the ACC payout is for this year because they haven't released the numbers. Why haven't they released the numbers ?

No, sorry, you're wrong. The Big 12 payout was an average of $23 million last year. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...nounces-209-million-average-payout-per-school

The ACC paid out $21 million. ( I previously said 22, but it was actually 21.) http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...accs-john-swofford-made-21-million-in-2013-14

The SEC and Big 12 are the only two conference to release their payouts this year. The Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC have not yet released the payouts.
 
Sure they could.... ....but our current contracts would need renegotiated. That would likely be something that actually would happen before adding teams.....

....thus, the power of the TV networks in the game of conference expansion. One network isn't going to f)$& itself by taking a team from one of 'their' conferences and adding it to another conference where they also own the broadcast rights. However, I think if two diff conferences had two diff networks with broadcasting rights then it's game on......

No, they can't. You can't renegotiate the contract. There is a clause in the contract that says that the payout will only adjust to stay the same. In other words, if the TV contract pays out $20 million now, then it would only payout out $20 million when the new teams are added. That's not more money. Plus, you don't get extra money from the CFP, so that money would have to be split 2 more ways.
 
The Big 12 television contracts will adjust to keep the money per school the same - That was the info from Boren that no one knew. Thus the ACC schools would still be better off plus they would have their football tier 3. And this year the ACC will not be receiving money from the Orange Bowl. And the B12 will be receiving money from the Sugar. That will make a big shift.

No, they wouldn't be better off. The Big 12 TV contract pays out $20 million. The ACC TV contract payout out $18 million. If the ACC doesn't get a network, then the payout goes up by $2 million, so then the TV payout would be equal.

The bowls games rotate. Next year the Big 12 has the Sugar, and the ACC doesn't get the Orange. But in 2016, both conferences have their bowl games. Then in 2017, the ACC gets the Orange, and then the Big 12 doesn't get the Sugar.

That said, it's not as big a difference as you think. The Sugar Bowl pays out $40 million. Divided 10 ways, that's $4 million per team. Divided 12 ways, it's $3.3 million. The Orange pays out $27.5 million. Divided 14 ways, that's 1.9 million. The difference between the payouts ends up being $1.4 million. That's not enough to get Florida St to leave.

Also, it was well known that the payouts would not increase with more teams. It was reported back in 2012 when the contract was signed:

Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...n-and-feeling-its-oats-sitting-at-10-12-or-14
 
No, they can't. You can't renegotiate the contract. There is a clause in the contract that says that the payout will only adjust to stay the same. In other words, if the TV contract pays out $20 million now, then it would only payout out $20 million when the new teams are added. .

You can renegotiate ANY contract. That's a fairly basic understanding....

That 'clause' that you use to validate multiple opinions you express all over this forum is EASILY eliminated if all involved in the contract decide, 'f it....let's do this instead'.

You're really making something simple seem complicated....most likely because you're confused.
 
You can renegotiate ANY contract. That's a fairly basic understanding....

That 'clause' that you use to validate multiple opinions you express all over this forum is EASILY eliminated if all involved in the contract decide, 'f it....let's do this instead'.

You're really making something simple seem complicated....most likely because you're confused.

No, I'm not confused. I just have the facts on my side and you don't. I hate to break it to you, ESPN and Fox aren't going to do away with the clause. They put it in there for a reason. Thinking that ESPN and Fox will agree to do away with the clause is wishful thinking on your part. Boren clearly said in his statements it's in there, and they simply won't be able to get around it. Bowlsby has said the same thing. Face reality.
 
No, sorry, you're wrong. The Big 12 payout was an average of $23 million last year. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...nounces-209-million-average-payout-per-school

The ACC paid out $21 million. ( I previously said 22, but it was actually 21.) http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...accs-john-swofford-made-21-million-in-2013-14


The SEC and Big 12 are the only two conference to release their payouts this year. The Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC have not yet released the payouts.

Your article is a year old.

The B12 paid out $252 million for the 2014-15 school year. The ACC hasn't announced the 2014-15 school year payout to my knowledge. And then you have to add the third tier contract to these numbers. This article explains it completely:

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150529/GZ02/150529168

I get the feeling if the numbers were the same or better than the other conferences, the ACC would have announced them by now. I think that every power conference has released their payout numbers except the ACC. Their silence is deafening.
 
Last edited:
The clause gives the networks leverage...as I previously posted.

When you refer to them (contracts) you act like they are just 'the way it is..,can't be changed'. You should at the very least admit that you're guessing that those that signed the contracts won't desire change instead of pretending that changing the contract 'clauses' isn't a possibility.

If FOX or ESPN can f the other and make a profit they will... ...and the conference could expand and still make same or better money per team.

------------

.....and I should mention that your reply makes me wonder if you also believed (and quoted as a truth) Bagdad Bob.
 
The clause gives the networks leverage...as I previously posted.

When you refer to them (contracts) you act like they are just 'the way it is..,can't be changed'. You should at the very least admit that you're guessing that those that signed the contracts won't desire change instead of pretending that changing the contract 'clauses' isn't a possibility.

If FOX or ESPN can f the other and make a profit they will... ...and the conference could expand and still make same or better money per team.

------------

.....and I should mention that your reply makes me wonder if you also believed (and quoted as a truth) Bagdad Bob.

I act like it because it's the truth. You can't take something that's completely theoretical (and not in any way practical) and pretend like it's a legitimate possibility. Theoretically, the Klingons could come attack us tomorrow, but I can tell you for sure it won't happen. I'm not going to sit around and play a silly "what-if" game just so you can save face on the forum.

The fact is, the clause is in the contract, and it clearly says the payouts won't increase. Boren clearly said:

"So everybody's share stays the same. If it's ‘X' dollars, it stays ‘X' dollars."
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2015/6/24/8841025/david-boren-big-12-expansion-conference-realignment
[/QUOTE]

He didn't give any indication, any, that ESPN and Fox are interested in changing that clause. In fact, Chuck Neinas met with ESPN and Fox a couple of years ago, and he said:


“Our television partners agreed that the only new member that would enhance the Big 12 value for television was Notre Dame.” (This due to Notre Dame being a partial member.)
http://newsok.com/big-12-interim-co...at-would-add-tv-value/article/3688049/?page=1

It's crystal clear that ESPN and Fox aren't going to remove the clause. Nobody affiliated with the Big 12 is even suggesting that will happen. It's simply not going to happen, so no, I'm not going to concede that it's a possibility, because it isn't. The Big 12 is the only conference that has this clause in its contract. There had to be a pretty significant reason for both networks to put that in there, and there simply isn't any evidence it's going to change.

Now that said, the conference still wouldn't make money, for the following reason:
It's important to note: Expansion would mean the Big 12 would have to share other league revenue 12 ways instead of 10. That means further dividing money from the College Football Playoff, other bowls and the NCAA Tournament -- real money some Big 12 schools won't want to lose without getting enough value in return from new members.

Bowlsby said that the portion of divided Big 12 money represents about 40 percent of current conference revenue.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...g-12-now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-your-sports

That other money, like the CFP doesn't go up even if you add more teams. The only thing that would go up (if the clause wasn't there) is the TV money. That's 40% that would decrease, and the rest of the money only stays the same.
 
Changing the contract isn't a big deal.....so acting like the current structure (intended to encourage negotiations if ANYTHING changed) is 'just the way it is..' is silly.

Really, do I need to give you examples...???
 
I act like it because it's the truth. You can't take something that's completely theoretical (and not in any way practical) and pretend like it's a legitimate possibility. Theoretically, the Klingons could come attack us tomorrow, but I can tell you for sure it won't happen. I'm not going to sit around and play a silly "what-if" game just so you can save face on the forum.

The fact is, the clause is in the contract, and it clearly says the payouts won't increase. Boren clearly said:
That quote is the thing that gives some of us hope - If two more teams come in - and it does not matter if it is FSU and Clemson or Cincy and Memphis - each conference team will still receive 20 million(using your figure) from the football television contract. Everyone against expansion though that the total money would not change and you would divide by 12 not ten so the money will go down.

And the ACC is going to be behind the other 4 power 5 conferences in total money no matter what fantasy you talk about. And that difference is going to get larger each year.

I for one do not hold out hope for Clemson and FSU - they are deeply entrenched in the wine and cheese crowd of the ACC.
 
Changing the contract isn't a big deal.....so acting like the current structure (intended to encourage negotiations if ANYTHING changed) is 'just the way it is..' is silly.

Really, do I need to give you examples...???

Um, yeah, it's a huge deal. It's not that easy to get out of contracts. You haven't given any proof that ESPN or Fox are inclined to change it. I've given you evidence to prove they are in fact not inclined to do so.

The contract is not structured to encourage negotiations. It's the opposite. The other conference don't have that clause their contracts. The Big 12 is the only one that has it. That's a hindrance to expansion, not an encouragement.

I'll turn it around on you. You are acting like the Big 12 can just walk in one day and say, "We want to negotiate," and ESPN and Fox will just say, "Oh ok, cool!" It's nowhere that simple and you know it. The fact that ESPN and Fox put this clause in the Big 12's contract, which again no other conference has, just goes to show you that they don't want to negotiate.
 
Last edited:
That quote is the thing that gives some of us hope - If two more teams come in - and it does not matter if it is FSU and Clemson or Cincy and Memphis - each conference team will still receive 20 million(using your figure) from the football television contract. Everyone against expansion though that the total money would not change and you would divide by 12 not ten so the money will go down.

And the ACC is going to be behind the other 4 power 5 conferences in total money no matter what fantasy you talk about. And that difference is going to get larger each year.

I for one do not hold out hope for Clemson and FSU - they are deeply entrenched in the wine and cheese crowd of the ACC.

No, that's incorrect. Everyone in the Big 12 knew the clause was in there and what it meant. The presidents and AD's knew it. For crying out loud, CBS reported it 3 years ago. It's just the average fans that didn't know about it, and that doesn't matter.

You also didn't read the other part. It's only the TV contract that stays the same. All the other money, CFP, bowls, basketball, does go down. Bowlsby said that this other revenue accounts for 40% of the total payout, so 40% of your payout does get divided by 12. The problem is the other 60% doesn't increase to offset that.

The ACC's payout was higher that the Pac 12's last year, and even with the SEC. The problem is, I have real numbers, and you are just making up stuff. You don't have any facts to back you up. I've posted plenty of factual material to support my point.
 
You are not reading things right - TV money from the main contract will expand in total but only enough to add enough to add the same money for the extra schools. If it is 200 million now it would become 240 million if the B12 expands to 12. No I do not expect it to grow until the next contract - others may be hinting at that but not me.

Hell I know that the playoff money and basketball money will not change - bowl money will go up if more teams make bowls and basketball money can go up also.

You have more mouths to feed do your total money would be more. But the telling fact came from ESPN - 27.5 million for the Orange Bowl while the four conferences from the Sugar and Rose get 40 million each - that says it all right there - the ACC has less value then the other 4. You can spout all the numbers that you want to throw around it still comes down to those numbers.

I prefer the Big 12 because they are mostly all similar schools - all football first schools. There are very few ACC schools that I would associate with FSU, Clemson, VT and Pitt are about it. The other 11 could disappear and it would not bother me.
 
No, they wouldn't be better off. The Big 12 TV contract pays out $20 million. The ACC TV contract payout out $18 million. If the ACC doesn't get a network, then the payout goes up by $2 million, so then the TV payout would be equal.

I'm pretty sure the ACC payout includes tier 3, B12 does not. That's a big difference.
 
No, sorry, you're wrong. The Big 12 payout was an average of $23 million last year. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...nounces-209-million-average-payout-per-school

The ACC paid out $21 million. ( I previously said 22, but it was actually 21.) http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...accs-john-swofford-made-21-million-in-2013-14

The SEC and Big 12 are the only two conference to release their payouts this year. The Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC have not yet released the payouts.

I swear, there is no bigger know-it-all on all of Rivals.
 
Um, yeah, it's a huge deal. It's not that easy to get out of contracts. You haven't given any proof that ESPN or Fox are inclined to change it. I've given you evidence to prove they are in fact not inclined to do so.
.

Actually...you haven't (except maybe in your own mind) in this thread. ...unless you consider speculation as proof.

In the LINK YOU PROVIDED a writer who may not really know jack shit (but still you're hanging your opinion on his words) wrote...

" Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

One industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, "Appalachian State or Florida State." And according to another industry source, ESPN wouldn't stand in the way of Big 12 expansion even after negotiating a new deal with the ACC."

Woody is absolutely correct when he writes that you're misunderstanding those comments. Most people reading that would think it means the total payout for the conference would increase so that ANY school added would get the same current amount as the rest of the conference membership.

So...using the link YOU PROVIDED it would seem that the Big 12 is being encouraged to expand by the networks.

-------------

...but all that has nothing to do with my original point. You acted like it's impossible to 'break' the contract but you've come to concede that you only guess that TV networks might prefer not to renegotiate. .....which is to say, "Yea LowFatMilk, both sides could decide to reconsider the current contract so nothing is set in stone. Sorry I challenged your wisdom. "
 
So just for arguments sake WVU so far is 1-2 against Texas and could just as easily be 3-0 without WVU having its own television network. Sorry but if Texas is able to have its own network good for them. If it scares you or makes you believe that WVU will never be able to win the Big 12 because Texas has The Longhorn Network then you don't understand college football very well. Missouri and Texas AM left the Big 12 for the same reason WVU would, to join the SEC. To much whining in today's society
 
Texas basically built a commodity that cannot lose money for them because of cable subscriptions and bundling it in to sports packages for .20 extra. They naturally do not want to let the other Big XII teams in on their pie that they currently keep 100% of their profit. It has, as expected, been a huge bust from a programming perspective (I mean seriously, even if a WVU network existed I would never watch anything other than the few low level football and men's basketball games that end up on it) but if people keep clicking "yes" next to the box that includes the LHN it doesn't matter.
 
Your article is a year old.

The B12 paid out $252 million for the 2014-15 school year. The ACC hasn't announced the 2014-15 school year payout to my knowledge. And then you have to add the third tier contract to these numbers. This article explains it completely:

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150529/GZ02/150529168

I get the feeling if the numbers were the same or better than the other conferences, the ACC would have announced them by now. I think that every power conference has released their payout numbers except the ACC. Their silence is deafening.

No, the Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 12 have not released this year's payouts. Only the Big 12 and SEC have released payout for this year so far. So two points. 1) You are wrong that only the ACC hasn't released the payouts. 2) It has nothing to do with the numbers being low, because by that logic, then the Big Ten and Pac 12 must have low numbers as well.

You don't understand my point. Last year, the difference between payouts of the Big 12 and ACC was only $2 million dollars. The Big 12's payout went up from $23 million to $27 million this year. That's because of the CFP money. Similrly, the ACC's payout will increase from last year's $21 million, because they also get that CFP money.

All the ACC schools have Tier 3 contracts as well. You act like the Big 12 is the only one with Tier 3 money. The aren't. Everybody has Tier 3 money.
 
Actually...you haven't (except maybe in your own mind) in this thread. ...unless you consider speculation as proof.

In the LINK YOU PROVIDED a writer who may not really know jack shit (but still you're hanging your opinion on his words) wrote...

" Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

One industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, "Appalachian State or Florida State." And according to another industry source, ESPN wouldn't stand in the way of Big 12 expansion even after negotiating a new deal with the ACC."

Woody is absolutely correct when he writes that you're misunderstanding those comments. Most people reading that would think it means the total payout for the conference would increase so that ANY school added would get the same current amount as the rest of the conference membership.

So...using the link YOU PROVIDED it would seem that the Big 12 is being encouraged to expand by the networks.

-------------

...but all that has nothing to do with my original point. You acted like it's impossible to 'break' the contract but you've come to concede that you only guess that TV networks might prefer not to renegotiate. .....which is to say, "Yea LowFatMilk, both sides could decide to reconsider the current contract so nothing is set in stone. Sorry I challenged your wisdom. "

No, I perfectly understand the comments. You don't. David Boren explained this himself in his comments.

"The contract says that our main television contract ... if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's ‘X' dollars, it stays ‘X' dollars."
http://www.burntorangenation.com/20...boren-big-12-expansion-conference-realignment

What this means is, if each school gets $20 million now, then by expanding they still get $20 million. No change.

Now, here is what you don't understand. That is not encouraging the Big 12 to expand. Why? Because everybody else that expands gets more money. For example, when the ACC expanded with Pitt and Syracuse, the payout went from $13 million to $17 million. The payout increased. Even for mediocre teams like Pitt and Syracuse it increased.

The whole point of expanding is to increase the payout. All the other conferences get to increase their payouts when they expand. The Big 12 doesn't. They only get the same payout for expanding. When everybody else gets an increase from expansion, that encourages expansion. When the payout only stays the same, that's not encouraging expansion. If the networks wanted to encourage the Big 12 to expand, then they wouldn't have put in this restrictive clause. They would have let the Big 12 increase their payout like all the other conferences.

Regarding the issue of contract law, no sorry, I'm not conceding anything. You aren't going to be able to get around that clause. ESPN and Fox aren't going to remove it. You are just trying to argue on a theoretical point to deflect attention away from the reality that the clause exists and you just didn't know about it.
 
I'm pretty sure the ACC payout includes tier 3, B12 does not. That's a big difference.

No, it's not a big difference. Everybody has Tier 3 contracts. Tier 3 includes more than just TV. For example, one poster said West Virginia gets $7-8 million from its Tier 3 contract. By comparison, North Carolina gets $11 million from its Tier 3 contract. The point is, The ACC's TV deal doesn't hinder the schools from getting good Tier 3 deals.

Oh, and just so you know, all the other conferences signed their Tier 3 rights into their TV contracts as well. The SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 did it. The only conference that hasn't done it is the Big 12.
 
No, it's not a big difference. Everybody has Tier 3 contracts. Tier 3 includes more than just TV. For example, one poster said West Virginia gets $7-8 million from its Tier 3 contract. By comparison, North Carolina gets $11 million from its Tier 3 contract. The point is, The ACC's TV deal doesn't hinder the schools from getting good Tier 3 deals.

Oh, and just so you know, all the other conferences signed their Tier 3 rights into their TV contracts as well. The SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 did it. The only conference that hasn't done it is the Big 12.
The total pay out from the ACC includes each teams Tier 3. The conference owns them. The Big 12 plays not part in Tier 3 money. Each schools gets what it can get. So for an ACC school the payout was $21 million and that includes Tier 3. For Big 12 schools it was $23 million plus tier 3 money. For a decent program that can be a very big deal and a major incentive.
 
The total pay out from the ACC includes each teams Tier 3. The conference owns them. The Big 12 plays not part in Tier 3 money. Each schools gets what it can get. So for an ACC school the payout was $21 million and that includes Tier 3. For Big 12 schools it was $23 million plus tier 3 money. For a decent program that can be a very big deal and a major incentive.

I explained this clearly. ACC schools also have Tier 3 money. You don't understand what Tier 3 is. Tier 3 is the lowest of the TV rights, plus radio, internet, etc. The ACC only signed away the TV component of Tier 3. They still have the other rights.

For example, North Carolina gets $11 million from its Tier 3 package without TV. West Virginia gets $7-8 million (per other posters) with TV. So even without TV, North Carolina still makes more in Tier 3 money.

I use that example to illustrate this point: Tier 3 TV rights simply aren't worth as much as you think they are. That's because the Tier 3 TV games are the crappy games against mid-majors or FCS teams. That one game by itself isn't very valuable. They are only valuable when packaged together, like the SEC/Big Ten/Pac 12 did to form their networks. You might could say that Texas is an exception to the rule, but how many schools are like Texas?
 
What this means is, if each school gets $20 million now, then by expanding they still get $20 million. No change.

Now, here is what you don't understand. That is not encouraging the Big 12 to expand. Why? Because everybody else that expands gets more money. For example, when the ACC expanded with Pitt and Syracuse, the payout went from $13 million to $17 million. The payout increased. Even for mediocre teams like Pitt and Syracuse it increased.

The whole point of expanding is to increase the payout. All the other conferences get to increase their payouts when they expand. The Big 12 doesn't. They only get the same payout for expanding. When everybody else gets an increase from expansion, that encourages expansion. When the payout only stays the same, that's not encouraging expansion. If the networks wanted to encourage the Big 12 to expand, then they wouldn't have put in this restrictive clause. They would have let the Big 12 increase their payout like all the other conferences.

The ACC contract was not written to increase with new members - it was renegotiated. The Big 12 contract was written so that it would be know no matter what the money would be at least the same. You still would have the money for a championship game. And ESPN told what they think of the ACC with the Orange Bowl contract.

As for tier 3 - I is totally illogical to compare WVU money with North Carolina - because of the UNC Basketball. Try comparing WVU to VT or Pitt.
 
ADVERTISEMENT