This is exactly the word game that ACC supporters play when comparing TV contracts and payouts. The contract is with the conference and not individual schools thus when the contract goes from say $200 million to $240 million it is an increase even when the payout per school is the same. Before this was pointed out by the OU President, many ACC posters were arguing that the contract wouldn't increase and every school would have to take less by the same pie being sliced more ways and that just isn't factually true.
It's not a word game. The fact that the payout per schools doesn't increase is the entire point. The reason the other conferences expanded is because the
payout per school increased. If you add more teams, and the payout per school doesn't increase, then adding the schools is pointless.
Nobody was arguing that the individual schools would get less money from the TV contract. That's you either twisting or misunderstanding what people said. What is true is that the rest of the conference payout, CFP, bowls, NCAA tournament, does have to be split two extra ways. Bob Bowlsby confirmed this. He also said that this revenue accounts for 40% of the conferences entire revenue:
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
So what happens is, 40% of your entire payout gets split two extra ways, and the TV contract does not increase. Well, guess what? That means you have a net loss. That's what I've been saying, and it's 100% accurate.
I think that it is incredibly naive to think that if FSU and Clemson joined the Big 12, the networks would not increase the Big 12 contracts considerable more than if UConn and Cincinnati joined. Your linked articles from unnamed industry sources seems to undermine your argument more than anything else. Useless conjecture from years ago doesn't get any better with time.
No, it doesn't undermine my argument at all. It's very simple. The payout stays the same if the Big 12 expands, no matter who the teams are. There is a specific clause in the contract that says this, which I quoted.
For some reason, you keep ignoring that fact that
David Boren said this himself. I'll post it yet again:
"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://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/threads/expansion-big12-network-p5-lhn-mid-majors.25953/page-2
Let me translate this quote for you, since so many people seem to misunderstand it. He said that the share each team gets from the TV contract will stay the same,
even if new schools are added. So if each school gets $20 million from the contract now, each school will still get $20 million even if the conference expands.
He didn't say that it only applied to UConn or Cincinnati. He didn't say it would be different if Clemson and Florida St are the teams. Why didn't he say that? Because that's not what's in the contract. The contract clearly states that the payout per school stays the same, regardless of who the new teams are.
Let me address your point about the "insiders." I posted a direct quote from Chuck Neinas, who was the Big 12 commissioner when the contract was signed. He had a direct meeting with ESPN and Fox. This is his direct quote about the meeting:
Neinas' response: “Our television partners agreed that the only new member that would enhance the Big 12 value for television was Notre Dame.”
http://newsok.com/big-12-interim-co...at-would-add-tv-value/article/3688049/?page=1
That's the commissioner of the Big 12. That's not a nameless insider. Neinas talked specifically with ESPN and Fox, and they said Florida St and Clemson would not increase the payout that each Big 12 school receives. What is so hard to understand about that?
Third tier rights are difficult to compare between schools, but only in the Big 12 are all of those rights retained by the school. This is part of the reason that Big 12 schools did so favorably when compared to the payout from other conferences like the SEC and PAC12. And the ACC to my knowledge still hasn't announced their payout from last "school" year. The Big 12's payout was $252 million.
Ok, explain this to me. You just said:
the Big 12 are all of those rights retained by the school. This is part of the reason that Big 12 schools did so favorably when compared to the payout from other conferences like the SEC and PAC12
Any rights retained by the school are not included in the conference payouts.
So explain to me how the Big 12’s Tier 3 rights affected the
conference payouts if the conference never gets that money in the first place? If you are comparing conference payouts, then you can only compare money that
is paid out by the conference. The Big 12 conference itself doesn’t own any Tier 3 rights, so that’s not part of the conference payout.
Now, regarding the payouts for this year, only two conferences have announced. The SEC and Big 12. The SEC paid out $31.2 million per team, and the Big 12 paid out $27 million per team. How is the Big 12 doing “favorably” compared to the SEC when they paid out $4 million less?
You don’t know how the Big 12 did compared to the Pac 12, because the Pac 12 hasn’t announced yet. In fact, the Pac 12, Big Ten, and ACC all have not announced their payouts for this year. Explain to me why you criticize the ACC for this, but not the Big Ten and Pac 12?
