Looks like no Big12 expansion

[Buckaineer]

I'm not sure this was in response to my post but if it was you didn't respond to not one of my points. Not one. You sound like a freakin robot with an agenda for crying out loud.

The question is, what makes you so right? What can you prove? The answer is NOTHING. I made some good points that you completely ignored.

What you're doing is fear mongering. Downplaying Missouri and A&M and jacking up Cincy and BYU? Who do you think you're fooling? Maybe BYU can be put on the same level as Mizzou but the fact is, I don't think the Big 12 has any desire to expand west or further within the state of Texas.

It's called patience and Louisville is the team that they need. Who knows what could happen even before the GOR's are up. Who would have thought the Big 10 did what they did in their last move.

If the committee expands the playoffs to 6 teams your argument is moot. If the ranking system would go in the direction I suggested, your argument is moot. And Cincinnati is not going to do anything for this conference and it's not the conference's responsibility to prop up their program as in, "once you get here I'm sure you'll get better." Bull$hit.

What you're suggesting is exactly what the OU guy does not want and that is to expand for the sake of expanding. That won't work for sure and could lead to the Big 12's demise like the Big East adding Marquette and DePaul was really the beginning of the end. They didn't have to do that, regardless of how good or mediocre those programs are/were.

Not sure what your issue is but you are the one that is fear mongering claiming no one available or acting though its a disaster if you don't get who you wanted.

Boren addressed Louisville and they have moved on and are under a grant of rights through 2027 and also have an enormous buyout. There isn't a conference in existence that can buy them out of a grant of rights and pay off their buyout and pay them higher revenues than they get now and keep existing members whole as well.
Its not happening.

He also addressed grants of rights and how solid they are and that no one is going to try and get out of them. That doesn't fit what you want to be, but its the truth and as I've stated before and will again--the BIG 12 can't make decisions based on fantasy, they must deal with the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that the conference passed on schools like Louisville, FSU and Clemson even though some pushed hard to get these schools--Boren being one, and now they must add who they can realistically add.

Boren has told you that they've identified 6 or 7 schools not under grants of rights that will add to the conference.
He wants to add two of these schools immediately, so I really have no idea what you mean when you claim "What you're suggesting is exactly what the OU guy does not want and that is to expand for the sake of expanding."
I simply reiterated what we've been told directly, and clearly from the conference (and expansion committee) leaders. Now if you don't believe the president of Oklahoma, then that's your issue, not mine. Its pretty clear from his statements that he isn't lying and believes what he says is in the best interest of all parties and WVUs president Gordon Gee agrees with him btw.

No one in charge is predicting expansion of the playoffs beyond four and in fact no one in charge of the BIG 12, Big Ten, SEC, etc. wants that to happen. Just today an article pointed out Condaleeza Rice wants the playoffs to remain at four and this has also been stated by the head of the playoffs and previous chair as well. Again, the BIG 12 CANNOT make decisions that will determine its future based on message board fantasy. It isn't going to work that way.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are again in error - at least you are consistent. The Big-12 will get the same per school if it adds two school as it will if does not. This has been proven already. The Big-12 will then add money from th CCG. Adding ANY does no reduce any current members pay out.

WHY ARE YOU HERE? This is not your board

He doesn't want the BIG 12 to do anything proactive--he is a shill for the ACC-or is it SEC?

 

[topdecktiger]

You claim "Cincinnati doesn't deliver their market". Based on what. You've not provided a shred of evidence yet you keep stating things like this emphatically. You need to go back and read some of the interviews and articles posted. Boren states clearly that the BIG 12's expansion committee and consultants have evaluated multiple schools and found 6 or 7 that will be additive. These are all schools not within grants of rights agreements.

If you go back and read Boren's comments from last year he also discussed this when he initially brought up wanting to expand. He stated then that if the right schools were chosen expansion could be additive rather than subtract, and now he has told us they've identified schools that this is true for. Bowlsby btw never said there were no schools available that wouldn't be additive, he has stated there aren't many, and things like any schools added would have to bring something to the table. Bowlsby further stated that if the conference expanded that while the tv contract remains the same that doesn't address other money that would need to be split further--but he never said there isn't anyone available that would bridge that gap. A CCG of $25-$35 million takes care of the split of other monies, NCAA credentials add, new bowls add--there's probably markets that can be added that would deliver a boost.

Adding schools does add money to the BIG 12 if the tv networks pay them for the adds as they have done for other conferences and that is likely. Adding schools also expands the footprint and doing that allows for a conference network which is going to also boost league revenues.

Nothing has been revealed because the conference hasn't expanded and negotiated for more money--what, you thought they were going to lay everything out for you step by step? You won't ever know the exact money until you see tax returns and even then its just one year. Conferences keep those things close to the vest.

The BIG 12 has decisions to make and votes to take--but there are schools available that will add to the conference straight from the president of one of the top schools and a member of the expansion committee. Sorry but you don't know more about it than him.

Based on ratings......You keep bringing up Boren's quote, but ignoring Bowlsby's. Bowlsby didn't agree with this during the summer. He was doubtful as to whether the extra teams would make enough money to make up for the split revenue.

Here's the problem with the CCG. You aren't getting $25-30 million. The CCG is already under contract with ESPN. There isn't extra money there. Of course, there would be from things like ticket sales, but not from TV rights.

The conferences only get paid for having ads if there they have a conference network. They don't get paid for ads under their regular contracts. You also have some issues with the conference network. The LHN is one. The other is that the only rights currently available are the Tier 3 rights. Those only amount to one football game, which would currently only be 10. If you partner with either ESPN or Fox, that would leave more potential content. Of course there, the content is split between ESPN and Fox, so it's questionable whether there would still be enough content for a network. On top of that, ESPN's financial troubles bring into question whether or not they would be willing to start a network.

The conference isn't going to be able to negotiate for more money. That's the whole point of the pro rata increase. It precludes negotiation. That's the whole problem. The other conferences can unlock their contracts by adding more teams. Doesn't necessarily mean they will get more money, but they can unlock them. The Big 12 doesn't have that option. The pro rata increase specifically keeps the contract from opening up for negotiation. That's why it was put in there in the first place. If ESPN and Fox wanted to negotiate, they wouldn't have put in the pro rata increase, which precludes negotiations.

Sorry, you don't know more than Bowlsby either. He doesn't see it the same as Boren. There is a reason the Big 12 never replaced Nebraska and Colorado. The money isn't there to do it.

You are again in error - at least you are consistent. The Big-12 will get the same per school if it adds two school as it will if does not. This has been proven already. The Big-12 will then add money from th CCG. Adding ANY does no reduce any current members pay out.

WHY ARE YOU HERE? This is not your board

No, I'm not in error. I clearly said that the TV contract will stay flat. You admitted it yourself. If the payout per school (from the TV contract) stays the same as it is now, even if more schools are added, that that means the payout remains flat. That's exactly what I said.

Regarding the CCG, the problem is, the CCG is already under contract with ESPN. The Big 12 already gets that money now. They would get money like ticket sales and such, but that's not going to offset the money lost from splitting the rest of the pot extra ways.

 

[Buckaineer]

Based on ratings......You keep bringing up Boren's quote, but ignoring Bowlsby's. Bowlsby didn't agree with this during the summer. He was doubtful as to whether the extra teams would make enough money to make up for the split revenue.

Here's the problem with the CCG. You aren't getting $25-30 million. The CCG is already under contract with ESPN. There isn't extra money there. Of course, there would be from things like ticket sales, but not from TV rights.

The conferences only get paid for having ads if there they have a conference network. They don't get paid for ads under their regular contracts. You also have some issues with the conference network. The LHN is one. The other is that the only rights currently available are the Tier 3 rights. Those only amount to one football game, which would currently only be 10. If you partner with either ESPN or Fox, that would leave more potential content. Of course there, the content is split between ESPN and Fox, so it's questionable whether there would still be enough content for a network. On top of that, ESPN's financial troubles bring into question whether or not they would be willing to start a network.

The conference isn't going to be able to negotiate for more money. That's the whole point of the pro rata increase. It precludes negotiation. That's the whole problem. The other conferences can unlock their contracts by adding more teams. Doesn't necessarily mean they will get more money, but they can unlock them. The Big 12 doesn't have that option. The pro rata increase specifically keeps the contract from opening up for negotiation. That's why it was put in there in the first place. If ESPN and Fox wanted to negotiate, they wouldn't have put in the pro rata increase, which precludes negotiations.

Sorry, you don't know more than Bowlsby either. He doesn't see it the same as Boren. There is a reason the Big 12 never replaced Nebraska and Colorado. The money isn't there to do it.



No, I'm not in error. I clearly said that the TV contract will stay flat. You admitted it yourself. If the payout per school (from the TV contract) stays the same as it is now, even if more schools are added, that that means the payout remains flat. That's exactly what I said.

Regarding the CCG, the problem is, the CCG is already under contract with ESPN. The Big 12 already gets that money now. They would get money like ticket sales and such, but that's not going to offset the money lost from splitting the rest of the pot extra ways.

Oklahoma's president says that 6-7 schools will be additive to the BIG 12.

If they are able to implement his conference network idea then they'll add quite a bit.

Why do you continue to want to claim otherwise.

 

[Buckaineer]

Based on ratings......You keep bringing up Boren's quote, but ignoring Bowlsby's. Bowlsby didn't agree with this during the summer. He was doubtful as to whether the extra teams would make enough money to make up for the split revenue.

Here's the problem with the CCG. You aren't getting $25-30 million. The CCG is already under contract with ESPN. There isn't extra money there. Of course, there would be from things like ticket sales, but not from TV rights.

The conferences only get paid for having ads if there they have a conference network. They don't get paid for ads under their regular contracts. You also have some issues with the conference network. The LHN is one. The other is that the only rights currently available are the Tier 3 rights. Those only amount to one football game, which would currently only be 10. If you partner with either ESPN or Fox, that would leave more potential content. Of course there, the content is split between ESPN and Fox, so it's questionable whether there would still be enough content for a network. On top of that, ESPN's financial troubles bring into question whether or not they would be willing to start a network.

The conference isn't going to be able to negotiate for more money. That's the whole point of the pro rata increase. It precludes negotiation. That's the whole problem. The other conferences can unlock their contracts by adding more teams. Doesn't necessarily mean they will get more money, but they can unlock them. The Big 12 doesn't have that option. The pro rata increase specifically keeps the contract from opening up for negotiation. That's why it was put in there in the first place. If ESPN and Fox wanted to negotiate, they wouldn't have put in the pro rata increase, which precludes negotiations.

Sorry, you don't know more than Bowlsby either. He doesn't see it the same as Boren. There is a reason the Big 12 never replaced Nebraska and Colorado. The money isn't there to do it.



No, I'm not in error. I clearly said that the TV contract will stay flat. You admitted it yourself. If the payout per school (from the TV contract) stays the same as it is now, even if more schools are added, that that means the payout remains flat. That's exactly what I said.

Regarding the CCG, the problem is, the CCG is already under contract with ESPN. The Big 12 already gets that money now. They would get money like ticket sales and such, but that's not going to offset the money lost from splitting the rest of the pot extra ways.

Great story. You are wrong as usual.

Bowlsby said this last summer:
"There are some places we could gain (financially) by being larger and some places we'd lose by being larger".

At no point did he claim that no candidates would be able to bridge the losses or ways in which that might be overcome--he is just stating that the tv contract would be pro rata for new members and other money would be split further. The other money turns out to be less than what would be gained back in a CCG.

Which brings us to your next misinformation--that the CCG is already under contract with ESPN. Have seen the BIG 12 haters try to claim this before--its simply not true.

On Wednesday 1/13 Bowlsby stated this to the media when addressing CCG deregulation:
"Bowlsby said Wednesday that the game could be worth $25-30 million to the conference, which would mean $2.5 to $3 million in the pocket of every league member."
So then, why are you coming here trying to convince people its already under contract? That is a lie and you know it. The BIG 12 doesn't have a CCG under contract.

On to your other misinformation. Ads. When I say advertisers like markets, I'm not saying advertisers are going to pay for ads directly to the BIG 12. Who pays the BIG 12? ESPN and FOX. How do ESPN and FOX make money to pay the BIG 12? Advertisers. Its not hard to understand unless your flailing about like you trying to paint an inaccurate picture of BIG 12 expansion.

Boren addressed the LHN being rolled into a conference network. Guarantees to Texas that they'll get what they were supposed to get for the LHN for the duration of that deal. The difference is that everyone else will also get a larger slice than they do now. As to what is available for a BIG 12 network, what you are conveniently leaving out is that right now there would be one game per school available to air. This of course isn't exactly accurate because the LHN has been able to put two or three football games on each season and some other schools have also had more than one game that the networks didn't want and the conference agreed to. That is written in the BIG 12 contracts.

The other major flaw in your attempts to disparage the BIG 12--adding two schools means you've added at least 20 possible football games that could be aired. That doesn't mean they'd all be games from the two new schools, that means at least 20 games added to the BIG 12 inventory that aren't currently under BIG 12 contract. The 12 team Pac 12 puts on 35 football games on their networks per season. 20 plus ten =30 potential football games the BIG 12 would be able to put on right off the bat without affecting existing tv splits between ESPN and FOX. Boren already addressed that schools will have to get rights back for their tier 3 contract to make this work, and of course there would be some renegotiation, but that has happened with everyone doing this.

As to not being able to get more money--The ACC didn't get more money for adding Louisville. The SEC didn't get more money for adding A&M and Missouri--they got pro rata shares. Same for the Big Ten adding Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. If any of them increased revenues later it was from other things those conferences did--such as starting or adding to conference networks. You act as though this is a problem but it isn't. Money can come from sponsorships. Money can come from new bowls, more NCAA appearances. Boren has stated that there are schools that would be additive to the BIG 12. He is stating that after careful research and consultation, not just speaking out of his @$$ as you are.

You are 100% incorrect when you state the BIG 12 can't get more than pro rata of course. The BIG 12s contracts aren't locked in while everyone else's are open. Everyone has the same types of clauses in these contracts because they are all based on the same law and drafted by people that do these contracts for a living. What these contracts allow for is negotiation if schools are added at a MINIMUM of PRO RATA increase if negotiations break down. The BIG 12 isn't locked into anything anymore than anyone else. Again, Boren states that certain schools will be additive.

The BIG 12 didn't expand for several reasons after schools left. Couldn't work out agreements with schools such as Air Force and BYU. Many wanted to try out the round robin schedule to meet conference mates they didn't see as often prior to realignment. There has always been the reluctance to have a rematch in a CCG because of losses previously that knocked out BIG 12 champions. There have been misconceptions about revenues but those misconceptions have gradually come to light and that isn't holding schools back from expansion.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Based

He doesn't want the BIG 12 to do anything proactive--he is a shill for the ACC-or is it SEC?

Based on the vitriol that oozes from his mouth and after reading the comments he has made on other boards - his bed is in the ACC. IMO, Vernon should drop the hammer on his visits.

 

[Papillion]

Not sure what your issue is but you are the one that is fear mongering claiming no one available or acting though its a disaster if you don't get who you wanted.

Boren addressed Louisville and they have moved on and are under a grant of rights through 2027 and also have an enormous buyout. There isn't a conference in existence that can buy them out of a grant of rights and pay off their buyout and pay them higher revenues than they get now and keep existing members whole as well.
Its not happening.

He also addressed grants of rights and how solid they are and that no one is going to try and get out of them. That doesn't fit what you want to be, but its the truth and as I've stated before and will again--the BIG 12 can't make decisions based on fantasy, they must deal with the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that the conference passed on schools like Louisville, FSU and Clemson even though some pushed hard to get these schools--Boren being one, and now they must add who they can realistically add.

Boren has told you that they've identified 6 or 7 schools not under grants of rights that will add to the conference.
He wants to add two of these schools immediately, so I really have no idea what you mean when you claim "What you're suggesting is exactly what the OU guy does not want and that is to expand for the sake of expanding."
I simply reiterated what we've been told directly, and clearly from the conference (and expansion committee) leaders. Now if you don't believe the president of Oklahoma, then that's your issue, not mine. Its pretty clear from his statements that he isn't lying and believes what he says is in the best interest of all parties and WVUs president Gordon Gee agrees with him btw.

No one in charge is predicting expansion of the playoffs beyond four and in fact no one in charge of the BIG 12, Big Ten, SEC, etc. wants that to happen. Just today an article pointed out Condaleeza Rice wants the playoffs to remain at four and this has also been stated by the head of the playoffs and previous chair as well. Again, the BIG 12 CANNOT make decisions that will determine its future based on message board fantasy. It isn't going to work that way.

Not sure what your issue is but you are the one that is fear mongering claiming no one available or acting though its a disaster if you don't get who you wanted.

Boren addressed Louisville and they have moved on and are under a grant of rights through 2027 and also have an enormous buyout. There isn't a conference in existence that can buy them out of a grant of rights and pay off their buyout and pay them higher revenues than they get now and keep existing members whole as well.
Its not happening.

He also addressed grants of rights and how solid they are and that no one is going to try and get out of them. That doesn't fit what you want to be, but its the truth and as I've stated before and will again--the BIG 12 can't make decisions based on fantasy, they must deal with the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that the conference passed on schools like Louisville, FSU and Clemson even though some pushed hard to get these schools--Boren being one, and now they must add who they can realistically add.

Boren has told you that they've identified 6 or 7 schools not under grants of rights that will add to the conference.
He wants to add two of these schools immediately, so I really have no idea what you mean when you claim "What you're suggesting is exactly what the OU guy does not want and that is to expand for the sake of expanding."
I simply reiterated what we've been told directly, and clearly from the conference (and expansion committee) leaders. Now if you don't believe the president of Oklahoma, then that's your issue, not mine. Its pretty clear from his statements that he isn't lying and believes what he says is in the best interest of all parties and WVUs president Gordon Gee agrees with him btw.

No one in charge is predicting expansion of the playoffs beyond four and in fact no one in charge of the BIG 12, Big Ten, SEC, etc. wants that to happen. Just today an article pointed out Condaleeza Rice wants the playoffs to remain at four and this has also been stated by the head of the playoffs and previous chair as well. Again, the BIG 12 CANNOT make decisions that will determine its future based on message board fantasy. It isn't going to work that way.

I'm fear mongering? Nice way to twist things. You sound like a propaganda machine now. Your incessant rants about Boren this and Boren that regarding 6-7 teams, etc., is mongering something.

What makes you think Boren is so right, just because he has the job he does? You've never heard of a CEO being wrong before?

I brought up Louisville just as a what-if, you never know type of thing. That is all. I'm not talking about Clemson or FSU where they were rumored to possibly coming in. That would have been a mistake for a different reason, as far as I'm concerned but that's another issue. The point is you don't know what the future holds or what might break down or change anymore than these conferences bloating themselves beyond 12 teams in thinking it's going to work.

The fact is there is no one on the level of even a UL out there to be taken that has the whole package like BB and FB with facilities, money and fan base. I'm just comparing UL now because I, like many others have already admitted the Big 12 missed the boat in not taking them along with WVU.

BYU might be a decent addition if they were closer but now the conf is expanding westward and I don't think they want to do that. The direction the conf expandes, if they do, will change the identity, or add to it and that is something not to be taken lightly.

As far as the comment about expanding for the sake of expanding, Boren made some remark in there about that as well. That's why I connected that comment to you because he doesn't want to do that but you do, which is what adding schools like Cincy and Uconn would be doing. Expanding all the way to the ocean now? Tell us how those Texas schools wouldn't mind traveling all the way to Connecticut every year, and I'm not just talking BB and FB.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

I'm fear mongering? Nice way to twist things. You sound like a propaganda machine now. Your incessant rants about Boren this and Boren that regarding 6-7 teams, etc., is mongering something.

What makes you think Boren is so right, just because he has the job he does? You've never heard of a CEO being wrong before?

I brought up Louisville just as a what-if, you never know type of thing. That is all. I'm not talking about Clemson or FSU where they were rumored to possibly coming in. That would have been a mistake for a different reason, as far as I'm concerned but that's another issue. The point is you don't know what the future holds or what might break down or change anymore than these conferences bloating themselves beyond 12 teams in thinking it's going to work.

The fact is there is no one on the level of even a UL out there to be taken that has the whole package like BB and FB with facilities, money and fan base. I'm just comparing UL now because I, like many others have already admitted the Big 12 missed the boat in not taking them along with WVU.

BYU might be a decent addition if they were closer but now the conf is expanding westward and I don't think they want to do that. The direction the conf expandes, if they do, will change the identity, or add to it and that is something not to be taken lightly.

As far as the comment about expanding for the sake of expanding, Boren made some remark in there about that as well. That's why I connected that comment to you because he doesn't want to do that but you do, which is what adding schools like Cincy and Uconn would be doing. Expanding all the way to the ocean now? Tell us how those Texas schools wouldn't mind traveling all the way to Connecticut every year, and I'm not just talking BB and FB.

I do not think Louisville missed the Big-12 boat because of its resume, which I think was adequate for membership. I think what did them in was the manner in which they tried to get into the Big-12 by crapping all over WVU's entry process that was already well underway. No one wants to invite in someone that makes such dubious choice in tactics in dealing with out institutions. There would be every reason that Louisville would be just as underhanded as a conference member and the Big-12 already has one self-entitled prima donna but at least Taxes has a reason to believe that. Louisville is an inner city commuter school on steroids I will grant you, but still, they are a commuter school. They should fit in well in the ACC with that sort of style.

 

[Papillion]

I do not think Louisville missed the Big-12 boat because of its resume, which I think was adequate for membership. I think what did them in was the manner in which they tried to get into the Big-12 by crapping all over WVU's entry process that was already well underway. No one wants to invite in someone that makes such dubious choice in tactics in dealing with out institutions. There would be every reason that Louisville would be just as underhanded as a conference member and the Big-12 already has one self-entitled prima donna but at least Taxes has a reason to believe that. Louisville is an inner city commuter school on steroids I will grant you, but still, they are a commuter school. They should fit in well in the ACC with that sort of style.

Yes, but what school doesn't have their warts? There are a growing number of people that now see that not inviting both WVU and UL was a mistake. The Big 12 could have stuck at 11 like the Big 10 made it work for years. The Big 12 could have then been a kind of renegade type conf where they could have pushed for total conf atonomy, like wanting their own overtime system or instant replay system, things like that.

I'd love the Big 12 push for something like this. The overtime system is a high school system and just like the 3 point line in BB, should be separated by levels of play, as an example. The replay system actually slows the game down. I'd love to see coaches wager challenges against their timeouts. Then you'd see some real strategy as opposed to challenging every freakin play that some honestly, aren't necessary and waste time challenging.

This was just some of the things I could see the Big 12 doing and going in their own direction and taking on an almost "hip" like look to their conf in the eyes of the rest of the country. Now, they're having to defend against something that the media has fallen for and now the fans have fallen right into play: the conf has to expand because? just because. The fact is the Big 12 doesn't have to expand nor does it or should it have to have a CCG to get into the playoffs. They play a round robin which takes care of business.

My point is that UL was a perfect bridge for WVU and the expansion would have been eastward. UL isn't perfect but they have a top notch BB program and good but not great FB program. Solid facilities and fan base along with money. That was the main point. They don't belong in the ACC anymore than Mizzou in the SEC or BC in the ACC, etc, etc.

 

[skygusty]

Don't you think that someday they are going to get to the point that they figure out how many people are actually watching, rather than the population or the number of TV sets? The ACC has a whole bunch of teams that nobody watches until it is basketball season. That model isn't a slam dunk in my mind. I'm not particularly excited about seeing the BIG12 think about going down that road.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Yes, but what school doesn't have their warts? There are a growing number of people that now see that not inviting both WVU and UL was a mistake. The Big 12 could have stuck at 11 like the Big 10 made it work for years. The Big 12 could have then been a kind of renegade type conf where they could have pushed for total conf atonomy, like wanting their own overtime system or instant replay system, things like that.

I'd love the Big 12 push for something like this. The overtime system is a high school system and just like the 3 point line in BB, should be separated by levels of play, as an example. The replay system actually slows the game down. I'd love to see coaches wager challenges against their timeouts. Then you'd see some real strategy as opposed to challenging every freakin play that some honestly, aren't necessary and waste time challenging.

This was just some of the things I could see the Big 12 doing and going in their own direction and taking on an almost "hip" like look to their conf in the eyes of the rest of the country. Now, they're having to defend against something that the media has fallen for and now the fans have fallen right into play: the conf has to expand because? just because. The fact is the Big 12 doesn't have to expand nor does it or should it have to have a CCG to get into the playoffs. They play a round robin which takes care of business.

My point is that UL was a perfect bridge for WVU and the expansion would have been eastward. UL isn't perfect but they have a top notch BB program and good but not great FB program. Solid facilities and fan base along with money. That was the main point. They don't belong in the ACC anymore than Mizzou in the SEC or BC in the ACC, etc, etc.

That is the problem with decisions based in part on emotions, regret always seems to be an outcome at some point. Louisville would have been a good addition and made adding Cincinnati later on a natural choice. Grabbing all three at the same time with TCU would have been an even better choice. I have no more desire to play Texas and Oklahoma every year than I did playing Miami every year after the first couple of times. It got to be the norm and that will sit in with Texas and Oklahoma in the next year or two.

 

[topdecktiger]

Great story. You are wrong as usual.

Bowlsby said this last summer:
"There are some places we could gain (financially) by being larger and some places we'd lose by being larger".

At no point did he claim that no candidates would be able to bridge the losses or ways in which that might be overcome--he is just stating that the tv contract would be pro rata for new members and other money would be split further. The other money turns out to be less than what would be gained back in a CCG.

Which brings us to your next misinformation--that the CCG is already under contract with ESPN. Have seen the BIG 12 haters try to claim this before--its simply not true.

On Wednesday 1/13 Bowlsby stated this to the media when addressing CCG deregulation:
"Bowlsby said Wednesday that the game could be worth $25-30 million to the conference, which would mean $2.5 to $3 million in the pocket of every league member."
So then, why are you coming here trying to convince people its already under contract? That is a lie and you know it. The BIG 12 doesn't have a CCG under contract.

On to your other misinformation. Ads. When I say advertisers like markets, I'm not saying advertisers are going to pay for ads directly to the BIG 12. Who pays the BIG 12? ESPN and FOX. How do ESPN and FOX make money to pay the BIG 12? Advertisers. Its not hard to understand unless your flailing about like you trying to paint an inaccurate picture of BIG 12 expansion.

Boren addressed the LHN being rolled into a conference network. Guarantees to Texas that they'll get what they were supposed to get for the LHN for the duration of that deal. The difference is that everyone else will also get a larger slice than they do now. As to what is available for a BIG 12 network, what you are conveniently leaving out is that right now there would be one game per school available to air. This of course isn't exactly accurate because the LHN has been able to put two or three football games on each season and some other schools have also had more than one game that the networks didn't want and the conference agreed to. That is written in the BIG 12 contracts.

The other major flaw in your attempts to disparage the BIG 12--adding two schools means you've added at least 20 possible football games that could be aired. That doesn't mean they'd all be games from the two new schools, that means at least 20 games added to the BIG 12 inventory that aren't currently under BIG 12 contract. The 12 team Pac 12 puts on 35 football games on their networks per season. 20 plus ten =30 potential football games the BIG 12 would be able to put on right off the bat without affecting existing tv splits between ESPN and FOX. Boren already addressed that schools will have to get rights back for their tier 3 contract to make this work, and of course there would be some renegotiation, but that has happened with everyone doing this.

As to not being able to get more money--The ACC didn't get more money for adding Louisville. The SEC didn't get more money for adding A&M and Missouri--they got pro rata shares. Same for the Big Ten adding Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. If any of them increased revenues later it was from other things those conferences did--such as starting or adding to conference networks. You act as though this is a problem but it isn't. Money can come from sponsorships. Money can come from new bowls, more NCAA appearances. Boren has stated that there are schools that would be additive to the BIG 12. He is stating that after careful research and consultation, not just speaking out of his @$$ as you are.

You are 100% incorrect when you state the BIG 12 can't get more than pro rata of course. The BIG 12s contracts aren't locked in while everyone else's are open. Everyone has the same types of clauses in these contracts because they are all based on the same law and drafted by people that do these contracts for a living. What these contracts allow for is negotiation if schools are added at a MINIMUM of PRO RATA increase if negotiations break down. The BIG 12 isn't locked into anything anymore than anyone else. Again, Boren states that certain schools will be additive.

The BIG 12 didn't expand for several reasons after schools left. Couldn't work out agreements with schools such as Air Force and BYU. Many wanted to try out the round robin schedule to meet conference mates they didn't see as often prior to realignment. There has always been the reluctance to have a rematch in a CCG because of losses previously that knocked out BIG 12 champions. There have been misconceptions about revenues but those misconceptions have gradually come to light and that isn't holding schools back from expansion.

Your own quote of Bowlsby contradicts your point. He said in some places with more teams they can gain financially, but in other places lose money. That's the entire problem. You need to gain money on all ends.

It's not "haters" that are saying it. It's been said (as you point out by multiple people) because ABC still owns the rights to the game. That's why the Big 12 still got the same amount of money even after Nebraska and Colorado left.

That said, let's go back to your figures on the CCG. Adding teams takes away money. Because of the rule change, the Big 12 can have a championship right now, with just 10 teams. Let's take your figure of $30 million. So right now, today, the Big 12 could get $3 million per team. If two teams were added, it goes down to $2.5 million. Therefore, adding schools costs the Big 12 money. Again, they can have a CCG right now with 10 teams, and keep that extra money. The new teams would only be additive if they were required to have a CCG.

You are wrong about the ads. The conferences only get paid for what is agreed in the contract. They aren't going to get extra pay for ads, even indirectly. For example, let's say next year, ESPN makes an extra 5% off of ads for Big 12 games. That still won't help the Big 12 (or any other league) because they only get paid from what was agreed to in the contract. The contract won't go up just because the ads went up.

The LHN could be rolled into a B12N. That's not the issue. The issue is that ESPN, IMG, and Texas all three have to agree to it. Again, I will come back to the point. Texas makes $15 million a year off the LHN. By contrast, the SECN pays out $5 million per school, and the Big Ten $8 million per school. That's going to be some pretty hard work coming up with that much money to keep Texas at the same level they are now. Regarding inventory, my point still stands. The only games that are free for a network are the one game guaranteed to each team, so that's a total of 10. Is it possible that some extra games could fall to the Big 12? Sure, but that's the problem. They aren't guaranteed. The reason the other leagues were able to start networks is that they had guaranteed inventory. That leads to your analogy with LHN. The reason LHN was able to have other games on it is because LHN is owned by ESPN. Since it's ESPN's platform, they can put other games on there. For example, if LHN televises Texas vs. Kansas, that's because ESPN owns the rights to that game. Therefore they can put it wherever they want: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, LHN, etc. The other point I was making is that the rest of the Big 12's rights are split between ESPN and Fox. That means, if the Big 12 partnered with ESPN for a network, then none of the games owned by Fox could be used on the network.

You are also wrong about the money. The reason the ACC didn't get more money for Louisville is because Louisville was replacing a team (Maryland). The ACC did get a $4 million increase when Syracuse and Pitt were added. That's because the number of teams went from 12 to 14. When Louisville joined, the number of teams stayed at 14. The SEC did get more money for A&M and Missouri. The SEC's payout for TV rights went up from $17 million to $25 million. That's an $8 million increase. The Big Ten didn't get an increase at all. That's because the Big Ten delayed negotiating a new contract until 2016. So the Big Ten will get their increase this summer. Regarding new bowls and NCAA tournament money, it's not guaranteed, and that's the problem. The money in the TV contract is guaranteed. So, you are trading guaranteed money for "maybe" money. Especially regarding the bowls, that's inaccurate. The bowl games are already under contract. If you go through and look at all 40 bowls, they all have their spots tied in, through contract. The only way to currently get another bowl tie in is if a new bowl is created (which would be a bottom-end bowl). There is no guarantee that if, for example, Cincinnati joined the Big 12, the AAC would lose a bowl bid for the Big 12 to claim. Maybe if BYU joined the Las Vegas bowl would open up, but do you know how much it pays?

I'm 100% correct that the Big 12 won't get more that the pro rata increase. The Big 12 is the only conference that has that. When the SEC expanded, they got to renegotiate their TV contract. So did the ACC. The Big 12 contract specifically says that the payout per team will stay the same, even if new teams are added. For example, if the payout is $20 million now, it will still be $20 million when the new teams join. That's not how it is for the other leagues. Again, for example, the ACC's payout was $13 million per team, and then went up to $17 million per team when Pitt and Syracuse joined. That's not a pro rata increase. It's nothing like the Big 12's situation. The pro rata increase also isn't a minimum. It's simply what the Big 12 is going to get. Boren even said that himself. If you are going to quote Boren, you have to acknowledge that quote as well.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

If the ACC loses FSU it's going to have a major impact on that conference- it would probably tear it apart. But unfortunately FSU is under a long term grant of rights through 2027. No one is looking to fight that court battle to destroy a grant of rights because it would ruin their own.

Losing FSU would hurt for sure but the ACC will survive forever because of location. So nothing will tear apart unless they lose like 6-8 schools. It may be weakened one day(doubt it) but the Big 12 would absolutely implode if they lost Texas and Oklahoma. My point was none of those three schools are even a realistic discussion with the Big12.

 

[Rootmaster]

Anyone thinking that there will be defections from any other power conference TO the Big 12-2=10 is clearly seeing funny things through the windowpane. Is not going to happen. Period. The Big 12-2=10 is the only conference IN DANGEROUS WATERS because of the small size. Sounds a lot like the last years of the Big East. One defection away from a very shaky situation. I believe Buck is preaching the right stuff. The Big 12-2=10 needs to act now and expand by AT LEAST two schools...in the Northeast/Mideast and strengthen potential tv/cable/streaming eyeballs and national footprint. The money is already there so this is perplexing. Maybe the conference could start waiting for ND again (just like the Big East)! LOL Until that kind of fairy tale happens go for the obvious and welcome Cincinnati and Connecticut to the fold.

 

[Buckaineer]

Your own quote of Bowlsby contradicts your point. He said in some places with more teams they can gain financially, but in other places lose money. That's the entire problem. You need to gain money on all ends.

A: Bowlsby doesn't contradict anything. He is stating that while the schools will get at least pro rata for the tv contract, the other monies will have to be split. He has said before there aren't alot, but there are some that would add. Sounds oddly like what Boren stated. 6 or 7 schools would be additive. How someone on a message board actually thinks he knows more than the president of OU and a BIG 12 expansion committee member is astounding. You are wrong.

It's not "haters" that are saying it. It's been said (as you point out by multiple people) because ABC still owns the rights to the game. That's why the Big 12 still got the same amount of money even after Nebraska and Colorado left.

A:ABC owns the right to WHAT game? The BIG 12 doesn't have a contract for a CCG. Honestly are you this dense? You do realize that just a few days ago the commissioner of the BIG 12 stated that the conference would get $20-$30 million for a CCG right? So you are actually here trying to claim that the top expansion committee member doesn't know anything about expansion candidates and now that the commissioner of the BIG 12 doesn't know that his conference already has been contracted for a CCG? Are you really trying to claim that? Because no one else is that dense.

That said, let's go back to your figures on the CCG. Adding teams takes away money. Because of the rule change, the Big 12 can have a championship right now, with just 10 teams. Let's take your figure of $30 million. So right now, today, the Big 12 could get $3 million per team. If two teams were added, it goes down to $2.5 million. Therefore, adding schools costs the Big 12 money. Again, they can have a CCG right now with 10 teams, and keep that extra money. The new teams would only be additive if they were required to have a CCG.

A:The BIG 12 doesn't have a CCG. If the existing members get 2, 2.5 or 3 million more, they are getting more money than now, and they are getting enough money to mitigate any losses of splitting existing revenues more. Nice spin, but more is more and isn't hurting anyone in the BIG 12. Having a 10 team CCG isn't as beneficial as expansion and its a safe bet you can get more money negotiating for a 12 team CCG than a 10 team CCG anyway.

You are wrong about the ads. The conferences only get paid for what is agreed in the contract. They aren't going to get extra pay for ads, even indirectly. For example, let's say next year, ESPN makes an extra 5% off of ads for Big 12 games. That still won't help the Big 12 (or any other league) because they only get paid from what was agreed to in the contract. The contract won't go up just because the ads went up.

A: This just lets me know I'm not dealing with intelligence. When the BIG 12 expands, the new schools will get more money than they do now, and the existing schools may also get an increased amount. That money comes from...... you guessed it--TV partners. And where do they get money.....TADA!!!! ADVERTISERS. And how do advertisers get money--by marketing to markets.

The LHN could be rolled into a B12N. That's not the issue. The issue is that ESPN, IMG, and Texas all three have to agree to it. Again, I will come back to the point. Texas makes $15 million a year off the LHN. By contrast, the SECN pays out $5 million per school, and the Big Ten $8 million per school. That's going to be some pretty hard work coming up with that much money to keep Texas at the same level they are now. Regarding inventory, my point still stands. The only games that are free for a network are the one game guaranteed to each team, so that's a total of 10. Is it possible that some extra games could fall to the Big 12? Sure, but that's the problem. They aren't guaranteed. The reason the other leagues were able to start networks is that they had guaranteed inventory. That leads to your analogy with LHN. The reason LHN was able to have other games on it is because LHN is owned by ESPN. Since it's ESPN's platform, they can put other games on there. For example, if LHN televises Texas vs. Kansas, that's because ESPN owns the rights to that game. Therefore they can put it wherever they want: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, LHN, etc. The other point I was making is that the rest of the Big 12's rights are split between ESPN and Fox. That means, if the Big 12 partnered with ESPN for a network, then none of the games owned by Fox could be used on the network.

A: OUs president addressed this and has a handle on how UT could be kept whole and the conference could create a network. You don't need to be worried about it--the conference has a feasible plan to accomplish this. Everyone will be better off and Texas of course won't lose anything.

As to the inventory--again try to comprehend. There are 10 plus football games available to be aired once tier 3 rights are accounted for--actually more as I explained--UT has had 3 games on some seasons by arrangement with the conference--its in the bylaws. Two new schools added means 12 games apiece or 22 games added--games not currently in the BIG 12 inventory. Only one game per school is going to be an OOC away game not controlled by the BIG 12. So right off the top once existing tier 3 inventory is clear there are 32 football games available to be aired on a BIG 12 network. That's 3 less than the PAC or BIG are offering. ITs not an issue. The LHN can't put Texas vs. Kansas on unless the BIG 12 conference OK's that and is compensated--that game is part of the BIG 12 inventory which just shows further you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are also wrong about the money. The reason the ACC didn't get more money for Louisville is because Louisville was replacing a team (Maryland). The ACC did get a $4 million increase when Syracuse and Pitt were added. That's because the number of teams went from 12 to 14. When Louisville joined, the number of teams stayed at 14. The SEC did get more money for A&M and Missouri. The SEC's payout for TV rights went up from $17 million to $25 million. That's an $8 million increase. The Big Ten didn't get an increase at all. That's because the Big Ten delayed negotiating a new contract until 2016. So the Big Ten will get their increase this summer. Regarding new bowls and NCAA tournament money, it's not guaranteed, and that's the problem. The money in the TV contract is guaranteed. So, you are trading guaranteed money for "maybe" money. Especially regarding the bowls, that's inaccurate. The bowl games are already under contract. If you go through and look at all 40 bowls, they all have their spots tied in, through contract. The only way to currently get another bowl tie in is if a new bowl is created (which would be a bottom-end bowl). There is no guarantee that if, for example, Cincinnati joined the Big 12, the AAC would lose a bowl bid for the Big 12 to claim. Maybe if BYU joined the Las Vegas bowl would open up, but do you know how much it pays?

A: Louisville wasn't worth more than pro rata to the tv networks so the contract wasn't changed for their addition. The ACC got a bump when SU and Pitt were added and the BIG 12 got over $5 million more when WVU and TCU were added. The ACC had a renegotion for adding schools and markets. The BIG 12 had an early renegotion after adding WVU and TCU. As to the SEC, you are mistaking the entire conference payout with the tv contract payout. The SEC added bowls which gave them more, and since their tv pay is AVERAGED over a period of time, each year it increases throughout the contract--just like everyone else's INCLUDING the BIG 12. Texas A&M and Mizzou got pro rata shares, and the conference started recently getting payouts from the SEC network as well. When the BIG 12 expands the tv partners and the conferences negotiators will sit down and negotiate for the new additions and the BIG 12 will seek more than pro rata--Bowlsby and his partners feel there are schools that will be additive and that's what they'll negotiate for based on facts.

The BIG 12 isn't "trading" anything. They'll get a guaranteed minimum increase of pro rata for new members but probably also an increase. They'll also get more for a CCG which will mitigate any losses from splitting bowl money, conference playoff money and NCAA money by two more. Then there will be things like corporate sponsorships from new areas and NCAA money (which every school gets btw) and the league will likely add a bowl tie in or two--more money. None of that money is "maybe"--its as guaranteed for the BIG 12 as anyone. There are bowls now tied in to lower conferences--in a few years the agreements run out and must be renewed-2019-for everyone. If you don't think bowl partners would rather have a BIG 12 tie in than an AAC or Sun Belt one then you are sadly mistaken.

I'm 100% correct that the Big 12 won't get more that the pro rata increase. The Big 12 is the only conference that has that. When the SEC expanded, they got to renegotiate their TV contract. So did the ACC. The Big 12 contract specifically says that the payout per team will stay the same, even if new teams are added. For example, if the payout is $20 million now, it will still be $20 million when the new teams join. That's not how it is for the other leagues. Again, for example, the ACC's payout was $13 million per team, and then went up to $17 million per team when Pitt and Syracuse joined. That's not a pro rata increase. It's nothing like the Big 12's situation. The pro rata increase also isn't a minimum. It's simply what the Big 12 is going to get. Boren even said that himself. If you are going to quote Boren, you have to acknowledge that quote as well.

click on the above to expand for answers
A: The levels of your fantasy are amazing. Every conference has the same sort of contract. Clauses written for expansion or contraction and a guarantee of at least pro rata increases if expansion happens and they can't come to agreement on increases. When the SEC expanded their old contract was coming due, as was the ACCs. As mentioned, the BIG 12 similarly renegotiated and got more money-early in their case when ESPN requested reopening and renegotiating early upon the addition of WVU and TCU. The BIG 12 contract says just like everyone elses that if they add schools it will go up by at least pro rata. It doesn't say they can ONLY get pro rata and nothing more.

What's really again amazing here is you think you can dupe someone into believing that you know more about the BIG 12s contracts than the leaders of the BIG 12. They know what their contracts are--and you aren't going to fool them or anyone else. Boren never stated that adding schools can't give them more than pro rata, he stated that the contract says they'll get at least pro rata and Bowlsby has stated the same.

 

[Buckaineer]

Losing FSU would hurt for sure but the ACC will survive forever because of location. So nothing will tear apart unless they lose like 6-8 schools. It may be weakened one day(doubt it) but the Big 12 would absolutely implode if they lost Texas and Oklahoma. My point was none of those three schools are even a realistic discussion with the Big12.

If FSU left the ACC there would be mass defections immediately and that conference would be done as a power conference, don't kid yourself.

 

[Buckaineer]

I'm fear mongering? Nice way to twist things. You sound like a propaganda machine now. Your incessant rants about Boren this and Boren that regarding 6-7 teams, etc., is mongering something.

What makes you think Boren is so right, just because he has the job he does? You've never heard of a CEO being wrong before?

I brought up Louisville just as a what-if, you never know type of thing. That is all. I'm not talking about Clemson or FSU where they were rumored to possibly coming in. That would have been a mistake for a different reason, as far as I'm concerned but that's another issue. The point is you don't know what the future holds or what might break down or change anymore than these conferences bloating themselves beyond 12 teams in thinking it's going to work.

The fact is there is no one on the level of even a UL out there to be taken that has the whole package like BB and FB with facilities, money and fan base. I'm just comparing UL now because I, like many others have already admitted the Big 12 missed the boat in not taking them along with WVU.

BYU might be a decent addition if they were closer but now the conf is expanding westward and I don't think they want to do that. The direction the conf expandes, if they do, will change the identity, or add to it and that is something not to be taken lightly.

As far as the comment about expanding for the sake of expanding, Boren made some remark in there about that as well. That's why I connected that comment to you because he doesn't want to do that but you do, which is what adding schools like Cincy and Uconn would be doing. Expanding all the way to the ocean now? Tell us how those Texas schools wouldn't mind traveling all the way to Connecticut every year, and I'm not just talking BB and FB.

OMG. The leader of OKlahoma knows what he is discussing. He is presenting his pov to his conference mates with FACTS.

The conference isn't going to make decisions based on fantasies.

Boren specifically addresses that he is talking about schools such as CIncy and UConn--I didn't come up with those schools, they are the schools available. Unlike you I understand based on facts that they would be excellent additions to this conference.

 

[Papillion]

OMG. The leader of OKlahoma knows what he is discussing. He is presenting his pov to his conference mates with FACTS.

The conference isn't going to make decisions based on fantasies.

Boren specifically addresses that he is talking about schools such as CIncy and UConn--I didn't come up with those schools, they are the schools available. Unlike you I understand based on facts that they would be excellent additions to this conference.

Excellent additions? Says who? Really excellent? Just because you say so? And what facts are you talking about that make those two "excellent" additions? If they were really "excellent" additions to the Big 12 they wouldn't be left out there now because some other conference would have taken them by now. They're just leftovers now and you're too stubborn to admit it.

Good god. Talk about extended travel. There isn't one Texas school that would not mind traveling all the way to the ocean for all their sports every year. That's just ridiculous. Now if the Big 12 were situated in the east somewhere then UConn would be a nice addition but excellent as in excellent for the Big 12 with all that travel involved? That makes WVU's travel "problems" look like a walk in the park.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Anyone thinking that there will be defections from any other power conference TO the Big 12-2=10 is clearly seeing funny things through the windowpane. Is not going to happen. Period. The Big 12-2=10 is the only conference IN DANGEROUS WATERS because of the small size. Sounds a lot like the last years of the Big East. One defection away from a very shaky situation. I believe Buck is preaching the right stuff. The Big 12-2=10 needs to act now and expand by AT LEAST two schools...in the Northeast/Mideast and strengthen potential tv/cable/streaming eyeballs and national footprint. The money is already there so this is perplexing. Maybe the conference could start waiting for ND again (just like the Big East)! LOL Until that kind of fairy tale happens go for the obvious and welcome Cincinnati and Connecticut to the fold.

I caution you on making hard statements; the track record is that nothing is sacred. It is generally agreed that the Big Ten and the SEC are 100% solid in conference stability. The PAC-12 moved from troubled to a solidity rating in the 90 percentile. The ACC and Big-12 would appear to be in the same troubled zone and on some aspects, that is true. But they are worlds apart on being picked apart from further conference realignment. Both the Big Ten and SEC have taken what they wanted from the Big-12; the Big-12 is off the radar now because no school helps either the Big Ten or SEC in any way improve their respective products.

The ACC however has a bulls eye painted on it. It is poorly led. Has the weakest pay out and the worst contract to date for that pay out. The last recorded payout saw their members receive between 18.7 and 20.1 million dollars total from their TV package. Big-12 schools received - in some cases double that. Each full payout member received 25.63 million plus whatever they earned from Tier 3. IN the case of Texas, they took in 15 million alone from the LHN. Oklahoma took in ~6 million. WVU as a partial member took in 23 million plus 6.6 in Tier 3. Clemson made the most in the ACC at 20.1 million and WVU as a partial member made 29.6 million; Texas made 40.63 million - double what Clemson took in. Can any football focused school in the ACC withstand that disparity for very long?

Now that a CCG of some type is in the Big 12 future, that figure is going to grow 2.5-3.0 million for each member of the Big-12. The trend looks very bad for ACC members and it was this sort of issue that caused Clemson, FSU and GT to have some quiet time with the Big-12 a couple of years back - and it was a very close thing.

The SEC and Big Ten are not done expanding. Who else has anything that they might want? The ACC of course. Virginia, UNC and attractive to both the SEC and the Big Ten. FSU, Clemson and GT are off the radar for the SEC because they do not expand in states they already have a presence and those schools are too far south for the Big Ten.

No one wants Duke or Wake Forest.

Louisville and Miami can be tossed in with FSU, Clemson and GT because they are far below what the Big Ten would accept and they fall into the double exposure issue for the SEC.

That leaves NC State, VIPSU, Syracuse, Pitt and Boston College. Would any of those schools interest the Big Ten? BC might, Syracuse might but that is probably it. Would the SEC want any of them? Only NC State is far enough south to interest the SEC but it is weak in every sport. Besides if the SEC grabs UNC they will not want NC State.

Of course, neither the SEC nor the Big Ten have to make a move, but if they do, the ACC is ground zero and schools like FSU, Clemson and GT know it. They also know they are likely to be left on the sinking ship that has become Big East 2.

So who is more stable, the Big-12 or the ACC? In spite of the concerns, the Big-12 seems to be doing something about its issues, their members make a great deal more money and they have survived the conference snatch and grab by the Big Ten and SEC. So, my vote is that it is the ACC that ripe for plucking.

Now this comes to the GOR. It is a tight document for both the Big 12 and the ACC, but documents as much as anyone wants to say otherwise are made to be broken if the conditions can be met. I have no idea what those conditions are but then I don't need to. All I need to know is that their is no such thing as an ironclad contract. hose that claim to be are really just more messy and expensive to brush away.

My belief is that we take Cincinnati and Houston, even though I really think Houston is a bad idea. A couple of years from now - well before the GORs expire, the ACC schools realize, just as UMD did that they are going broke trying to keep up with everyone else and collectively agree to break the ACC GOR in a buyout to those that remain behind. The Big-12 picks up FSU, GT, Louisville and Clemson. The SEC tries to grab UVA along with UNC, but again VT politics its way into a party it is not invited and UVA ends up going to the Big Ten with Pitt. VT then goes to the SEC.

The remaining schools pillage the AAC and make life as best they can.

Will it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes. Is the ACC more vulnerable than the Big-12? Definitely.

 

[Rootmaster]

If it makes you feel more secure then go ahead and believe that the ACC with all its members is less vulnerable than the Big 12-2=10. And, remember that the Titanic can't seek. LOL

 

[Buckaineer]

Excellent additions? Says who? Really excellent? Just because you say so? And what facts are you talking about that make those two "excellent" additions? If they were really "excellent" additions to the Big 12 they wouldn't be left out there now because some other conference would have taken them by now. They're just leftovers now and you're too stubborn to admit it.

Good god. Talk about extended travel. There isn't one Texas school that would not mind traveling all the way to the ocean for all their sports every year. That's just ridiculous. Now if the Big 12 were situated in the east somewhere then UConn would be a nice addition but excellent as in excellent for the Big 12 with all that travel involved? That makes WVU's travel "problems" look like a walk in the park.

The BIG 12 says so. Do you not understand that the BIG 12 has a committee made up of Oklahoma's president Boren, WVU's president Gee and Ken Starr of Baylor? They also have consultants who study these things. They've identified 6 or 7 candidates that would be "additive" to the BIG 12.

Facts that make UConn or Cincinnati excellent would be such as:

UConn--multiple national championships in Men's and Women's basketball. Behind only Texas in academic standing. State flagship institution. Has won BCS conference and played in BCS bowl. 11.4 million tv viewers within 2 hours. Part of NYC tv dma. Already have their own "networks" in the NYC tv market illustrating high value to a BIG 12 network. Only major school in a state similar size to Oklahoma-nearly four million. Regular NCAA participant that has delivered millions to the conferences it plays in--which in the BIG 12 is evenly distributed to membership. More NFL draft picks over the past 10 years than every BIG 12 team except for OU, Texas, and TCU and tied with WVU. More NBA draft picks than everyone but Kansas. State of the art athletic facilities. Top 50 in merchandise sales--an indicator of brand awareness.

Cincinnati--located in one of the most fertile recruiting regions in the country in one of the top recruiting states. New football and basketball facilities (in progress) with ability to play in pro arenas as well nearby. Large media market adjacent to multiple other large media markets. Large population base. Multiple HQs of top companies (see sponsorship potential). Near major airport. Multiple 9 win seasons and bowl appearances over past 10 years. BCS conference championships and BCS bowl appearances. 13 total football conference championships multiple bowl participant. Strong basketball with regular NCAA appearances. Fits well academically in middle of conference. Bridges geographic gap between WVU and rest of conference. Top 50 in merchandise sales. Highest number of wins vs. current P5 schools over the past 6 years of any candidate.

Could go on --but not necessary. Other candidates also have very good credentials. The BIG 12 already has these facts and more and have identified these schools as two of their top candidates for expansion. Other conferences didn't take them--that doesn't make them not good candidates. The SEC wasn't going to add these schools--nor was the PAC 12. The Big Ten has AAU requirements for adding schools and neither school is an AAU member although having good to very good academics. UConn was blocked from ACC membership by BC and Cincinnati was apparently next on the ACC list--but they only added two and didn't go to 16. Regardless the BIG 12 needs what helps the BIG 12, it doesn't matter what other conferences did or didn't add.

Travel is just one component of expansion--much more goes into it than that and every conference has travel situations. Success of the conference outweighs travel concerns and you have to pick the best available candidates. A long flight is a long flight. UConn has a large airport within 45 minutes to an hour away--and much closer to football and basketball facilities in Hartford where they play some sports.

The conference would work out scheduling but WVU, UC, UConn would be a workable "pod".

 

[Buckaineer]

Its very unlikely any school or conference is going to try to get out of a grant of rights agreement and also pay buyout fees of tens of millions of $. Its not feasible economically and too many are put at risk to make it worth anyone's while.
The BIG 12 is dealing with expansion from a scientific pov rather than an emotional one and they have needs now, not a decade from now. If other P5 conferences are one day vulnerable then the BIG 12 will be in better position to do something about that then if they get out of the disadvantage they have now. If not theres no chance they'll be able to lure anyone down the road or possibly even survive as a major conference.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

If FSU left the ACC there would be mass defections immediately and that conference would be done as a power conference, don't kid yourself.

Yep I guess if USC, UCLA and Stanford left the PAC 12 that league would crumble as well. My belief is that the schools at the table right now are in for good so why on earth are the two of us even engaging in this lame thread?

 

[Charleston Mountie]

If it makes you feel more secure then go ahead and believe that the ACC with all its members is less vulnerable than the Big 12-2=10. And, remember that the Titanic can't seek. LOL

You must not be a Mountaineer, because anyone who even a trickle of Blue and Gold blood in them and is old enough to shave recalls the Big East days. The ACC is just the newest manifestation of the Big East. The Big East did not fail for its membership but its lack of leadership and foresight. It lost out everywhere except on the field and on the court, but those victories did not matter to the stability of the conference. The conference commissioner and his organization in conjunction with the member presidents determines when a conference fails or succeeds. The ACC is BE2. It is a conference bloated with teams that have many different ideas and is governed by a weak commissioner that lacks vision and university presidents that aren't all on the same page. Lurking on the fringes are two hungry, expansion minded conferences - what could go wrong?

Who is that is trying make themselves feel good about the future of the ACC. Not me. I want them dead D E A D. You seem to have a horse in that race; go back to whatever board you came from.

 

[Rootmaster]

Gee, sorry I don't have the same opinion as you. LOL. You can think what you want, doesn't change my life at all. By the way...welcome to the thread and thanks for posting.

 

[ColoradoMountaineer]

Gee, sorry I don't have the same opinion as you. LOL. You can think what you want, doesn't change my life at all. By the way...welcome to the thread and thanks for posting.

What people don't take into consideration is the Pac 12 tried a full scale raid of the big 12 in 2010 they invited 6 teams and where only successful in luring Colorado. whats to say in 2025 when the Gor expire they won't try and seek 4 more teams and the most likely candidates our Big 12 teams. The Pac 12 is in the best position to raid the Big 12 than any other conference since they can offer 4 teams and the Big 10 and Sec could only offer 2 slots if the ultimate goal is to reach 16. The ACC is also vulnerable to being raided but would only probably lose 4 teams at the most which would hurt but not the kind of damage the Big 12 could face. The Acc is vulnerable from raids by the Sec and big 10 while The big 12 is vulnerable to the Pac 12, Big 10 and Sec

 

[topdecktiger]

click on the above to expand for answers
A: The levels of your fantasy are amazing. Every conference has the same sort of contract. Clauses written for expansion or contraction and a guarantee of at least pro rata increases if expansion happens and they can't come to agreement on increases. When the SEC expanded their old contract was coming due, as was the ACCs. As mentioned, the BIG 12 similarly renegotiated and got more money-early in their case when ESPN requested reopening and renegotiating early upon the addition of WVU and TCU. The BIG 12 contract says just like everyone elses that if they add schools it will go up by at least pro rata. It doesn't say they can ONLY get pro rata and nothing more.

What's really again amazing here is you think you can dupe someone into believing that you know more about the BIG 12s contracts than the leaders of the BIG 12. They know what their contracts are--and you aren't going to fool them or anyone else. Boren never stated that adding schools can't give them more than pro rata, he stated that the contract says they'll get at least pro rata and Bowlsby has stated the same.

The only one living in a fantasy land is you. Here are David Boren's comments on the TV contract:

"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go 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://newsok.com/article/5429694

He was completely clear. He said that everybody's share stays the same. If the TV contract pays out $20 million now, then it will still pay out $20 million if new teams are added. He didn't even allow for the possibility that it might go up. He flatly said that the TV payouts will stay the same, period. That clause in not in the contracts for the other conferences. I can easily point to one example. When Miami and Virginia Tech joined the ACC in 2004, the payouts actually went down. Didn't know that did you? So what does that mean? Well, it means that there was no pro rata increase in the ACC's TV contract. If there was, then the pro rata increase would have kicked in when Miami and Virginia Tech were added, and the payouts would have at least stayed that same as they had been previously. Since that didn't happen, obviously there was no pro rata clause in the contract.

One other point. You are the one making the mistake on the SEC, not me. Both of the figures I gave you for the SEC's payouts were averages. The average payout from their previous contract, signed in 2008, paid out an average of $17 million over the life of the contract. The SEC's new deal pays out an average of $25 million over the life of the contract. It's an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, the new $25 million average does not include the SECN revenue. The $25 million figure is strictly the payout for the broadcast rights. It doesn't include subscription revenue.

That aside, here is the big problem with your argument. (Notice I'm not the only one here who disagrees with you.) You are jumping on the comment that Boren made, regarding 6-7 teams that are 'additive.' Ok, well here's the problem. What kind of actual figure is 'additive?' Exactly how much is that? Where exactly is the money coming from? It's not coming from the TV contract. Where else is it coming from? This is important because 'additive' could mean one dollar for all we know. If 'additive' was big money, then those teams would have already been added a long time ago. The problem is that if 'additive' is just breaking even, then there isn't any point in adding them.

 

[ColoradoMountaineer]

Its very unlikely any school or conference is going to try to get out of a grant of rights agreement and also pay buyout fees of tens of millions of $. Its not feasible economically and too many are put at risk to make it worth anyone's while.
The BIG 12 is dealing with expansion from a scientific pov rather than an emotional one and they have needs now, not a decade from now. If other P5 conferences are one day vulnerable then the BIG 12 will be in better position to do something about that then if they get out of the disadvantage they have now. If not theres no chance they'll be able to lure anyone down the road or possibly even survive as a major conference.

I don't know if you have seen this article but i have my doubts about the long term stability of this conference

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...sidents-ominous-comments-dysfunctional-big-12

 

[xgunnx]

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/...t-oklahoma-oklahoma-state-close-to-the-pac-12

OU in my opinion would leave the BIG XII if given the right excuse. Look at the link I've provided. Yes its old news but its relevant and with the recent statements coming out of OU. I would be sure to position WVU to cover any contingencies that may occur. Hopefully we learned our lesson from our Big East days.

 

[BoremanEer]

The obvious solution is to add two teams to keep Oklahoma happy (and we had better do everything to keep the Sooners in the conference) and to turn to Texas and say "what two schools do you want", as Texas would make that decision, anyway. Thank goodness Texas wanted WVU over Louisville a few years back....

 

[skygusty]

The obvious solution is to add two teams to keep Oklahoma happy (and we had better do everything to keep the Sooners in the conference) and to turn to Texas and say "what two schools do you want", as Texas would make that decision, anyway. Thank goodness Texas wanted WVU over Louisville a few years back....

I don't think Texas wants anybody, and they sure don't want to give up the LHN. Texas would be a plum for any of the other 4 conferences but the LHN isn't going with them to another conference. I'm not going to be a party to stirring up more bad blood between these two schools. Their differences are already profound enough. If they want to destroy the conference because of irreconcilable differences and personal greed, they probably have the power to do so. Adding two more teams will not resolve the differences and in some ways will probably exacerbate the current disputes that are already on the table. WVU is better off if BOTH of these schools can find a compromise. Driving a wedge between them is the last thing we should want to see happen. The other 4 conferences would be delighted however if they could ever split these two apart and effectively destroy any future threat from the BIG12. That coup, if it could be pulled off would be worth billions over time.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

You are again in error - at least you are consistent. The Big-12 will get the same per school if it adds two school as it will if does not. This has been proven already. The Big-12 will then add money from th CCG. Adding ANY does no reduce any current members pay out.

WHY ARE YOU HERE? This is not your board

First question to you, why does it bother you if fans from other teams post on this board. Is it just because his opinion is not the same as yours? Last I looked you are not Vernon, nor does Vernon have a rule posted that only WVU fans can participate.

From a TV deal you are correct, the money will stay the same, but that includes the CCG. Today the BIG12 can add a CCG that adds an additional 25-30 million on top of the TV deal without expanding to be shared by 10 teams. That is 2.5 to 3 million per team

In addition the College football playoff money is currently split between 10 teams instead of 12-14. That is 1 to 1.5 million more per team a year in with a 10 team conference.

Some BIG12 programs, are just looking at the short term revenue and not the long term impact expansion can bring. The problem is adding programs and starting a BIG12 network will cost each program millions per year early on. That makes it difficult sell to the 8 programs need to vote yes for expansion.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

The only one living in a fantasy land is you. Here are David Boren's comments on the TV contract:

"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go 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://newsok.com/article/5429694

He was completely clear. He said that everybody's share stays the same. If the TV contract pays out $20 million now, then it will still pay out $20 million if new teams are added. He didn't even allow for the possibility that it might go up. He flatly said that the TV payouts will stay the same, period. That clause in not in the contracts for the other conferences. I can easily point to one example. When Miami and Virginia Tech joined the ACC in 2004, the payouts actually went down. Didn't know that did you? So what does that mean? Well, it means that there was no pro rata increase in the ACC's TV contract. If there was, then the pro rata increase would have kicked in when Miami and Virginia Tech were added, and the payouts would have at least stayed that same as they had been previously. Since that didn't happen, obviously there was no pro rata clause in the contract.

One other point. You are the one making the mistake on the SEC, not me. Both of the figures I gave you for the SEC's payouts were averages. The average payout from their previous contract, signed in 2008, paid out an average of $17 million over the life of the contract. The SEC's new deal pays out an average of $25 million over the life of the contract. It's an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, the new $25 million average does not include the SECN revenue. The $25 million figure is strictly the payout for the broadcast rights. It doesn't include subscription revenue.

That aside, here is the big problem with your argument. (Notice I'm not the only one here who disagrees with you.) You are jumping on the comment that Boren made, regarding 6-7 teams that are 'additive.' Ok, well here's the problem. What kind of actual figure is 'additive?' Exactly how much is that? Where exactly is the money coming from? It's not coming from the TV contract. Where else is it coming from? This is important because 'additive' could mean one dollar for all we know. If 'additive' was big money, then those teams would have already been added a long time ago. The problem is that if 'additive' is just breaking even, then there isn't any point in adding them.

The Big-12 contract grows

First question to you, why does it bother you if fans from other teams post on this board. Is it just because his opinion is not the same as yours? Last I looked you are not Vernon, nor does Vernon have a rule posted that only WVU fans can participate.

From a TV deal you are correct, the money will stay the same, but that includes the CCG. Today the BIG12 can add a CCG that adds an additional 25-30 million on top of the TV deal without expanding to be shared by 10 teams. That is 2.5 to 3 million per team

In addition the College football playoff money is currently split between 10 teams instead of 12-14. That is 1 to 1.5 million more per team a year in with a 10 team conference.

Some BIG12 programs, are just looking at the short term revenue and not the long term impact expansion can bring. The problem is adding programs and starting a BIG12 network will cost each program millions per year early on. That makes it difficult sell to the 8 programs need to vote yes for expansion.

To answer your first questions is easy. I am never against any fan coming to this board. I have read many posts over the years and from such and enjoyed their presence. I do not call out every visitor, only those that have an agenda, especially if I have seen that agenda at work on other boards. Raising awareness is a good thing and calling out a gadfly is a duty. You are right about Vernon's tolerance as he may be the most tolerant operator in the system, but that generous flexibility on his part is sometimes abused. Vernon cannot be everywhere at once and will not always notice these types unless we as a community bring them to his attention.

The current TV contract grows each year. It grew from 198 million to 221 million last year, which was 8 million higher than forecasted. Obviously the contract is more than a single lump sum spread out of the life of the term. The next forecast income amount for this year is 254 million. I am sure many things go into this sum, beyond the big topic of the size of the package at the date of signing. All conferences seem to grow in payout each year, but I am not sure if those mechanism are similar.

The point of this part of the debate is that there are those that believe the Big-12's present members would in any way lose money by adding Generic Team #1 and Generic Team #2. We would not and because we would have a CCG to host and a better chance to form a network, we may in fact add a substantial amount to the bottom line.

The CCG is estimated to be 2.5 to 3.5 million per year per member. The network would essentially roll everyone's Tier 3 rights into it. Presently WVU does very well here, Texas does even better but some members do very poorly. That would average out at some figure I don't think anyone here is qualified to estimate. I assume a payout in the 5 to 6 million range just because Texas is part of the package and the bulk of that broadcast is going to be in Texas.

The problem is not getting 8 members to see the obvious that most of here can see, it is getting 8 members not feel the pressure of the unknown, changing and most of all Texas. Texas has a history of backroom arm bending, except there have been time when it was not in the backroom such as the case with Arkansas. When Arkansas left the SWAC for the SEC, Texas orchestrated a move that no remaining member would play Arkansas in any sport until Texas said it was ok to do so. Such tactics work for Texas, not so much the conference and the Big-12 lost Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri because of it.

 

[topdecktiger]

The Big-12 contract grows


To answer your first questions is easy. I am never against any fan coming to this board. I have read many posts over the years and from such and enjoyed their presence. I do not call out every visitor, only those that have an agenda, especially if I have seen that agenda at work on other boards. Raising awareness is a good thing and calling out a gadfly is a duty. You are right about Vernon's tolerance as he may be the most tolerant operator in the system, but that generous flexibility on his part is sometimes abused. Vernon cannot be everywhere at once and will not always notice these types unless we as a community bring them to his attention.

The current TV contract grows each year. It grew from 198 million to 221 million last year, which was 8 million higher than forecasted. Obviously the contract is more than a single lump sum spread out of the life of the term. The next forecast income amount for this year is 254 million. I am sure many things go into this sum, beyond the big topic of the size of the package at the date of signing. All conferences seem to grow in payout each year, but I am not sure if those mechanism are similar.

The point of this part of the debate is that there are those that believe the Big-12's present members would in any way lose money by adding Generic Team #1 and Generic Team #2. We would not and because we would have a CCG to host and a better chance to form a network, we may in fact add a substantial amount to the bottom line.

The CCG is estimated to be 2.5 to 3.5 million per year per member. The network would essentially roll everyone's Tier 3 rights into it. Presently WVU does very well here, Texas does even better but some members do very poorly. That would average out at some figure I don't think anyone here is qualified to estimate. I assume a payout in the 5 to 6 million range just because Texas is part of the package and the bulk of that broadcast is going to be in Texas.

The problem is not getting 8 members to see the obvious that most of here can see, it is getting 8 members not feel the pressure of the unknown, changing and most of all Texas. Texas has a history of backroom arm bending, except there have been time when it was not in the backroom such as the case with Arkansas. When Arkansas left the SWAC for the SEC, Texas orchestrated a move that no remaining member would play Arkansas in any sport until Texas said it was ok to do so. Such tactics work for Texas, not so much the conference and the Big-12 lost Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri because of it.

I can tell you the payment mechanism of the contracts. All of them increase over time. For example, let's say Conference X signs a 10-year, $2 billion contract. That would be an average of $200 million to the conference each year. However, that's only the average. The payments start out less than $200 million in the beginning, and then get bigger than $200 million at the end. The reason that is done is because of inflation. In 10 years, $200 million won't go as far as it does now. That's why the payouts are backloaded. This is the reason the Big Ten didn't renegotiate their TV deal when Rutgers and Maryland joined. They were in the back end of their deal, when the payouts were above the average. It made more financial sense to ride out the last 3 years of the deal when it was on the high end, and then just do a completely new deal when the current one expires in 2016.

 

[Buckaineer]

The only one living in a fantasy land is you. Here are David Boren's comments on the TV contract:

"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go 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://newsok.com/article/5429694

He was completely clear. He said that everybody's share stays the same. If the TV contract pays out $20 million now, then it will still pay out $20 million if new teams are added. He didn't even allow for the possibility that it might go up. He flatly said that the TV payouts will stay the same, period. That clause in not in the contracts for the other conferences. I can easily point to one example. When Miami and Virginia Tech joined the ACC in 2004, the payouts actually went down. Didn't know that did you? So what does that mean? Well, it means that there was no pro rata increase in the ACC's TV contract. If there was, then the pro rata increase would have kicked in when Miami and Virginia Tech were added, and the payouts would have at least stayed that same as they had been previously. Since that didn't happen, obviously there was no pro rata clause in the contract.

One other point. You are the one making the mistake on the SEC, not me. Both of the figures I gave you for the SEC's payouts were averages. The average payout from their previous contract, signed in 2008, paid out an average of $17 million over the life of the contract. The SEC's new deal pays out an average of $25 million over the life of the contract. It's an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, the new $25 million average does not include the SECN revenue. The $25 million figure is strictly the payout for the broadcast rights. It doesn't include subscription revenue.

That aside, here is the big problem with your argument. (Notice I'm not the only one here who disagrees with you.) You are jumping on the comment that Boren made, regarding 6-7 teams that are 'additive.' Ok, well here's the problem. What kind of actual figure is 'additive?' Exactly how much is that? Where exactly is the money coming from? It's not coming from the TV contract. Where else is it coming from? This is important because 'additive' could mean one dollar for all we know. If 'additive' was big money, then those teams would have already been added a long time ago. The problem is that if 'additive' is just breaking even, then there isn't any point in adding them.

The BIG 12 (and other conferences) have what is called a "composition clause" in their contracts. In these "composition clauses" broadcasters must negotiate with a conference in good faith if the composition of the conference changes--i.e. if the BIG 12 adds more teams. The composition clause requires that the conference get at least pro rata increase--but its a matter of negotiation. It doesn't mean the league can only get pro rata and no more. The conference and tv networks will negotiate and if they don't come to agreement the situation will go to arbitration. The president of Oklahoma has stated since your quote above clearly that they have identified 6 or 7 candidates that would be additive to the conference-meaning they expect that in these negotiations they will get MORE than pro rata for these additions.
Bowlsby had this to say about it back when the early renegotiations were done to increase BIG 12 revenues significantly after the additions of WVU and TCU:

ESPN: I haven't seen the physical TV contract the Big 12 just signed with Fox and ABC/ESPN for $2.6 billion over 13 years, but does it give you the flexibility to renegotiate for more money if you were to expand at some point?

Bowlsby: Yes. It certainly accomodates that. It also references departures. That's just good business on our part, and good business on the part of Fox and ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55478/part-2-big-12-commish-bob-bowlsby-qa

as to whether other conferences have these clauses as well-here's an article from ESPN about why the SEC would add Texas A&M--before they actually did:
excerpt:
In the business, they're also called "conference composition clauses." If the number of SEC members changes, then so could the existing deal. And one way the SEC changes is if it adds, oh, I don't know, maybe Texas A&M and a 14th team to the league.

So the SEC could go Chris Johnson on ESPN?

If it adds, presumably, two more teams to the conference, SEC commissioner Mike Slive could argue that he's provided more value to ESPN and wants his league to be paid accordingly. ESPN, say those familiar with such contracts, could counter (and this is waayyyyy above my pay grade) that this is a pro rata situation.

In other words, it could give the SEC more money for the two new teams, but only in proportion to the existing deal. It wouldn't blow up the contract, only revise it relative to the present member shares.

And thus the negotiations would begin. Maybe it ends in arbitration, maybe it doesn't.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colu...i_gene&page=wojciechowski-110816&sportCat=ncf

So please let's stop with the uninformed lie that the BIG 12 has some hamstrung deal that no one else does-its NOT true. The BIG 12 will get at least pro rata for expansion but they may also get MORE than that if the sides come to agreement. The conference has identified schools that will be additive.

As to the SEC payout for television rights--where is the link to this figure? Where is it reported that for television rights and nothing else the SEC gets a $25 million per school average through 2036? Let's see the link and then we'll discuss.

As to your silly comments at the end. Ok, so message board posters that know nothing about the BIG 12 or its agreements don't think that the president of Oklahoma knows what he is talking about? That's your claim?
But you know more than him--really? No, you don't. The BIG 12 can expand and the members of the conference know this. They won't lose revenue as you so desperately want to portray. And no, you don't know more than they do.

 

[topdecktiger]

The BIG 12 (and other conferences) have what is called a "composition clause" in their contracts. In these "composition clauses" broadcasters must negotiate with a conference in good faith if the composition of the conference changes--i.e. if the BIG 12 adds more teams. The composition clause requires that the conference get at least pro rata increase--but its a matter of negotiation. It doesn't mean the league can only get pro rata and no more. The conference and tv networks will negotiate and if they don't come to agreement the situation will go to arbitration. The president of Oklahoma has stated since your quote above clearly that they have identified 6 or 7 candidates that would be additive to the conference-meaning they expect that in these negotiations they will get MORE than pro rata for these additions.
Bowlsby had this to say about it back when the early renegotiations were done to increase BIG 12 revenues significantly after the additions of WVU and TCU:

ESPN: I haven't seen the physical TV contract the Big 12 just signed with Fox and ABC/ESPN for $2.6 billion over 13 years, but does it give you the flexibility to renegotiate for more money if you were to expand at some point?

Bowlsby: Yes. It certainly accomodates that. It also references departures. That's just good business on our part, and good business on the part of Fox and ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55478/part-2-big-12-commish-bob-bowlsby-qa

as to whether other conferences have these clauses as well-here's an article from ESPN about why the SEC would add Texas A&M--before they actually did:
excerpt:
In the business, they're also called "conference composition clauses." If the number of SEC members changes, then so could the existing deal. And one way the SEC changes is if it adds, oh, I don't know, maybe Texas A&M and a 14th team to the league.

So the SEC could go Chris Johnson on ESPN?

If it adds, presumably, two more teams to the conference, SEC commissioner Mike Slive could argue that he's provided more value to ESPN and wants his league to be paid accordingly. ESPN, say those familiar with such contracts, could counter (and this is waayyyyy above my pay grade) that this is a pro rata situation.

In other words, it could give the SEC more money for the two new teams, but only in proportion to the existing deal. It wouldn't blow up the contract, only revise it relative to the present member shares.

And thus the negotiations would begin. Maybe it ends in arbitration, maybe it doesn't.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colu...i_gene&page=wojciechowski-110816&sportCat=ncf

So please let's stop with the uninformed lie that the BIG 12 has some hamstrung deal that no one else does-its NOT true. The BIG 12 will get at least pro rata for expansion but they may also get MORE than that if the sides come to agreement. The conference has identified schools that will be additive.

As to the SEC payout for television rights--where is the link to this figure? Where is it reported that for television rights and nothing else the SEC gets a $25 million per school average through 2036? Let's see the link and then we'll discuss.

As to your silly comments at the end. Ok, so message board posters that know nothing about the BIG 12 or its agreements don't think that the president of Oklahoma knows what he is talking about? That's your claim?
But you know more than him--really? No, you don't. The BIG 12 can expand and the members of the conference know this. They won't lose revenue as you so desperately want to portray. And no, you don't know more than they do.

Sorry, you're wrong. Boren specifically said the payouts would stay the same. I gave you the direct quote from Boren. You can't twist it around. He said what he said. That clause is only included in the Big 12's contract. None of the other leagues have a clause that keeps the payouts the same. That's why all the other leagues got contract increases for expansion. The Big 12 doesn't, and Boren himself said this.

Boren's comment about 6 or 7 schools being "additive" does not indicate that the TV contract will increase, beyond the pro rata amount. From the same interview, Boren said:
“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”
http://newsok.com/article/5429694

See, he used the word 'additive' there too. However, used 'additive' to refer to other revenue, not the TV contract. As I pointed out in my last post, you are using this vague word 'additive' and using it as a catch-all to explain away any issues. As I said, 'additive' has to be specific at some point. It has to be an exact amount, and that amount has to have a defined source. It's clear from Boren's comments that the additive revenue is going to have to come from somewhere besides the TV contract.

To you point about Boren and co. knowing more than I do, you're exactly right. They also know more than you do. The problem is, you are hanging your entire argument on one quote that you've twisted around, while I'm relying on multiple quotes using their direct meaning. Here's another one for you. This is an interview with Chuck Neinas, who was the previous commissioner of the Big 12. He was asked this question in an interview:

What value would a new member bring to the conference?

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

Well, there you have it. The value of the TV deal won't increase, aside from adding Notre Dame. That's not me making up anything, and that's not me twisting around any words. That's a direct quote from the commissioner of the conference. He was specifically told by both ESPN and Fox that aside from Notre Dame, the value of the Big 12's TV contract won't increase with other teams. It's there in black and white. This supports what I've said all along. Boren is claiming that other teams will be additive in other ways, not by increasing the TV contract.

Regarding the SEC's contract, here is one link. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/
It says: While the annual average would be $25 million per school, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.
That's exactly what I said. The average payout from the SEC's TV deal is $25 million. It will be lower in the beginning years, but $25 million will be the average over the life of the contract.

 

[Buckaineer]

Sorry, you're wrong. Boren specifically said the payouts would stay the same. I gave you the direct quote from Boren. You can't twist it around. He said what he said. That clause is only included in the Big 12's contract. None of the other leagues have a clause that keeps the payouts the same. That's why all the other leagues got contract increases for expansion. The Big 12 doesn't, and Boren himself said this.

Boren's comment about 6 or 7 schools being "additive" does not indicate that the TV contract will increase, beyond the pro rata amount. From the same interview, Boren said:
“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”
http://newsok.com/article/5429694

See, he used the word 'additive' there too. However, used 'additive' to refer to other revenue, not the TV contract. As I pointed out in my last post, you are using this vague word 'additive' and using it as a catch-all to explain away any issues. As I said, 'additive' has to be specific at some point. It has to be an exact amount, and that amount has to have a defined source. It's clear from Boren's comments that the additive revenue is going to have to come from somewhere besides the TV contract.

To you point about Boren and co. knowing more than I do, you're exactly right. They also know more than you do. The problem is, you are hanging your entire argument on one quote that you've twisted around, while I'm relying on multiple quotes using their direct meaning. Here's another one for you. This is an interview with Chuck Neinas, who was the previous commissioner of the Big 12. He was asked this question in an interview:

What value would a new member bring to the conference?

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

Well, there you have it. The value of the TV deal won't increase, aside from adding Notre Dame. That's not me making up anything, and that's not me twisting around any words. That's a direct quote from the commissioner of the conference. He was specifically told by both ESPN and Fox that aside from Notre Dame, the value of the Big 12's TV contract won't increase with other teams. It's there in black and white. This supports what I've said all along. Boren is claiming that other teams will be additive in other ways, not by increasing the TV contract.

Regarding the SEC's contract, here is one link. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/
It says: While the annual average would be $25 million per school, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.
That's exactly what I said. The average payout from the SEC's TV deal is $25 million. It will be lower in the beginning years, but $25 million will be the average over the life of the contract.

The BIG 12 will not get an absolute amount other than pro rata. Boren and Bowlsby have both spoken about this numerous times.

Here is a direct quote from Bob Bowlsby to ESPN in 2012 regarding expansion in the BIG 12:

Bowlsby: I think there are situations where you could add members where you could get more than pro rata increases in revenue, but there aren't very many that will do that.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55472/qa-big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby

Now, once again according to your misinformed lies (or perhaps they are just outright intended deception) this isn't possible. The BIG 12 as you claim is the only conference that can't get more than pro rata. But miraculously not only does Bowlsby state they want to add members that can bring MORE than pro rata, he even admits there are a few that will accomplish that. And that was in 2012.

I also provided a previous link that describes these contracts aren't exclusive to just one conference which you've conveniently ignored.

Stop babbling lies about the BIG 12. Its not anymore locked to a specific rate for expansion candidates than anyone else.

The quote you provided from Boren is simply more evidence. Here he CLEARLY states that although there would be revenues split more ways for adding schools in things such as bowls, NCAA etc., if you pick the right candidates they will actually ADD to the revenues rather than taking away. But you have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
Your SEC network info is talking conference payouts outside of the SEC network, not just television pay alone.

 

[topdecktiger]

The BIG 12 will not get an absolute amount other than pro rata. Boren and Bowlsby have both spoken about this numerous times.

Here is a direct quote from Bob Bowlsby to ESPN in 2012 regarding expansion in the BIG 12:

Bowlsby: I think there are situations where you could add members where you could get more than pro rata increases in revenue, but there aren't very many that will do that.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55472/qa-big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby

Now, once again according to your misinformed lies (or perhaps they are just outright intended deception) this isn't possible. The BIG 12 as you claim is the only conference that can't get more than pro rata. But miraculously not only does Bowlsby state they want to add members that can bring MORE than pro rata, he even admits there are a few that will accomplish that. And that was in 2012.

I also provided a previous link that describes these contracts aren't exclusive to just one conference which you've conveniently ignored.

Stop babbling lies about the BIG 12. Its not anymore locked to a specific rate for expansion candidates than anyone else.

The quote you provided from Boren is simply more evidence. Here he CLEARLY states that although there would be revenues split more ways for adding schools in things such as bowls, NCAA etc., if you pick the right candidates they will actually ADD to the revenues rather than taking away. But you have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
Your SEC network info is talking conference payouts outside of the SEC network, not just television pay alone.

You are just spinning now. Bowlsby said:
I think there are situations where you could add members where you could get more than pro rata increases in revenue, but there aren't very many that will do that.
So, he's just guessing. The quote I gave you for Chuck Neinas was definitive. Neinas also made his comments after meeting with ESPN and Fox. Both networks flat out told him that only Notre Dame added value. You can't pretend the quotes I posted don't exist. They are direct quotes that are statements of fact. Face it, I'm right. Boren himself said the payouts are going to stay the same. ESPN and Fox have both told the Big 12 there aren't any other teams (besides Notre Dame) that make the value of the contract increase. You keep accusing me of making up things, but all I've done is offer direct quotes from administrators in the Big 12. None of that is made up, and none of it is a lie. I offered solid evidence to back up my points, but you still accuse my of lying, which is just dishonest of you.

Also, what you said about my post regarding the SEC figures are inaccurate. The link clearly says that the $25 million payout is strictly from the TV contracts with ESPN and CBS. Then on the next line below it, it lists a separate figure for the SEC Network. So, no, you were simply wrong. The figure I provided was strictly for the TV contract, and didn't even include the SEC Network. Again, you are simply being dishonest and trying to twist around words because they don't fit your agenda. You can get mad all you want, but it's true, and I just proved it.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are just spinning now. Bowlsby said:
I think there are situations where you could add members where you could get more than pro rata increases in revenue, but there aren't very many that will do that.
So, he's just guessing. The quote I gave you for Chuck Neinas was definitive. Neinas also made his comments after meeting with ESPN and Fox. Both networks flat out told him that only Notre Dame added value. You can't pretend the quotes I posted don't exist. They are direct quotes that are statements of fact. Face it, I'm right. Boren himself said the payouts are going to stay the same. ESPN and Fox have both told the Big 12 there aren't any other teams (besides Notre Dame) that make the value of the contract increase. You keep accusing me of making up things, but all I've done is offer direct quotes from administrators in the Big 12. None of that is made up, and none of it is a lie. I offered solid evidence to back up my points, but you still accuse my of lying, which is just dishonest of you.

Also, what you said about my post regarding the SEC figures are inaccurate. The link clearly says that the $25 million payout is strictly from the TV contracts with ESPN and CBS. Then on the next line below it, it lists a separate figure for the SEC Network. So, no, you were simply wrong. The figure I provided was strictly for the TV contract, and didn't even include the SEC Network. Again, you are simply being dishonest and trying to twist around words because they don't fit your agenda. You can get mad all you want, but it's true, and I just proved it.

Yeah......OK.....the COMMISSIONER of the BIG 12 is GUESSING ! But you know--LOL!!!!!!!
You are incorrect and obviously have an agenda. Hard to believe you actually believe that the BIG 12 doesn't know what they can get as per their own contracts.

The SEC hasn't released any official information on their tv contract payouts. If it ends up being $25 million bully for them. Last year they reportedly made in the $31 million range per school for everything paid out including SEC network pay--believed to be around $5 million. 31-5 =26 left for everything including TV pay from all network partners, bowl games, NCAA payouts, conference payouts for the playoffs, payout for participation in the playoffs etc. so clearly, they aren't getting $25 million per school just for tv--whether they will by 2036 remains to be seen.

Either way just provides more reason the BIG 12 needs to create their own network and expand the conference and nothing more.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yeah......OK.....the COMMISSIONER of the BIG 12 is GUESSING ! But you know--LOL!!!!!!!
You are incorrect and obviously have an agenda. Hard to believe you actually believe that the BIG 12 doesn't know what they can get as per their own contracts.

The SEC hasn't released any official information on their tv contract payouts. If it ends up being $25 million bully for them. Last year they reportedly made in the $31 million range per school for everything paid out including SEC network pay--believed to be around $5 million. 31-5 =26 left for everything including TV pay from all network partners, bowl games, NCAA payouts, conference payouts for the playoffs, payout for participation in the playoffs etc. so clearly, they aren't getting $25 million per school just for tv--whether they will by 2036 remains to be seen.

Either way just provides more reason the BIG 12 needs to create their own network and expand the conference and nothing more.

You dodged my point, and you know it. I'll post the quote from Chuck Neinas again:

What value would a new member bring to the conference? 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

It's clear as day. ESPN and Fox have flat out said that no school other than Notre Dame would add value to the contract. You ignored that direct quote, which is dishonest. You ignored it because you have no way to refute it.

I'll also post David Boren's own comments again:
"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go 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://newsok.com/article/5429694

Again, Boren himself clearly said the payouts from the TV contract won't go up. He directly said it. You again ignore this quote because you have no way to refute it.

You are also lying about my comments regarding the SEC payouts. Again, I will post directly from the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/
It says: While the annual average would be $25 million per school, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.

So see, the link clearly indicates that the $25 million figure was an average. I specifically said that in my earlier posts. The link clearly states that the payouts will be less that $25 million at the beginning of the contract (2015 was the first year), and would increase beyond $25 million later. $25 million was simply the average. What I said to you initially was correct. The SEC got $17 million average under its old contract, and gets $25 million average under the new contract. See, this is my problem with you and others. I offer sources to back up what I say, and then you still try to argue with me. However, whenever you post a source, you expect everyone to take it as gospel. You can't have it both ways. Face it, I have proven my point on the Big 12 contract, and the SEC contract. You are just dishonest and won't admit it.