Expansion

[topdecktiger]

I'm "all over the place"? What in the world are you babbling about? You really lack basic comprehension skills.

You just repeated exactly what I stated in my earlier post about Boren's comments, and now repeat what I responded just a short while ago as if I'm stating something different? Then you make wild speculation about what Boren meant--and I'm all over the place?

Yes, Boren stated that each BIG 12 school is losing $4-$6 million per year ABOVE WHAT THEY MAKE NOW IN THEIR TIER 3 RIGHTS. $2 million plus $6 million is what? DING DING DING! $8 million. What is $2million? The amount some BIG 12 schools make now in tier III television rights. Other BIG 12 schools are getting around $4 million for tier III television rights now.

As Boren states, if there were a BIG 12 network instead of schools selling individual rights, they could make about $4 million more than they make now in tier III tv rights. What is $4 million plus $4 million? DING DING DING! $8 million. Right in the exact ballpark of my projections of a BIG 12 network getting $1.00 in its footprint with two additions, and reaching 55% penetration of all pay tv subscribers with $.20 per subscriber in non footprint areas--something very possible considering the Big Ten and SEC both are in the mid 60% range.

What you are missing is that the number I'm showing is REVENUE only, not showing expenses. There will be expenses subtracted from whatever revenues schools receive for various costs. However, the BIG 12 also (at 12) would have two less mouths to feed than the Big Ten or SEC.

Texas would immediately get more coverage from a BIG 12 network because it would immediately be on in a much larger territory than the LHN is covered, and it would get national distribution on various pay subscription services-even if at a lower rate than what footprint regions would deliver. Hate to break it to you, but the SECN and BTN also have to be purchased as add-ons in some areas as well and/or receive lower rates in most areas of the country where they are seen. No difference there. A BIG 12 network would get the same sort of distribution as an SECn or BTN, but would likely reach fewer homes, but otherwise it would be distributed in the same manner.

Analysts are examining and calculating now, and in May/June they will release numbers to the conference.

You should probably wait to try and declare the BIG 12 can't do this or that until after that information is disseminated. I've done a reasonable estimate above which shows accurately the sort of revenues the BIG 12 could achieve with a certain penetration.

You can’t count the $2 million and the $4-6 million. If the Big 12 forms a network, that $2 million goes away, and becomes part of the $4-6 million payout form the Big 12 network. If you try to count the $2 million AND the $4-6 million, you are counting the Tier 3 money twice.

Your $8 million projection is also inaccurate, because the way you calculated it previously is not how you calculated it now. Previously, you said:

$8.934 million plus $10.33 million =$19.264 million per month, x 12 months =$231.168 million per year total revenue for a BIG 12 conference network.

$231 million split 12 ways (assuming a partner like Fox), ends up around $8 million per school, which is the number you claim. Well, that number isn’t accounting for Tier 3 rights, like you are saying now. That $8 million is strictly from subscriber fees. If you are going to claim that the $8 million comes from both Tier 3 and the Big 12 network, then your calculations were wrong, because your calculations are getting $8 million only for the Big 12 network, meaning adding Tier 3 would be over $10 million in total.

The bottom line to this is, Boren made a clear statement. He said the schools were leaving $4-6 million on the table. Well, they are already getting Tier 3 money, so that’s not being left on the table. If we are discussing money that’s being left on the table, then that’s strictly Big 12 revenue. You can’t add in Tier 3 in this discussion, because that money is not being left on the table.

 

[Buckaineer]

You can’t count the $2 million and the $4-6 million. If the Big 12 forms a network, that $2 million goes away, and becomes part of the $4-6 million payout form the Big 12 network. If you try to count the $2 million AND the $4-6 million, you are counting the Tier 3 money twice.

Your $8 million projection is also inaccurate, because the way you calculated it previously is not how you calculated it now. Previously, you said:



$231 million split 12 ways (assuming a partner like Fox), ends up around $8 million per school, which is the number you claim. Well, that number isn’t accounting for Tier 3 rights, like you are saying now. That $8 million is strictly from subscriber fees. If you are going to claim that the $8 million comes from both Tier 3 and the Big 12 network, then your calculations were wrong, because your calculations are getting $8 million only for the Big 12 network, meaning adding Tier 3 would be over $10 million in total.

The bottom line to this is, Boren made a clear statement. He said the schools were leaving $4-6 million on the table. Well, they are already getting Tier 3 money, so that’s not being left on the table. If we are discussing money that’s being left on the table, then that’s strictly Big 12 revenue. You can’t add in Tier 3 in this discussion, because that money is not being left on the table.

Again, no idea what you don't understand. Wondering at this point if you are just joking or playing games. It's clear.

Can't really make it any clearer, perhaps someone else wants to chime in and explain it if you really can't understand.

The hypothetical model I described above clearly illustrates the BIG 12 getting two new schools (here UC and UConn), then starting a network and getting a 55% penetration around the country with distribution for the BIG 12 network (compared to the Big Ten and SEC getting in the mid 60% range). The conference in the model gets $1.00 per subscriber in market and $.20 per subscriber out of market. You split the yearly proceeds for that with the network partner or partners, and then the rest is divided up between the conference schools and the conference office. That comes out to over $8 million per school as I showed. Over $8 million per school, per year plus a share to the conference office. For JUST a BIG 12 network.

In addition to what BIG 12 schools get off a BIG 12 network, they would also be able to sell university controlled rights just as the Alabama's, Ohio State's, Florida State's and USC's and every other school around the country does to entities such as IMG, Leerfield, etc -including BIG 12 schools currently. That would add millions more to BIG 12 revenues and yes would put the revenues for all these different things over $10 million per school.

Just what I described before, just what I illustrated with the math before.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

One thing Bowlsby and Schultz mentioned about the research they are doing is guaranteeing rivalries if they were to go to divisions.

One, two or three guaranteed rivalries looked at and how that would work out in scheduling.

These are probably the "sure bet" guaranteed rivalries:

Texas: OU
OU: Texas, OSU
OSU: OU
Baylor: TCU
TCU: Baylor
Kansas: Kansas State
Kansas State: Kansas

beyond that, according to Wikipedia, Baylor-Texas Tech (1929); Oklahoma State-Texas Tech (1935); TCU-Texas Tech (1926); Texas-Texas Tech (1928) are also rivalries

So adding those in would make it:

Texas: OU, Texas Tech
Texas Tech: UT, Baylor, OSU, TCU
OU: Texas, OSU
OSU: OU, Texas Tech
Baylor: TCU, Texas Tech
TCU: Baylor, Texas Tech
Kansas: Kansas State
Kansas State: Kansas

Iowa State and WVU don't really have established rivalry games here yet. Also doubt if four rivalries would be allowed, unless two of those are in your division maybe.

Just guessing that WVU would want something like OU, Baylor or TCU and maybe Kansas State?

It's going to be interesting to see how they would break things out with guaranteed rivalries.

IN all seriousness ..... the single largest group of Longhorn alumni outside of the state of Texas resides in the Washington DC area. They like the idea of the Longhorns playing several hours away (in Morgantown) every other year.

 

[Buckaineer]

You can’t count the $2 million and the $4-6 million. If the Big 12 forms a network, that $2 million goes away, and becomes part of the $4-6 million payout form the Big 12 network. If you try to count the $2 million AND the $4-6 million, you are counting the Tier 3 money twice.

Your $8 million projection is also inaccurate, because the way you calculated it previously is not how you calculated it now. Previously, you said:



$231 million split 12 ways (assuming a partner like Fox), ends up around $8 million per school, which is the number you claim. Well, that number isn’t accounting for Tier 3 rights, like you are saying now. That $8 million is strictly from subscriber fees. If you are going to claim that the $8 million comes from both Tier 3 and the Big 12 network, then your calculations were wrong, because your calculations are getting $8 million only for the Big 12 network, meaning adding Tier 3 would be over $10 million in total.

The bottom line to this is, Boren made a clear statement. He said the schools were leaving $4-6 million on the table. Well, they are already getting Tier 3 money, so that’s not being left on the table. If we are discussing money that’s being left on the table, then that’s strictly Big 12 revenue. You can’t add in Tier 3 in this discussion, because that money is not being left on the table.

Again, you are wrong. If the BIG 12 forms a network, the schools will all make $4 million to $6 million MORE than they do NOW. The $2 million or $4 million doesn't "go away", The product that is making the $2 to $4 million is rolled into the BIG 12 network and on top of that $2 to $4 million the BIG 12 schools make an additional $4 to $6 million--again according to the University of Oklahoma's president. There is not any counting of any revenue twice. Boren didn't say that instead of making $2 or $4 million as they do now, they would make $4 or $6 million as you seem desperate to imply. He stated very clearly that the schools would make $4 to $6 million MORE than they make NOW.

As far as the projection above, the numbers are accurate. If the conference gets $1.00 per subscriber in-market with two new teams, and $.20 per subscriber out of market with a total pay subscriber penetration of 55% of paying people--then YES, each BIG 12 school will get revenues (before expenses) from that network of well over $8 million per school. Anyone can do the math, it is correct. The unknown for us is only how much would the expenses be, and do the experts predict a 55% penetration into pay subscribers, and what do they think could be gotten money-wise for that in and out of market. $1.00 and $.20 are reasonable projections based on what others are recieving and 55% penetration including all in and out of market subscribers is reasonable as well. Its less than what the B10 or SEC get now.

 

[topdecktiger]

Again, no idea what you don't understand. Wondering at this point if you are just joking or playing games. It's clear.

Can't really make it any clearer, perhaps someone else wants to chime in and explain it if you really can't understand.

The hypothetical model I described above clearly illustrates the BIG 12 getting two new schools (here UC and UConn), then starting a network and getting a 55% penetration around the country with distribution for the BIG 12 network (compared to the Big Ten and SEC getting in the mid 60% range). The conference in the model gets $1.00 per subscriber in market and $.20 per subscriber out of market. You split the yearly proceeds for that with the network partner or partners, and then the rest is divided up between the conference schools and the conference office. That comes out to over $8 million per school as I showed. Over $8 million per school, per year plus a share to the conference office. For JUST a BIG 12 network.

In addition to what BIG 12 schools get off a BIG 12 network, they would also be able to sell university controlled rights just as the Alabama's, Ohio State's, Florida State's and USC's and every other school around the country does to entities such as IMG, Leerfield, etc -including BIG 12 schools currently. That would add millions more to BIG 12 revenues and yes would put the revenues for all these different things over $10 million per school.

Just what I described before, just what I illustrated with the math before.

And that's what I'm telling you. Your $8 million figure is simply wrong. You calculated that figure by adding $1.00 subscribers + $.20 subscribers, and you came out with $8 million per school. Well, that's wrong. I applied your exact same formula to the Big Ten, and the formula was inaccurate. It predicted that the Big Ten would get ~$4 million more than they actually got. Similarly, your formula is predicting more than the Big 12 will actually get. So, they Big 12 network won't pay out $8 million per school. It will be less than that.

 

[Buckaineer]

IN all seriousness ..... the single largest group of Longhorn alumni outside of the state of Texas resides in the Washington DC area. They like the idea of the Longhorns playing several hours away (in Morgantown) every other year.

Just looking at WVUs attendance figures, the Texas game has not been one of the top three or four attended games in Morgantown, while the OU game has. WVU would love to play both every season undoudtedly, but there have been other games better attended in conference.

 

[Buckaineer]

And that's what I'm telling you. Your $8 million figure is simply wrong. You calculated that figure by adding $1.00 subscribers + $.20 subscribers, and you came out with $8 million per school. Well, that's wrong. I applied your exact same formula to the Big Ten, and the formula was inaccurate. It predicted that the Big Ten would get ~$4 million more than they actually got. Similarly, your formula is predicting more than the Big 12 will actually get. So, they Big 12 network won't pay out $8 million per school. It will be less than that.

The $8 million figure is NOT wrong.

You say you applied it to the Big Ten, but you don't know how the Big Ten is dividing up what money they do get for the BTN do you? Of course you don't. As I clearly stated, the money shown in the model is REVENUE only, not REVENUE PLUS EXPENSE. Not to mention the Big Ten has 14 members to pay out to plus the conference office while in the model above the BIG 12 only has 12 plus a conference office--2 less shares to be split.

The numbers are correct.

 

[topdecktiger]

Again, you are wrong. If the BIG 12 forms a network, the schools will all make $4 million to $6 million MORE than they do NOW. The $2 million or $4 million doesn't "go away", The product that is making the $2 to $4 million is rolled into the BIG 12 network and on top of that $2 to $4 million the BIG 12 schools make an additional $4 to $6 million--again according to the University of Oklahoma's president. There is not any counting of any revenue twice. Boren didn't say that instead of making $2 or $4 million as they do now, they would make $4 or $6 million as you seem desperate to imply. He stated very clearly that the schools would make $4 to $6 million MORE than they make NOW.

As far as the projection above, the numbers are accurate. If the conference gets $1.00 per subscriber in-market with two new teams, and $.20 per subscriber out of market with a total pay subscriber penetration of 55% of paying people--then YES, each BIG 12 school will get revenues (before expenses) from that network of well over $8 million per school. Anyone can do the math, it is correct. The unknown for us is only how much would the expenses be, and do the experts predict a 55% penetration into pay subscribers, and what do they think could be gotten money-wise for that in and out of market. $1.00 and $.20 are reasonable projections based on what others are recieving and 55% penetration including all in and out of market subscribers is reasonable as well. Its less than what the B10 or SEC get now.

No, I'm not wrong at all. You can't simply roll over the $2 million from Tier 3, and then count the Big 12 network on top of it. When you add the Tier 3 rights to the Big 12 network, then the money comes strictly from the number of subscribers. You can't say, "$2 million + plus subscription fees." The $4-6 Boren mentioned is what the Big 12 network would pay TOTAL. That included the Tier 3 rights that got rolled into the network.

The expenses are known. That's my point. You can't use the pre-expense numbers. I showed you this clearly. The Big Ten generates $12 million (per school) in revenue. However, the actual payouts are $7.6 million. That gives you an idea of what kind of expenses are involved. If you have $8 million gross for the Big 12 network, then after expenses, you are looking at around $5 million per school, which is right in the $4-6 million range Boren mentioned.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

One thing Bowlsby and Schultz mentioned about the research they are doing is guaranteeing rivalries if they were to go to divisions.

One, two or three guaranteed rivalries looked at and how that would work out in scheduling.

These are probably the "sure bet" guaranteed rivalries:

Texas: OU
OU: Texas, OSU
OSU: OU
Baylor: TCU
TCU: Baylor
Kansas: Kansas State
Kansas State: Kansas

beyond that, according to Wikipedia, Baylor-Texas Tech (1929); Oklahoma State-Texas Tech (1935); TCU-Texas Tech (1926); Texas-Texas Tech (1928) are also rivalries

So adding those in would make it:

Texas: OU, Texas Tech
Texas Tech: UT, Baylor, OSU, TCU
OU: Texas, OSU
OSU: OU, Texas Tech
Baylor: TCU, Texas Tech
TCU: Baylor, Texas Tech
Kansas: Kansas State
Kansas State: Kansas

Iowa State and WVU don't really have established rivalry games here yet. Also doubt if four rivalries would be allowed, unless two of those are in your division maybe.

Just guessing that WVU would want something like OU, Baylor or TCU and maybe Kansas State?

It's going to be interesting to see how they would break things out with guaranteed rivalries.

It will be very interesting. I would like to see B12 go against tradition and split the conference non Geographically. Texas and OU would like to be in the same division. If that were to happen they need to split up the rest of the Texas teams evenly between the 2 conference. Put Texas and TT, in one, TCU and Baylor in the other.

So assume adding Cincy and UCF or UCONN, I think the following would work

Texas
TT
OK
Kanas
ISU
UC or WVU

WVU or UC
UCONN or UCF
K-State
BAYLOR
TCU
OK-State

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The $8 million figure is NOT wrong.

You say you applied it to the Big Ten, but you don't know how the Big Ten is dividing up what money they do get for the BTN do you? Of course you don't. As I clearly stated, the money shown in the model is REVENUE only, not REVENUE PLUS EXPENSE. Not to mention the Big Ten has 14 members to pay out to plus the conference office while in the model above the BIG 12 only has 12 plus a conference office--2 less shares to be split.

The numbers are correct.

Sure we know exactly how the BTN shares it money.

2014/2015 the BTN made 32 million. Although the BTN has made a profit since 2012, 2014/2015 was the 1st year money was distributed, with each teams not Neb, RU, or Maryland receiving about 1 million.

Earlier profits not distributed, were initially held back by the conference to help with the transition of Maryland and Rutgers.

Nebraska won't get any BTN money until 2017-18, while RU and Maryland have to wait until 2020-21.

 

[TexasforevEER]

I love to sit back and watch the 'shiny shoes' knuck it out in public.

 

[Buckaineer]

No, I'm not wrong at all. You can't simply roll over the $2 million from Tier 3, and then count the Big 12 network on top of it. When you add the Tier 3 rights to the Big 12 network, then the money comes strictly from the number of subscribers. You can't say, "$2 million + plus subscription fees." The $4-6 Boren mentioned is what the Big 12 network would pay TOTAL. That included the Tier 3 rights that got rolled into the network.

The expenses are known. That's my point. You can't use the pre-expense numbers. I showed you this clearly. The Big Ten generates $12 million (per school) in revenue. However, the actual payouts are $7.6 million. That gives you an idea of what kind of expenses are involved. If you have $8 million gross for the Big 12 network, then after expenses, you are looking at around $5 million per school, which is right in the $4-6 million range Boren mentioned.

Can you comprehend anything? I didn't say $2 million PLUS subscription fees. I stated, and showed with a very clear model breakdown of numbers that INSTEAD of $2 million you would get over $8 million.

How can you NOT understand this? The numbers CLEARLY illustrate the point. Add them up yourself.

Boren didn't say that BIG 12 schools would only get $4 to $6 million, he said that by NOT having a network now each school is losing $4 to $6 million additional dollars they would get if there were a BIG 12 network.

As to the Big Ten, you don't know how they are distributing their money and you cannot compare their distribution with the model I showed.

FOX owns 51% of the BTN. I illustrated a model with 50% going to the network partners for a BIG 12 network.

The Big Ten has 14 members and conference to pay--we don't know the exact numbers being distributed to each Big Ten member or the conference office.

In the model I showed there are a total of 13 distributions of an equal amount.

In the Big Ten, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland have been added to that conference, but the Big Ten has waited to redo its tv contrats. So we don't know the exact amounts of revenue being distributed to the new schools or where that money is coming from--but the most likely source for their revenues right now is straight from the BTN.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Just looking at WVUs attendance figures, the Texas game has not been one of the top three or four attended games in Morgantown, while the OU game has. WVU would love to play both every season undoudtedly, but there have been other games better attended in conference.

The question(s) then becomes .... "Do UT fans buy up all of the visitors tickets and do they want to have the Horns in Morgantown every other year? It's about UT fans, not total attendance.

I strongly suspect that "IF" there is a UT alumni base in DC that wants a game in Morgantown and buys up the visitor's lot of tickets that becomes a factor in deciding who plays who if there were two divisions in the B12.

It is a fact that the largest UT alumni group outside of Texas is in the DC area. Maybe they are more interested in Washington than they are in Longhorns' football. But "IF" they want a game in Morgantown that certainly becomes a piece in the puzzle.

 

[topdecktiger]

Can you comprehend anything? I didn't say $2 million PLUS subscription fees. I stated, and showed with a very clear model breakdown of numbers that INSTEAD of $2 million you would get over $8 million.

How can you NOT understand this? The numbers CLEARLY illustrate the point. Add them up yourself.

Boren didn't say that BIG 12 schools would only get $4 to $6 million, he said that by NOT having a network now each school is losing $4 to $6 million additional dollars they would get if there were a BIG 12 network.

As to the Big Ten, you don't know how they are distributing their money and you cannot compare their distribution with the model I showed.

FOX owns 51% of the BTN. I illustrated a model with 50% going to the network partners for a BIG 12 network.

The Big Ten has 14 members and conference to pay--we don't know the exact numbers being distributed to each Big Ten member or the conference office.

In the model I showed there are a total of 13 distributions of an equal amount.

In the Big Ten, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland have been added to that conference, but the Big Ten has waited to redo its tv contrats. So we don't know the exact amounts of revenue being distributed to the new schools or where that money is coming from--but the most likely source for their revenues right now is straight from the BTN.

Yes, you did clearly $2 million + subscription fees. Here's your exact comment:

Yes, Boren stated that each BIG 12 school is losing $4-$6 million per year ABOVE WHAT THEY MAKE NOW IN THEIR TIER 3 RIGHTS. $2 million plus $6 million is what? DING DING DING! $8 million. What is $2million? The amount some BIG 12 schools make now in tier III television rights. Other BIG 12 schools are getting around $4 million for tier III television rights now.

See, all you did was take $2 million and add it to the $6 million. That's exactly what I said. You just added $2 million + subscription fees.

I do know what the Big Ten made and what it distributed. http://btn.com/2013/05/06/report-big-ten-payouts-to-hit-25-7-million/
This is the Big Ten payout from 2013:

According to a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, each Big Ten school will receive $25.7 million this year from the conference. The Big Ten Network will contribute $7.6 million of that figure. Big Ten schools also received $10.9 million apiece from the conference’s television deal with ABC and ESPN.

The BTN paid out $7.6 million to each team. So we have concrete figures. Now, let's apply your formula and see what we get. In 2013, The BTN had 52 million subscribers, 20 million of which were in the footprint. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/3/4295242/sec-network-big-ten-network-comparison

The BTN gets $1.00 inside the footprint, and $.20 outside. Ok, so let's add up the numbers:
20 million * $1.00 = $20 million
32 million * $.20 = $6.4 million
$20 million + $6.4 million =$26.4 million
$26.4 million * 12 months = $316.8 million
$316.8 million / 2 (half for Fox) = $158.4 million
$158.4 million / 13 (in 2013, the Big Ten only had 12 teams, plus the conference HQ) = $12.2 million

So there you go. Using your formula, the Big Ten would get $12.2 million. However, they actually got $7.6 million. Pretty big difference. That shows you the expenses, etc. that come off the top before the money is actually distributed. Your figures predicted $8-9 million for the Big 12. Well, obviously, a fairly good chuck has to come out of that for expenses, as evidenced by the Big Ten. That means you are looking at closer to $4-5 million coming from the Big 12 network.

 

[Buckaineer]

The question(s) then becomes .... "Do UT fans buy up all of the visitors tickets and do they want to have the Horns in Morgantown every other year? It's about UT fans, not total attendance.

I strongly suspect that "IF" there is a UT alumni base in DC that wants a game in Morgantown and buys up the visitor's lot of tickets that becomes a factor in deciding who plays who if there were two divisions in the B12.

It is a fact that the largest UT alumni group outside of Texas is in the DC area. Maybe they are more interested in Washington than they are in Longhorns' football. But "IF" they want a game in Morgantown that certainly becomes a piece in the puzzle.

It could be that WVU would end up in UT's division. But that isn't guaranteed.

If not and Texas isn't in a division with certain other schools:

If 1 permanent cross division--OU will be a permanent cross division opponent
If 2 permanent cross division--Guessing Texas Tech is going to get that call as the only other in state public school in the conference
If 3 WVU has a chance, but Texas likes playing Texas schools, and all the other schools have been in the current conference longer or in TCU's case have been in a conference with UT before and have a long history, plus are located in Texas. I don't see UT making the choice of WVU as a permanent rival, but it could happen of course.

 

[Buckaineer]

Yes, you did clearly $2 million + subscription fees. Here's your exact comment:



See, all you did was take $2 million and add it to the $6 million. That's exactly what I said. You just added $2 million + subscription fees.

I am certain everyone else that has comprehension skills understood exactly what I stated.

No one, not me, not Boren or anyone else has said that if the BIG 12 starts a network they'll have a network AND still have tier 3 rights. You simply have no comprehension or are playing games.

You claimed if the BIG 12 had a network, they would only make $4 to $6 million each.

I stated and showed with actual numbers with math anyone can do and see for themselves that if the BIG 12 met certain benchmarks of 55% of existing numbers of all pay tv subscribers, $1.00 in territory and $.20 Out of territory that each school will end up with $8-$9 million in revenues as opposed to the i.e., $2 or $4 million they get now from their tier III rights for television.

Further I showed this correlates directly with Oklahoma's president stating that the conference schools are now losing $4 to $6 million apiece by not having a network. In saying that he is clearly stating take what BIG 12 schools make RIGHT NOW and add $4 to $6 million to that if there were a BIG 12 network. NOT subtract what BIG 12 schools get now from their tier III deals and then add $4 to $6 million to what's left as you want to claim, but is 100% false.

If you can't understand that simple information, then you need to seek help elsewhere. You are wrong but for some reason not capable of admitting your continued errors in your efforts to disparage the BIG 12.

 

[Buckaineer]

I do know what the Big Ten made and what it distributed. http://btn.com/2013/05/06/report-big-ten-payouts-to-hit-25-7-million/
This is the Big Ten payout from 2013:

According to a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, each Big Ten school will receive $25.7 million this year from the conference. The Big Ten Network will contribute $7.6 million of that figure. Big Ten schools also received $10.9 million apiece from the conference’s television deal with ABC and ESPN.

The BTN paid out $7.6 million to each team. So we have concrete figures. Now, let's apply your formula and see what we get. In 2013, The BTN had 52 million subscribers, 20 million of which were in the footprint. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/3/4295242/sec-network-big-ten-network-comparison

The BTN gets $1.00 inside the footprint, and $.20 outside. Ok, so let's add up the numbers:
20 million * $1.00 = $20 million
32 million * $.20 = $6.4 million
$20 million + $6.4 million =$26.4 million
$26.4 million * 12 months = $316.8 million
$316.8 million / 2 (half for Fox) = $158.4 million
$158.4 million / 13 (in 2013, the Big Ten only had 12 teams, plus the conference HQ) = $12.2 million

So there you go. Using your formula, the Big Ten would get $12.2 million. However, they actually got $7.6 million. Pretty big difference. That shows you the expenses, etc. that come off the top before the money is actually distributed. Your figures predicted $8-9 million for the Big 12. Well, obviously, a fairly good chuck has to come out of that for expenses, as evidenced by the Big Ten. That means you are looking at closer to $4-5 million coming from the Big 12 network.

The problem with your erred math is you are taking an actual claimed number for the Big Ten--a number derived from an unknown amount of revenue for their product, and then claiming because it doesn't equal what I showed with exact figures for a potential BIG 12 network, then my numbers are incorrect.

First, anyone can add up the numbers I used and see that, yes, in fact the numbers are correct. No mathematical errors there. If the numbers of subscribers and the money in and out of territory were met, then BIG 12 schools-if given equal shares to them and the conference-would reap revenues of $8-$9 million apiece.

Second, back to your erred analysis. Without checking the actual numbers (the article posted isn't giving the whole story) You don't know the ACTUAL amounts that Big Ten schools were receiving in 2013 (or any year). You don't know if they were getting $1.00 per subscriber in 2013 in Big Ten territory, or if they were getting $.20 per subscriber out of territory. Obviously they were not.

Just looking at the article linked in the one you reference above, they state these very unclear things about BTN revenues at that time:

Last year Illinois received $24.6 million, including $6.6 million from the BTN. This afternoon, the university corrected an earlier report of $8.1 million from the BTN, noting the difference of $1.5 million came from Fox.

The university says the amount from the BTN this year -- previously released as $7.6 million -- is unclear. However, based on recent years the total take for each school from the network over six years is approximately $40 million.

They even state the BTN revenues are unclear to them. What do they mean the revenue was $6.6 million from the BTN, but it was corrected because $1.5 million came from FOX? Were the revenues in 2013 $8.1 million, $6.6 million, or the $7.6 million you are claiming they got?

You are referencing an unknown, and then using my hypothetical numbers to compare to unclear revenue earned by a conference whose rates you have no idea of and exact actual distribution you have no idea of.
The article claims that schools in the Big Ten were earning a certain amount from the conference or the BTN, but this article from that time period directly addressing Nebraska's revenues suggests otherwise:

With the Big XII's new television deal, Big XII schools averaged $22 million per school in 2012-13. Big Ten schools earned $25.7 million per school, as the Big Ten's television contract still has another three years to run.


In comparison, Nebraska earned $15 million in 2012-13.

That number comes with an asterisk, though. Nebraska agreed to accept less money per season for the first six years in the Big Ten, as Nebraska's equity investment in the Big Ten Network. Unlike the new ESPN/SEC Network and the Longhorn Network, the other 11 schools own 50% of BTN. And starting in 2017, Nebraska will own a portion of BTN as well.

So its clear Nebraska didn't get the same amount as others, and they didn't have equity in the BTN, and the others gave Nebraska some of their BTN money.

Finally, its not known how much money was distributed to the Big Ten schools as opposed to the conference office. I used an equal share in my model, but the Big Ten actually has a network and actually distributed real money--in what denomination to whom, we don't know. Its also not know what expenses were taken out before distributions, or how much those actual expenses were.

 

[topdecktiger]

The problem with your erred math is you are taking an actual claimed number for the Big Ten--a number derived from an unknown amount of revenue for their product, and then claiming because it doesn't equal what I showed with exact figures for a potential BIG 12 network, then my numbers are incorrect.

First, anyone can add up the numbers I used and see that, yes, in fact the numbers are correct. No mathematical errors there. If the numbers of subscribers and the money in and out of territory were met, then BIG 12 schools-if given equal shares to them and the conference-would reap revenues of $8-$9 million apiece.

Second, back to your erred analysis. Without checking the actual numbers (the article posted isn't giving the whole story) You don't know the ACTUAL amounts that Big Ten schools were receiving in 2013 (or any year). You don't know if they were getting $1.00 per subscriber in 2013 in Big Ten territory, or if they were getting $.20 per subscriber out of territory. Obviously they were not.

Just looking at the article linked in the one you reference above, they state these very unclear things about BTN revenues at that time:

Last year Illinois received $24.6 million, including $6.6 million from the BTN. This afternoon, the university corrected an earlier report of $8.1 million from the BTN, noting the difference of $1.5 million came from Fox.

The university says the amount from the BTN this year -- previously released as $7.6 million -- is unclear. However, based on recent years the total take for each school from the network over six years is approximately $40 million.

They even state the BTN revenues are unclear to them. What do they mean the revenue was $6.6 million from the BTN, but it was corrected because $1.5 million came from FOX? Were the revenues in 2013 $8.1 million, $6.6 million, or the $7.6 million you are claiming they got?

You are referencing an unknown, and then using my hypothetical numbers to compare to unclear revenue earned by a conference whose rates you have no idea of and exact actual distribution you have no idea of.
The article claims that schools in the Big Ten were earning a certain amount from the conference or the BTN, but this article from that time period directly addressing Nebraska's revenues suggests otherwise:

With the Big XII's new television deal, Big XII schools averaged $22 million per school in 2012-13. Big Ten schools earned $25.7 million per school, as the Big Ten's television contract still has another three years to run.


In comparison, Nebraska earned $15 million in 2012-13.

That number comes with an asterisk, though. Nebraska agreed to accept less money per season for the first six years in the Big Ten, as Nebraska's equity investment in the Big Ten Network. Unlike the new ESPN/SEC Network and the Longhorn Network, the other 11 schools own 50% of BTN. And starting in 2017, Nebraska will own a portion of BTN as well.

So its clear Nebraska didn't get the same amount as others, and they didn't have equity in the BTN, and the others gave Nebraska some of their BTN money.

Finally, its not known how much money was distributed to the Big Ten schools as opposed to the conference office. I used an equal share in my model, but the Big Ten actually has a network and actually distributed real money--in what denomination to whom, we don't know. Its also not know what expenses were taken out before distributions, or how much those actual expenses were.

Yes, your numbers are incorrect because your numbers don't account for things like expenses. You HAVE to take that into account. Your figures of $8-9 million are BEFORE EXPENSES. That's a meaningless number. It only matters what the schools actually put in their pockets.

Also, I do know the Big Ten gets $1.00 inside the footprint.

At last check, the channel charges a $1.00 fee per subscriber per month for those customers within the conference footprint, which NY/NJ now falls into thanks to Rutgers.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big...ackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

So yes, they do get $1.00 inside the footprint.

The article clearly said the $8.1 million was from the year before, which was 2012.
Last year Illinois received $24.6 million, including $6.6 million from the BTN. This afternoon, the university corrected an earlier report of $8.1 million from the BTN, noting the difference of $1.5 million came from Fox.

The discrepancy comes from this. The BTN is not set up the same way as the SECN. The Big Ten is actually a half owner of the BTN (unlike the SEC). Therefore, they get base payout from Fox, aside from the network revenue:

BTN pays about $100 million per year in rights fees to the conference, according to sources. That revenue is distributed to the schools, along with profits, benefiting athletic programs and facilities across the Big Ten.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...14_1_mark-silverman-btn-college-football-game

Point being, the Big Ten gets a flat fee, plus the actual generated revenue. That's why they got $6.6 million in actual revenue, plus the $1.5 million in rights fees. However, the article is clear that all this money was from 2012, not 2013. You are trying say the $6.6 million or $1.5 million had something to do with 2013, and clearly it doesn't.

The Nebraska issue just bolsters my point. Nebraska didn't get a full share, so that that means the other schools actually got an inflated share than they other wise would. That means, the $7.6 million figure would be even lower if the money was distributed equally. That puts the Big Ten's actual payout even lower than the $12.2 million they should get using your formula. That makes your formula even less accurate.

Again, the point is, there are more factors that have to be considers (like expenses) to determine the actual payout for the Big 12. You are not accounting for those figures in your calculations. You are simply adding up the subscription fees, and claiming $8 million a year for the Big 12, without subtracting anything for factors like expenses. That artificially inflates the total.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Something I kind of missed from last week meetings, and makes me wonder what really is going on and what WVU might have up its sleeve.

Asked weather OU or WVU could ever leave the BIG12 Bowslby said "there are always those possibilities"

Some have indicated that both OU and WVU threatened to leave if expansion did not get done. It is Hard for me to believe that WVU would play such a card unless they had something waiting in the wings.

Is an OU/WVU pair to the SEC a possibility? Have there been make room talks with the SEC? Why would WVU make such a threat, they could not afford to follow through with, if they don't have another option. Just something to ponder.

 

[MountaineerGuy]

Something I kind of missed from last week meetings, and makes me wonder what really is going on and what WVU might have up its sleeve.

Asked weather OU or WVU could ever leave the BIG12 Bowslby said "there are always those possibilities"

Some have indicated that both OU and WVU threatened to leave if expansion did not get done. It is Hard for me to believe that WVU would play such a card unless they had something waiting in the wings.

Is an OU/WVU pair to the SEC a possibility? Have there been make room talks with the SEC? Why would WVU make such a threat, they could not afford to follow through with, if they don't have another option. Just something to ponder.

Who is "some"???????

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Who is "some"???????

Reporters, and it was the reason they asked the question to Bowsbly. I am in no way saying it is true, I just found it odd that a reporter included WVU in the statement. Sometimes where there is smoke there could be fire.

 

[Buckaineer]

Yes, your numbers are incorrect because your numbers don't account for things like expenses. You HAVE to take that into account. Your figures of $8-9 million are BEFORE EXPENSES. That's a meaningless number. It only matters what the schools actually put in their pockets.

Also, I do know the Big Ten gets $1.00 inside the footprint.

At last check, the channel charges a $1.00 fee per subscriber per month for those customers within the conference footprint, which NY/NJ now falls into thanks to Rutgers.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big...ackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

So yes, they do get $1.00 inside the footprint.

The article clearly said the $8.1 million was from the year before, which was 2012.
Last year Illinois received $24.6 million, including $6.6 million from the BTN. This afternoon, the university corrected an earlier report of $8.1 million from the BTN, noting the difference of $1.5 million came from Fox.

The discrepancy comes from this. The BTN is not set up the same way as the SECN. The Big Ten is actually a half owner of the BTN (unlike the SEC). Therefore, they get base payout from Fox, aside from the network revenue:

BTN pays about $100 million per year in rights fees to the conference, according to sources. That revenue is distributed to the schools, along with profits, benefiting athletic programs and facilities across the Big Ten.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...14_1_mark-silverman-btn-college-football-game

Point being, the Big Ten gets a flat fee, plus the actual generated revenue. That's why they got $6.6 million in actual revenue, plus the $1.5 million in rights fees. However, the article is clear that all this money was from 2012, not 2013. You are trying say the $6.6 million or $1.5 million had something to do with 2013, and clearly it doesn't.

The Nebraska issue just bolsters my point. Nebraska didn't get a full share, so that that means the other schools actually got an inflated share than they other wise would. That means, the $7.6 million figure would be even lower if the money was distributed equally. That puts the Big Ten's actual payout even lower than the $12.2 million they should get using your formula. That makes your formula even less accurate.

Again, the point is, there are more factors that have to be considers (like expenses) to determine the actual payout for the Big 12. You are not accounting for those figures in your calculations. You are simply adding up the subscription fees, and claiming $8 million a year for the Big 12, without subtracting anything for factors like expenses. That artificially inflates the total.

You are still incorrect in your erroneus comparison.

You dont know what the Big Ten got in market in 2013 or exactly what that market was. You claim 20 million but thats just entire states. In PA for example, philadelphia paid around $.10 per subscriber for the BTN for years. They didnt get $1.00 per subscriber there, and undoubtedly there were other areas youd consider BTN areas where the rate was lower. RU wasnt in the Big Ten in 2013 so whatever they get in NJ/NY is unrelated to 2013. In out of market areas also, some places they undoubtedly did not get the rate of $.20 per subscriber.

And as mentioned you dont know their ditribution to schools or to the conference or expenses.

The numbers I put out for the BIG 12 are low. There are more subscrbers in the BIG 12s extraneous regions such as NYC if UConn were added, and DC, Baltimore and Pittsburgh where WVU and others have large alumni bases.

But the addition I showed in the hypothetical model--contrary to what you claim --is accurate and Boren told everyone how much more BIG 12 schools will get- from $4-$6 million they dont get now.

 

[Buckaineer]

Something I kind of missed from last week meetings, and makes me wonder what really is going on and what WVU might have up its sleeve.

Asked weather OU or WVU could ever leave the BIG12 Bowslby said "there are always those possibilities"

Some have indicated that both OU and WVU threatened to leave if expansion did not get done. It is Hard for me to believe that WVU would play such a card unless they had something waiting in the wings.

Is an OU/WVU pair to the SEC a possibility? Have there been make room talks with the SEC? Why would WVU make such a threat, they could not afford to follow through with, if they don't have another option. Just something to ponder.

In 2025 OU and or WVU could do whatever they want before signing a new contract. Until then grants of rights and buyout fees make moving virtually impossible.

The most likely situation is for schools in the BIG 12 to work together so that no one desires to go anywhere else

 

[MountaineerGuy]

Reporters, and it was the reason they asked the question to Bowsbly. I am in no way saying it is true, I just found it odd that a reporter included WVU in the statement. Sometimes where there is smoke there could be fire.

Thanks Steve. Yeh. That is kind of strange.

 

[topdecktiger]

You are still incorrect in your erroneus comparison.

You dont know what the Big Ten got in market in 2013 or exactly what that market was. You claim 20 million but thats just entire states. In PA for example, philadelphia paid around $.10 per subscriber for the BTN for years. They didnt get $1.00 per subscriber there, and undoubtedly there were other areas youd consider BTN areas where the rate was lower. RU wasnt in the Big Ten in 2013 so whatever they get in NJ/NY is unrelated to 2013. In out of market areas also, some places they undoubtedly did not get the rate of $.20 per subscriber.

And as mentioned you dont know their ditribution to schools or to the conference or expenses.

The numbers I put out for the BIG 12 are low. There are more subscrbers in the BIG 12s extraneous regions such as NYC if UConn were added, and DC, Baltimore and Pittsburgh where WVU and others have large alumni bases.

But the addition I showed in the hypothetical model--contrary to what you claim --is accurate and Boren told everyone how much more BIG 12 schools will get- from $4-$6 million they dont get now.

Yes, I do know. I provided you links that stated the Big Ten got $1.00 from subscribers in-footprint. You also have no documentation to prove the BTN only got $.10 per subscriber in Philadelphia. None at all. You just say that so you won't have to admit you were wrong. You have to provide some evidence that Philadelphia subscribers only paid $.10. I don't take your word for it at all. Also, my "claim" of 20 million in-footprint subscribers is completely accurate and backed up by documentation. The Big Ten had 52 million subscribers in 2013: 20 million in-footprint, and 32 million out-footprint. Again, I documented this.

I do know the distribution per school. It was plainly listed at $7.6 million by multiple sources.

The numbers you put out for the Big 12 are made up. The Big 12 schools won't get $8 million a year. I already showed how your formula doesn't give an accurate prediction when compared to the Big Ten. If you want, I will demonstrate the exact same thing for the SEC. Your calculations simply don't take into account any expenses. You HAVE to do that.

I never disagreed with Boren's $4-6 million figure. I said that's about what the Big 12 would make off of a network. Boren never said the $4-6 million was in addition to Tier 3. He never said that. You just added in that part yourself.

 

[Buckaineer]

Yes, I do know. I provided you links that stated the Big Ten got $1.00 from subscribers in-footprint. You also have no documentation to prove the BTN only got $.10 per subscriber in Philadelphia. None at all. You just say that so you won't have to admit you were wrong. You have to provide some evidence that Philadelphia subscribers only paid $.10. I don't take your word for it at all. Also, my "claim" of 20 million in-footprint subscribers is completely accurate and backed up by documentation. The Big Ten had 52 million subscribers in 2013: 20 million in-footprint, and 32 million out-footprint. Again, I documented this.

I do know the distribution per school. It was plainly listed at $7.6 million by multiple sources.

The numbers you put out for the Big 12 are made up. The Big 12 schools won't get $8 million a year. I already showed how your formula doesn't give an accurate prediction when compared to the Big Ten. If you want, I will demonstrate the exact same thing for the SEC. Your calculations simply don't take into account any expenses. You HAVE to do that.

I never disagreed with Boren's $4-6 million figure. I said that's about what the Big 12 would make off of a network. Boren never said the $4-6 million was in addition to Tier 3. He never said that. You just added in that part yourself.

Its bad enough you dont know what you are talking about. You also cant admit it.

Boren said each BIG 12 school is losing $4 to $6 million per year. He never said that if the BIG 12 added a network then subtract from what schools make now and then add $4 to $6 million back to that lower amount. You concocted that out of nothing. Basic comprehension - "schools are losing by not having" is like stating " if they had, schools would gain. "

Further, one cannot take what one league made- not knowing any numbers used to get to that outcome-and then state that 1 +1 doesnt equal two because the other league didnt get 2. That is ignorance at its finest. My numbers add up exactly as shown. You claim otherwise based on jibberish that is unrelated. Clearly the actual numbers Big 10 schools got was based on completely different numbers and distribution than my model shows for the BIG 12. That doesnt change the accuracy if the BIG 12 met my projections. Add it up yourself and use the numbers i provided to show a mistake- dont use something completely unrelated in any way. You cannot because my numbers are accurate - again if they met my projections using the stats shown.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Its bad enough you dont know what you are talking about. You also cant admit it.

Boren said each BIG 12 school is losing $4 to $6 million per year. He never said that if the BIG 12 added a network then subtract from what schools make now and then add $4 to $6 million back to that lower amount. You concocted that out of nothing. Basic comprehension - "schools are losing by not having" is like stating " if they had, schools would gain. "

Further, one cannot take what one league made- not knowing any numbers used to get to that outcome-and then state that 1 +1 doesnt equal two because the other league didnt get 2. That is ignorance at its finest. My numbers add up exactly as shown. You claim otherwise based on jibberish that is unrelated. Clearly the actual numbers Big 10 schools got was based on completely different numbers and distribution than my model shows for the BIG 12. That doesnt change the accuracy if the BIG 12 met my projections. Add it up yourself and use the numbers i provided to show a mistake- dont use something completely unrelated in any way. You cannot because my numbers are accurate - again if they met my projections using the stats shown.

I do not disagree with your numbers at all. I thought at first you were an attorney, but you're clearly not. You are more likely a CPA with access to financial information that I do not have privilege to. Stevie Wonder could see that. I appreciate your diligence in applying your conclusions to the current and future Big 12 scenario. Kudos for your hard work.

 

[topdecktiger]

Its bad enough you dont know what you are talking about. You also cant admit it.

Boren said each BIG 12 school is losing $4 to $6 million per year. He never said that if the BIG 12 added a network then subtract from what schools make now and then add $4 to $6 million back to that lower amount. You concocted that out of nothing. Basic comprehension - "schools are losing by not having" is like stating " if they had, schools would gain. "

Further, one cannot take what one league made- not knowing any numbers used to get to that outcome-and then state that 1 +1 doesnt equal two because the other league didnt get 2. That is ignorance at its finest. My numbers add up exactly as shown. You claim otherwise based on jibberish that is unrelated. Clearly the actual numbers Big 10 schools got was based on completely different numbers and distribution than my model shows for the BIG 12. That doesnt change the accuracy if the BIG 12 met my projections. Add it up yourself and use the numbers i provided to show a mistake- dont use something completely unrelated in any way. You cannot because my numbers are accurate - again if they met my projections using the stats shown.

Deflection on your part. You said:

Boren stated that each BIG 12 school is losing $4-$6 million per year ABOVE WHAT THEY MAKE NOW IN THEIR TIER 3 RIGHTS.

Boren actually said:

He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.

He didn't make any specification about Tier 3 rights, like you claimed. His point is clear. The conference is losing $4-6 million a year because they don't have a network. Well, if they are losing $4-6 million, then the payout can't be $8 million, because then they would be losing MORE than $4-6 million.

The problem is not with your arithmetic. The problem is with your formula. You are assuming all the revenue goes to the schools. It doesn't. The Big 12 will not get $8 million from a network after expenses are factored in. That's illustrated by the payouts from both the Big Ten and SEC. And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to compare those two conferences. Your formula does not accurately predict what the Big Ten and SEC make BECAUSE YOU DON'T FACTOR IN FOR EXPENSES. The payouts in the Big Ten are known. The payouts in the SEC are known. They don't pay out as much as your formula predicts. Therefore, your formula is wrong. It's pretty simple.

Oh by the way. Show me some evidence the Big Ten only got $.10 per subscriber in Philadelphia. I'm still waiting for that one.

Oh another point. You are criticizing me for not knowing the distribution model for the Big Ten (which isn't true). Well, you have absolutely no idea what distribution mode the Big 12 will have. You don't even know what kind of network model the Big 12 will have. Even Boren's plan includes extra compensation to Texas, which would further skew the numbers for the rest of the league.

 

[topdecktiger]

I do not disagree with your numbers at all. I thought at first you were an attorney, but you're clearly not. You are more likely a CPA with access to financial information that I do not have privilege to. Stevie Wonder could see that. I appreciate your diligence in applying your conclusions to the current and future Big 12 scenario. Kudos for your hard work.

It's not his numbers that are wrong. It's his formula.

 

[Buckaineer]

It's not his numbers that are wrong. It's his formula.

In detail, without using completely unrelated information as you did previously, illustrate what is wrong with the formula.

Answer these questions from the model of a BIG 12 network:

What is $1.00 x 10.33 million (est. of cable subscribers in BIG 12 footprint with UConn and Cincy)--answer: $10.33 million ( per month in footprint pay for 12 team BIG 12 network)

What does 55 million (55% of 100 million which=current # of cable tv subscribers in U.S.) -10.33 million =?
--answer 44.67 million

What does 44.67 million (subscribers outside of expanded BIG 12 footprint) x $.20 (pay to BIG 12 per subscriber outside footprint) =? ---answer: $8.934 (per month revenue for 12 team BIG 12 for outside footprint pay from cable providers)

What is $8.934 x 12 (months in a year)? --answer: $107.208 million (year of out of footprint revenue)
What is $10.33 x 12 (months in a year)? --answer: $123.96 million (year of in footprint revenue)

What is $107.208 million + $123.96 million? ---answer: $231.168(total year revenue paid by cable providers for in and out of footprint subscribers)

What is $231.168 divided by 2 (one half to conference, one half to network partner for 12 team BIG 12 conference network)-- answer: $115.584 (BIG 12 conference share)

What is $115.584 (BIG 12 conference share) divided by 13 =? (13 being 12 members of the conference plus the conference office all getting an equal share of BIG 12 network revenue)--answer: approx. $8.89 million (revenue per school per year for each of 12 BIG 12 schools and 1 share to the conference office)

Again, what, exactly is incorrect in there? --Answer: Nothing, all the math is 100% correct. If the BIG 12 meets those hypothetical (but realistic) numbers of subscribers and distributes the revenues as shown above then each school will receive approx. $8.89 million per school per year.

 

[Buckaineer]

"topdecktiger, post: 825118, member: 4608"]Deflection on your part.

What I stated is straightforward and clear to anyone with comprehension abilities. The "deflection" is only coming from your side as you make up b.s. to create your false image of the BIG 12.

You said:



Boren actually said:

He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.

He didn't make any specification about Tier 3 rights, like you claimed. His point is clear. The conference is losing $4-6 million a year because they don't have a network. Well, if they are losing $4-6 million, then the payout can't be $8 million, because then they would be losing MORE than $4-6 million.

What you are stating here makes 0 sense. Again you lack comprehension. When Boren states that without a network BIG 12 schools are losing $4 to $6 million per year, he unequivocally means that if the BIG 12 expanded and had a conference network, each BIG 12 school would gain $4 to $6 million more than they make now in media rights. Answer this question--what do BIG 12 schools make now? They make what the conference pays out and make what they get from their tier 3 deals.
You want what they make to ONLY be what they get from the conference payout, but that is not the case. What do BIG 12 schools get from their tier 3 deals for television? From $2 million to $4 million or so per school (outside of the LHN deal) So when Boren states they are losing $4 to $6 million he is stating that if a BIG 12 school right now makes i.e. $30 million for all of its media rights (including their tier 3 deals) and a network were added, they would gain an additional $4 to $6 million per school per year on top of that $30 million. NOT they would subtract $2 to $4 million off of the $30 million, and then add $4 to $6 million to that $28 million or $26 million respectively. That is absurd on its face, and more importantly it is NOT what OU's president stated.

The problem is not with your arithmetic. The problem is with your formula. You are assuming all the revenue goes to the schools. It doesn't. The Big 12 will not get $8 million from a network after expenses are factored in. That's illustrated by the payouts from both the Big Ten and SEC. And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to compare those two conferences. Your formula does not accurately predict what the Big Ten and SEC make BECAUSE YOU DON'T FACTOR IN FOR EXPENSES. The payouts in the Big Ten are known. The payouts in the SEC are known. They don't pay out as much as your formula predicts. Therefore, your formula is wrong. It's pretty simple.

In the model I presented as I stated the revenue goes to the school. You claim the BIG 12 won't get that sort of number not because they won't, but because you don't want them to. Texas doesn't get $15 million in PROFIT for the LHN, they pay expenses out of that. Oklahoma is clearing a couple million in profit, but they are being paid closer to $7 million for the Sooner network. That is just like Ohio State and Michigan and other Big Ten schools--they didn't get $7.6 million PROFIT--they got $7.6 million in REVENUE for the BTN and then they spend some of that on expenses for various things. Bottom line is you don't know if the BIG 12 creates a network they'll pay everything to the schools or not and then have them pay expenses. It could be done either way. You also don't know if the network will split expenses with the conference, or how any of that will be done. You just don't WANT the BIG 12 to pay that to schools directly. The numbers however do not lie.

Yes, one can apply the BIG 12 models number to the Big Ten or SEC and come up with expected revenues, but that doesn't mean those hypothetical numbers are the numbers they are getting in reality and they have 0 bearing again, on the actual revenue they receive, because the REAL numbers the Big Ten or SEC get are DIFFERENT than the hypothetical #s in the BIG 12 model.

Oh by the way. Show me some evidence the Big Ten only got $.10 per subscriber in Philadelphia. I'm still waiting for that one.

Here is a reference to different BTN rates outside of footprint illustrating that they got only $.10 per subscriber outside the footprint:

Suddenly, we're talking some serious BTN dollars with the conference in states with at least 35 percent of the U.S. population. The per-subscriber rate could go from 10 cents – that was the rate outside the Big Ten footprint when BTN launched in 2007 – to maybe 50 cents. Maybe a dollar.

as to Philadelphia, Comcast and the BIg Ten agreed to a fee lower than in other footprint regions--$.70 rather than $.10, but still lower than other Big Ten areas

In Philadelphia, Bob Fernandez reports Comcast will pay about $0.70 per month per sub to carry BTN, and sources said that the deal is for seven to 10 years.

both of these illustrate my point however, that the numbers are NOT identical to the model I presented. You are comparing unrelated things and pretending that real numbers for one should equal hypothetical numbers for another, when nothing about the two are identical. Not number of subscribers, not dispersal of revenues, not expenses (i.e the BTN has offices and studios in Chicago ILL. That COSTS MONEY--Money the BIG 12 will not have to spend) nothing is identical. But you want to pretend they are to disparage potential BIG 12 revenues.

Oh another point. You are criticizing me for not knowing the distribution model for the Big Ten (which isn't true). Well, you have absolutely no idea what distribution mode the Big 12 will have. You don't even know what kind of network model the Big 12 will have. Even Boren's plan includes extra compensation to Texas, which would further skew the numbers for the rest of the league.

You don't have information on how the Big Ten is distributing revenues. You provided guestimates. Various articles have stated various different things but we know for certain the Big Ten did not rework its tv deals yet after adding three schools that ARE being paid by the Big Ten and they have to be getting the millions they receive from somewhere --and that somewhere is in part the BTN if not in whole, which then affects the payout per school estimates that you are presenting as gospel.
In your desperation to pretend the BIG 12 can't do this or that you are ignoring facts and common sense.

 

[Buckaineer]

I do not disagree with your numbers at all. I thought at first you were an attorney, but you're clearly not. You are more likely a CPA with access to financial information that I do not have privilege to. Stevie Wonder could see that. I appreciate your diligence in applying your conclusions to the current and future Big 12 scenario. Kudos for your hard work.

When I have time I'll take a more detailed look, but be prepared for topdeck to go bonkers--he really doesn't want a BIG 12 network to be able to be profitable. I am not a CPA nor do I have access to info you don't, I may have a better idea where to look for the info, but that is not definite either.

 

[topdecktiger]

In detail, without using completely unrelated information as you did previously, illustrate what is wrong with the formula.

Answer these questions from the model of a BIG 12 network:

What is $1.00 x 10.33 million (est. of cable subscribers in BIG 12 footprint with UConn and Cincy)--answer: $10.33 million ( per month in footprint pay for 12 team BIG 12 network)

What does 55 million (55% of 100 million which=current # of cable tv subscribers in U.S.) -10.33 million =?
--answer 44.67 million

What does 44.67 million (subscribers outside of expanded BIG 12 footprint) x $.20 (pay to BIG 12 per subscriber outside footprint) =? ---answer: $8.934 (per month revenue for 12 team BIG 12 for outside footprint pay from cable providers)

What is $8.934 x 12 (months in a year)? --answer: $107.208 million (year of out of footprint revenue)
What is $10.33 x 12 (months in a year)? --answer: $123.96 million (year of in footprint revenue)

What is $107.208 million + $123.96 million? ---answer: $231.168(total year revenue paid by cable providers for in and out of footprint subscribers)

What is $231.168 divided by 2 (one half to conference, one half to network partner for 12 team BIG 12 conference network)-- answer: $115.584 (BIG 12 conference share)

What is $115.584 (BIG 12 conference share) divided by 13 =? (13 being 12 members of the conference plus the conference office all getting an equal share of BIG 12 network revenue)--answer: approx. $8.89 million (revenue per school per year for each of 12 BIG 12 schools and 1 share to the conference office)

Again, what, exactly is incorrect in there? --Answer: Nothing, all the math is 100% correct. If the BIG 12 meets those hypothetical (but realistic) numbers of subscribers and distributes the revenues as shown above then each school will receive approx. $8.89 million per school per year.

I can tell you exactly what's wrong with it. You aren't accounting for expenses. You are living in fantasy land if don't think expenses are coming off the top.

What you are stating here makes 0 sense. Again you lack comprehension. When Boren states that without a network BIG 12 schools are losing $4 to $6 million per year, he unequivocally means that if the BIG 12 expanded and had a conference network, each BIG 12 school would gain $4 to $6 million more than they make now in media rights. Answer this question--what do BIG 12 schools make now? They make what the conference pays out and make what they get from their tier 3 deals.
You want what they make to ONLY be what they get from the conference payout, but that is not the case. What do BIG 12 schools get from their tier 3 deals for television? From $2 million to $4 million or so per school (outside of the LHN deal) So when Boren states they are losing $4 to $6 million he is stating that if a BIG 12 school right now makes i.e. $30 million for all of its media rights (including their tier 3 deals) and a network were added, they would gain an additional $4 to $6 million per school per year on top of that $30 million. NOT they would subtract $2 to $4 million off of the $30 million, and then add $4 to $6 million to that $28 million or $26 million respectively. That is absurd on its face, and more importantly it is NOT what OU's president stated.

No, that's what Boren said. He simply said the schools were leaving $4-6 million on the table by not having a conference network. You are adding in all these qualifiers that Boren never said. What you don't understand is that the Tier 3 money that each school negotiates individually has nothing to do with money that is paid out from the conference. The Big 12 conference only has control over the media rights it sells as a group. The individual Tier 3 contracts have nothing to do with conference payouts. Those are two completely different sources of revenue.

I'll again point out you are wrong about how you are counting this money. You DO have to subtract out the $2-4 million a school has now with its individual Tier 3 deals. Let's just use a hypothetical example. Let's just assume that Kansas St has a Tier 3 TV deal with IMG for $2 million a year. Let's assume that adding that to their Big 12 payout, Kansas St gets $30 million total.

Ok, so the Big 12 creates a conference network. That means the conference has to get back all those Tier 3 TV rights from the individual schools, to show those games on the network. Well, that means Kansas St loses that IMG deal. They have to, because the rights are now with the B12N. That means, Kansas St no longer gets that $2 million from IMG. They had to give those rights to the conference, in order to start the network. IMG and the B12N can't both have the rights to those games at the same time. If the B12N has the games, it means IMG doesn't have them, and thus the $2 million contract Kansas St had with IMG is gone.

In the model I presented as I stated the revenue goes to the school. You claim the BIG 12 won't get that sort of number not because they won't, but because you don't want them to. Texas doesn't get $15 million in PROFIT for the LHN, they pay expenses out of that. Oklahoma is clearing a couple million in profit, but they are being paid closer to $7 million for the Sooner network. That is just like Ohio State and Michigan and other Big Ten schools--they didn't get $7.6 million PROFIT--they got $7.6 million in REVENUE for the BTN and then they spend some of that on expenses for various things. Bottom line is you don't know if the BIG 12 creates a network they'll pay everything to the schools or not and then have them pay expenses. It could be done either way. You also don't know if the network will split expenses with the conference, or how any of that will be done. You just don't WANT the BIG 12 to pay that to schools directly. The numbers however do not lie.

No, sorry, you are 100% wrong about the LHN. They get the $15 million in pure profit. It's in their contract. Your suggestion is dumb in the first place, because you are saying Texas itself would pay expenses. No, they don't. The expenses get paid off the top, before the money even gets to Texas. The expenses get paid by the managing company, (BTN, ESPN, Fox, etc.) first. Then whatever is left over is paid to the schools.
Think about how ridiculous your suggestion sounds. You are suggesting that the BTN gets the check for the subscriber fees. They take that gross revenue, and give it all to the individual schools. Then, the schools turn around give back a portion of their revenue to BTN, so BTN can pay the bills. Well, no, that's stupid. What happens is, BTN receives the gross revenue. They pay all the expenses off the top. Then, they give the leftover revenue to Fox and the schools.

Even using your suggestion that the $7.6 million for the Big Ten is just profit, that still means your formula doesn't hold up. According to your formula, the Big Ten should have gotten $12.2 million. The actual payout was only $7.6 million. If you are claiming that the $7.6 million is pre-expenses, then your formula is even more inaccurate.

Yes, one can apply the BIG 12 models number to the Big Ten or SEC and come up with expected revenues, but that doesn't mean those hypothetical numbers are the numbers they are getting in reality and they have 0 bearing again, on the actual revenue they receive, because the REAL numbers the Big Ten or SEC get are DIFFERENT than the hypothetical #s in the BIG 12 model.

That's the point. The REAL numbers for the Big 12 are also going to be different from the HYPOTHETICAL numbers the Big 12 gets.

Here is a reference to different BTN rates outside of footprint illustrating that they got only $.10 per subscriber outside the footprint:

Suddenly, we're talking some serious BTN dollars with the conference in states with at least 35 percent of the U.S. population. The per-subscriber rate could go from 10 cents – that was the rate outside the Big Ten footprint when BTN launched in 2007 – to maybe 50 cents. Maybe a dollar.

as to Philadelphia, Comcast and the BIg Ten agreed to a fee lower than in other footprint regions--$.70 rather than $.10, but still lower than other Big Ten areas

In Philadelphia, Bob Fernandez reports Comcast will pay about $0.70 per month per sub to carry BTN, and sources said that the deal is for seven to 10 years.

both of these illustrate my point however, that the numbers are NOT identical to the model I presented. You are comparing unrelated things and pretending that real numbers for one should equal hypothetical numbers for another, when nothing about the two are identical. Not number of subscribers, not dispersal of revenues, not expenses (i.e the BTN has offices and studios in Chicago ILL. That COSTS MONEY--Money the BIG 12 will not have to spend) nothing is identical. But you want to pretend they are to disparage potential BIG 12 revenues.

Yep, you were dead wrong about your Philadelphia comment, like I said. Here's another problem. How do you know the Big 12 will get $1.00 in all areas? You don't. According to your link, BTN gets $.70 in Philadelphia, instead of $1.00. Ok, well let's say the Big 12 adds UCF. How do you know the Big 12 will get $1.00 in Miami, instead of $.70 cents. You expect me to believe that if Penn St can't get $1.00 in Philadelphia, UCF will be able to get $1.00 in Miami? If Penn St can't get $1.00 in Philadelphia, how will Iowa St will get $1.00 in Des Moines?

Explain how the Big 12 will not have studio costs. They are going to have to have studios and offices for a conference network.

You don't have information on how the Big Ten is distributing revenues. You provided guestimates. Various articles have stated various different things but we know for certain the Big Ten did not rework its tv deals yet after adding three schools that ARE being paid by the Big Ten and they have to be getting the millions they receive from somewhere --and that somewhere is in part the BTN if not in whole, which then affects the payout per school estimates that you are presenting as gospel.
In your desperation to pretend the BIG 12 can't do this or that you are ignoring facts and common sense.

Yes, I do have information on how the Big Ten distributed revenue. I've already provided you with links that state the schools got $7.6 million. That's not a guesstimate. You just don't want to admit what is printed in black and white.

The other problem is, you have absolutely no idea how the Big 12 will distribute any network revenue. None at all. Talk about a guesstimate! You are trying to claim a hypothetical estimate if fact, but actual money that has been paid out is only a "guesstimate." Laughable.

As for how the Big Ten made all their money, it's simple. I'll go back to the 2013 figures. The total payout was $25.7 million per team. $7.6 came from the BTN. $10.9 came from ESPN. That's $18.5 million. $25.7-18.5 = $7.2 million. So, the $7.2 million came from various other revenue: bowl games, BCS money, NCAA tournament money, conference basketball tournament, etc. It makes perfect sense how they came up with that money.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The other problem is, you have absolutely no idea how the Big 12 will distribute any network revenue. None at all. Talk about a guesstimate! You are trying to claim a hypothetical estimate if fact, but actual money that has been paid out is only a "guesstimate." Laughable.

As for how the Big Ten made all their money, it's simple. I'll go back to the 2013 figures. The total payout was $25.7 million per team. $7.6 came from the BTN. $10.9 came from ESPN. That's $18.5 million. $25.7-18.5 = $7.2 million. So, the $7.2 million came from various other revenue: bowl games, BCS money, NCAA tournament money, conference basketball tournament, etc. It makes perfect sense how they came up with that money.

Total BTN profits revenues From 2011 - 2013 where not distributed because so much had been held for various reason (including Maryland/RU tranistion). I believe last year was the 1st year most of the profits was shared.

 

[topdecktiger]

Total BTN profits revenues From 2011 - 2013 where not distributed because so much had been held for various reason (including Maryland/RU tranistion). I believe last year was the 1st year most of the profits was shared.

Last year might be the first time they paid X percent of profit or whatever, but the figures are clear. In 2013, the BTN paid out $7.6 million per school. I don't know what the expenses were off the top. The point is, the $7.6 million is what the schools got after all the expenses were paid. My point was, I used the other poster's formula, and it predicted the BTN should have paid out $12 million per school in 2013, not $7.6 million. That just demonstrates that when he is calculating hypothetical revenue for the Big 12, he isn't taking into account expenses. Therefore, the actual payout for the Big 12 is going to be lower than what he is predicting.

 

[Buckaineer]

In all of the discussion of the models I showed, never did I state there would not be expenses. However, to claim someone doesnt get a certain amount because there are expenses is ignorant.

Does a man or a woman not get a certain salary because they spend some of it on expenses? Do corporations -or better example schools or athletic departments not make the revenues they do because they have expenses?

Deck is mistaking revenue with PROFIT in his attempts to make it seem as though a BIG 12 network will not be profitable- but we already have the additional amount BIG 12 schools will earn. Oklahoma's president told us. $4 to $6 million more per shool per year than they make now.

 

[topdecktiger]

In all of the discussion of the models I showed, never did I state there would not be expenses. However, to claim someone doesnt get a certain amount because there are expenses is ignorant.

Does a man or a woman not get a certain salary because they spend some of it on expenses? Do corporations -or better example schools or athletic departments not make the revenues they do because they have expenses?

Deck is mistaking revenue with PROFIT in his attempts to make it seem as though a BIG 12 network will not be profitable- but we already have the additional amount BIG 12 schools will earn. Oklahoma's president told us. $4 to $6 million more per shool per year than they make now.

What's ignorant is to ignore facts. The expenses get taken out before the schools are paid. Your figure of $8-9 million is only IF NO EXPENSES ARE FACTORED IN. You estimated yearly revenue of $231 million for a B12N. Ok, well the expenses come out of that $231 million before the schools get their cut. That's why the Big Ten got $7.6 million instead of $12.2 million.

I have never argued with the $4-6 million figure Boren stated. What I told you was, that's how much money the schools would make off a conference network. You are the one who tried inflate the figure to $8-9 million, not me. I just showed you that your $8-9 million figure was wrong, and you had no answer for it.

You also had no answer to the issue about the $2 million from the Tier 3. I'm still waiting for that one.

 

[Buckaineer]

To illustrate further - what Boren pointed out re a conference network is rather than a full share member getting $29.6 miilion in media rights last year from tiers 1,2 and 3-had there been a network the school or schools would have received around $33.6 to $35.6 million per school.

 

[Buckaineer]

What's ignorant is to ignore facts. The expenses get taken out before the schools are paid. Your figure of $8-9 million is only IF NO EXPENSES ARE FACTORED IN. You estimated yearly revenue of $231 million for a B12N. Ok, well the expenses come out of that $231 million before the schools get their cut. That's why the Big Ten got $7.6 million instead of $12.2 million.

I have never argued with the $4-6 million figure Boren stated. What I told you was, that's how much money the schools would make off a conference network. You are the one who tried inflate the figure to $8-9 million, not me. I just showed you that your $8-9 million figure was wrong, and you had no answer for it.

You also had no answer to the issue about the $2 million from the Tier 3. I'm still waiting for that one.

A day or so ago you ignored that btn members got less because of distribution and expense. Ive never claimed there would not be expenses- but they are unknowns and it doesnt mean an athletic department did not receive revenues in the first place. Ive also pointed out other facts you ignore- conferences distribute revenues differently and they have different expenses and some take out expenses prior to distributing while others pay and the schools then pay expenses later.

Youve never shown the model to be wrong. For some reason you continue to state that, but not once have you demonstrated any such thing. Do the math and the numbers are exactly as stated.

No answer to tier 3? Ive already explained everything clearly but you lack comprehension skills.

 

[topdecktiger]

A day or so ago you ignored that btn members got less because of distribution and expense. Ive never claimed there would not be expenses- but they are unknowns and it doesnt mean an athletic department did not receive revenues in the first place. Ive also pointed out other facts you ignore- conferences distribute revenues differently and they have different expenses and some take out expenses prior to distributing while others pay and the schools then pay expenses later.

Youve never shown the model to be wrong. For some reason you continue to state that, but not once have you demonstrated any such thing. Do the math and the numbers are exactly as stated.

No answer to tier 3? Ive already explained everything clearly but you lack comprehension skills.

You are not factoring expenses into your formula. Simple as that. You are adding up the gross revenue, but are not taking out anything for expenses. Then, you are claiming the schools are going to be getting your gross revenue figures, when they aren't.

You are wrong about schools paying the expenses later. Prove that. Show me a conference where the league office distributes gross revenue to the schools, and then the schools pay back expenses to the conference. Show me that.

Yes, I have shown your model to be wrong. I've shown your model to be wrong because it doesn't account for expenses. You HAVE to do that. You keep falling back on this excuse of "do the math." Well there is just one problem. You are leaving expenses out of the "math." That's the flaw in your formula.

No, you haven't touched the Tier 3 example I gave earlier today. You said that the schools would be able to keep their Tier 3 TV money. (The $2 million.) However, you had no answer when I pointed out to you that the schools have to give up those Tier 3 TV contracts, because those rights have to go to the conference network.

I didn't ignore the Big Ten getting less after expenses. You tried to claim that the $7.6 million figure listed for the Big Ten was before expenses. You have no proof of that. Prove it. Prove that the $7.6 million figure was pre-expenses.