Expansion

[michaelwalkerbr]

By the avoidance of presenting an ACC or Big Ten or PAC 12 GOR, or the simple measure of a written response from either the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma re as to a document purported to be a BIG 12 GOR, it's clear that the document is false.

Rather than provide the documents asked for all manner of spin and running around is being done.

So if someone wants to believe these people it's on you, I'd advise you to check it with the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma, or to put in an FOIA request for the goes of other conferences from your school of choice. You won't get one.

As to spinning nonsense about tv contracts being voided if a team leaves- everything I stated is clear as day in this thread, I don't have time to argue stupidity with someone that is dishonest and changes their story when proven wrong over and over again, or tries to spin what I wrote into something completely different,

Listen, Buck. I am the one who searched for hours and found the two identical copies of the Big 12 GOR. I know the FOIA response from Oklahoma is legit, I did some checking. I don't give a damn about the arguments regarding the GOR, I know what it says. I do not jump through hoops for anyone, but I have filled out a FOIA request for Dr. Steve Robinson. He is the Registrar and designated keeper of records at WVU. To possibly avoid waiting days for the same document I already have, I also sent his office an email with the pdf file from Oklahoma attached. I asked him to have a member of his staff to simply check it for accurately depicting the GOR. I hope to hear back tomorrow.

But the question is, would even that satisfy you as to it's authenticity? I do not give a damn about the ACC or B1G GORs and have no intent to pursue them. I will post what I find out, but ease up on the implications against my integrity.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Made me chuckle.

That was rather absurd.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Made me chuckle.

As I said in previous post, just nickname him Bagdad Bob

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Listen, Buck. I am the one who searched for hours and found the two identical copies of the Big 12 GOR. I know the FOIA response from Oklahoma is legit, I did some checking. I don't give a damn about the arguments regarding the GOR, I know what it says. I do not jump through hoops for anyone, but I have filled out a FOIA request for Dr. Steve Robinson. He is the Registrar and designated keeper of records at WVU. To possibly avoid waiting days for the same document I already have, I also sent his office an email with the pdf file from Oklahoma attached. I asked him to have a member of his staff to simply check it for accurately depicting the GOR. I hope to hear back tomorrow.

But the question is, would even that satisfy you as to it's authenticity? I do not give a damn about the ACC or B1G GORs and have no intent to pursue them. I will post what I find out, but ease up on the implications against my integrity.

It won't make a difference to Bagdad Bob

 

[Buckaineer]

Guess what I found! A request for a copy of the Big 12 GOR from an Ohio State fan and what he received: I have not compared it to my previous link, but this is damn sure the real deal:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZz0PcUzJpdV9YaVZHaFE/edit I do find this source to be reputable: http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/s...look-at-the-big-12-grant-of-rights-agreement/

You cannot reasonably conclude this is not credible. For what it's worth, Buck, the author of the column seems to mostly agree with you. But the real GOR is here for all to see. If you believe this is not authentic ask the author of the article on Twitter: @frankthetank111.

The GOR provided is exactly what you or I would receive in a request to the University of Oklahoma for public information.

Frank the Tank is an admitted Big Ten homer who blogs for the Big Ten.

Question--how is it that Frank the Tank can show you a BIG 12 grant of rights but not a Big Ten grant of rights?

If you've ever read his blog, its all about the BIG 12 being weaker than the Big Ten and BIG 12 not being able to do this or that and the Big Ten ruling the world. He is not a legitimate source. He is a message board posting blogger. He has an agenda.

Again-WHERE IS THE BIG TEN GOR? He certainly should have been able to get it if he could get a BIG 12 grant of rights.

You've stated that you've searched for hours on these documents, yet you don't find it odd that you haven't come across an ACC grant of rights, a Big Ten grant of rights or a Pac 12 grant of rights? Why would that be? Think about it. Why is it that no one can print a tv contract for any of the conferences? Not even major news organizations? And why has ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC etc. etc. NEVER posted anyones grant of rights agreement--yet they've certainly written lots of articles referencing the same?

The internet is filled with bogus material.

You want an answer, stop searching google for anonymous Ohio State or other conference posters with a "BIG 12 contract" and ask the University of Oklahoma if the document is real and post the response here on this board.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Frank the Tank is an admitted Big Ten homer who blogs for the Big Ten.

Question--how is it that Frank the Tank can show you a BIG 12 grant of rights but not a Big Ten grant of rights?

If you've ever read his blog, its all about the BIG 12 being weaker than the Big Ten and BIG 12 not being able to do this or that and the Big Ten ruling the world. He is not a legitimate source. He is a message board posting blogger. He has an agenda.

Again-WHERE IS THE BIG TEN GOR? He certainly should have been able to get it if he could get a BIG 12 grant of rights.

You've stated that you've searched for hours on these documents, yet you don't find it odd that you haven't come across an ACC grant of rights, a Big Ten grant of rights or a Pac 12 grant of rights? Why would that be? Think about it. Why is it that no one can print a tv contract for any of the conferences? Not even major news organizations? And why has ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC etc. etc. NEVER posted anyones grant of rights agreement--yet they've certainly written lots of articles referencing the same?

The internet is filled with bogus material.

You want an answer, stop searching google for anonymous Ohio State or other conference posters with a "BIG 12 contract" and ask the University of Oklahoma if the document is real and post the response here on this board.

I'm not your secretary, stop mistaking civility and general friendliness for weakness and naivete'. I haven't found a copy of the B1G, PAC 12 or ACC GORs mostly because I haven't looked for them. I don't care what they say, I'm strictly a WVU and Big 12 fan. Frank the Tank only mentioned the Big 12 GOR briefly and he was not slamming nor denigrating the conference. He provided a link as a courtesy and the link has an e-mail address of the recipient of the document.

I'm handling the Big 12 GOR my own way and shall continue to. I'll put my faith in a response by the WVU Registrar Dr. Steve Robinson or others on the Mountaineer athletic staff. I will post their answer here when I receive it. If they claim that the GOR is exempt from the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, §29-B-1-1 et seq., I will post that also. I have not received a response to my emails yet, so I will mail the FOIA request today. Meanwhile, I absolutely believe the Oklahoma response GOR to be exactly that. The Big 12 GOR agreement between the teams and the conference.

Spare me your meaningless tirade, I don't need it and you're not qualified to lecture me. The only thing you accomplish is pissing me off for a minute or two with your condescension and rudeness.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

This is from an article dated July 22, 2015 in Big12Fanatics.com

'The teams have video broadcast inventory, e.g. home games in various sports. They grant the rights to these home games to the conference to bundle and sell to a media channel. No one can force you to sign away your rights, you have to do it yourself, which is another reason why they are difficult to break. Once they are signed, you no longer control those rights until the term of the agreement ends.

What happens then is that any revenue generated from the inventory goes to the conference, who pays out their members based on their bylaws. They do not go directly to the school nor does the school control them during the duration. This acts like a poison pill. If a team without a Grant of Rights leaves a conference, their rights and the revenue derived from those rights flow with them. However, while a team under a grant of rights could move conferences, the revenue generated from their rights would still flow back to the conference that holds the GoR. As an example, if the SEC expanded with North Carolina, the SEC would have to pay the ACC for any revenue North Carolina’s inventory generated. This makes it difficult for both North Carolina and the SEC, because North Carolina doesn’t have much to offer the SEC any longer.

Additionally, North Carolina may lose their revenue stream completely. The Big 12’s bylaws are public and they clearly state in section 3.1 that:

The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdraw for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdraw.

In short, if you are no longer a member you are not paid as a member would be paid, even if your rights are owned by the conference.'

Very well stated! The Big 12 by-laws are public and so is the GOR!

 

[Buckaineer]

The bylaws have always been public and they reference the grant of rights. Go back you'll see I referenced that earlier. They however are NOT the grant of rights.

Go to the BIG 12 website and you'll find the bylaws as I stated, but you will not find the grant of rights- which as you can see from the bylaws are with the conference, which is a private Delaware corporation.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

If you like the expansion topic this is a must read. It is one of the best thought out articles regarding expansion hitting both Pros and cons

I was having problems with the link. I hope it works for you. If not cut and past into browser.

www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25491425/what-you-dont-but-need-to-know-about-big-12-conference-realignment --

excerpts:
What we know: Boren believes the league is at a “psychological disadvantage” going forward with only 10 teams. side note: there is zero proof and is only Boren's belief. Boren further believes the Big 12 would be shored up with more members. That would require rights holders ESPN and Fox to pony up more money.

Jon Solomon reported, the Big 12 is currently third in conference revenue, more than 9 million behind the SEC. side note, the way Boren and his WVU rivals poster boy sidekick, is screaming the sky is falling you would think the BIG12 was dead last in revenue sharing and not 3rd

What we don't know: It's complicated. More teams means insurance -- a better chance the Big 12 will continue to exist if others leave. But about the only reason the Big 12 exists in its current form in the first place is the presence of Oklahoma and Texas. A loss of one or both means trouble for the league

Based on recent interviews, it's fair to say the majority of Big 12 athletic directors aren't in favor of expansion.


Who is going to pay for expansion? As one network executive once told me, the likes of ESPN aren't necessarily in the business of wanting to pay for all this realignment. Sorry, but BYU and Cincinnati just do not bring enough brand recognition or volume (TV sets) to the Big 12. Together, they'd have to bring $46 million per year just for the Big 12 to break even.

Conference championship game uncertainty: It looms large because there's another ledge the league would have to step out on. During the 15 years the Big 12 did stage a championship game (1996-2010), the Big 12 favorite lost six times (40 percent).

Might. The Big Ten labored long and hard, figuratively going door-to-door to get cable systems to carry its network. That meant, at first, getting a dime per cable subscriber outside its market and $1 inside its nine-state footprint to establish its network side note, this fact is being totally ignored by Boren and his WVU rivals poster boy sidekick,

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The bylaws have always been public and they reference the grant of rights. Go back you'll see I referenced that earlier. They however are NOT the grant of rights.

Go to the BIG 12 website and you'll find the bylaws as I stated, but you will not find the grant of rights- which as you can see from the bylaws are with the conference, which is a private Delaware corporation.

To state the GOR presented by Mike is fake because it does not exist on BIG12 website is a ridiculous argument even for you.

 

[Buckaineer]

To state the GOR presented by Mike is fake because it does not exist on BIG12 website is a ridiculous argument even for you.

To state the document claimed as a BIG 12 grant of rights is real because the bylaws reference the GORs and that they are with the conference which is a private corporation is a ridiculous argument period.

The conference office can answer the question as can the University of Oklahoma. As can the presentation of an ACC gor, Big Ten gor or Pac 12 gor. Its simple. No need for emotion to play any part of this.

 

[Buckaineer]

If you like the expansion topic this is a must read. It is one of the best thought out articles regarding expansion hitting both Pros and cons

I was having problems with the link. I hope it works for you. If not cut and past into browser.

www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25491425/what-you-dont-but-need-to-know-about-big-12-conference-realignment --

excerpts:
What we know: Boren believes the league is at a “psychological disadvantage” going forward with only 10 teams. side note: there is zero proof and is only Boren's belief. Boren further believes the Big 12 would be shored up with more members. That would require rights holders ESPN and Fox to pony up more money.

Jon Solomon reported, the Big 12 is currently third in conference revenue, more than 9 million behind the SEC. side note, the way Boren and his WVU rivals poster boy sidekick, is screaming the sky is falling you would think the BIG12 was dead last in revenue sharing and not 3rd

What we don't know: It's complicated. More teams means insurance -- a better chance the Big 12 will continue to exist if others leave. But about the only reason the Big 12 exists in its current form in the first place is the presence of Oklahoma and Texas. A loss of one or both means trouble for the league

Based on recent interviews, it's fair to say the majority of Big 12 athletic directors aren't in favor of expansion.


Who is going to pay for expansion? As one network executive once told me, the likes of ESPN aren't necessarily in the business of wanting to pay for all this realignment. Sorry, but BYU and Cincinnati just do not bring enough brand recognition or volume (TV sets) to the Big 12. Together, they'd have to bring $46 million per year just for the Big 12 to break even.

Conference championship game uncertainty: It looms large because there's another ledge the league would have to step out on. During the 15 years the Big 12 did stage a championship game (1996-2010), the Big 12 favorite lost six times (40 percent).

Might. The Big Ten labored long and hard, figuratively going door-to-door to get cable systems to carry its network. That meant, at first, getting a dime per cable subscriber outside its market and $1 inside its nine-state footprint to establish its network side note, this fact is being totally ignored by Boren and his WVU rivals poster boy sidekick,

This is an opinion piece, not a fact filled article.

The writer accuses the BIG 12 of creating its "psychological disadvantage" while proclaiming the BIG 12 can't do this, that or the other as other conferences have done, not based on fact, but the writers opinion. That is EXACTLY what Boren was referring to in the first place.

He again makes the claim of the BIG 12 being $9 million behind the SEC(based on an error filled CBS article) when in reality we don't know the numbers for SEC schools from tax reports, just what they reported--and the writer dismisses BIG 12 tier 3 revenues. Also left out is what BIG 12 schools were paid in NCAA revenues, while the SEC numbers included that. Again, this type of yellow journalism is exactly the sort of psychological disadvanatage Boren referenced.

The writer speculates the BIG 12 won't be able to get a network going because decades ago as the first one the Big Ten took a couple of years to get theirs up and running. That doesn't mean the BIG 12 TODAY won't be able to do exactly what the SEC did with theirs.

He claims certain schools don't bring this or that--not based on real numbers, but again on his OPINION. Where's the data that backs up his claim of households they "bring". It's all just made up opinion with not one piece of evidence to back it up.

One must keep in mind that CBS LOVES the SEC and carries virtually 0 BIG 12 product. They obviously see an expanded, networked BIG 12 as a threat and are trying to stop that in its tracks. Next time rather than giving their opinion perhaps they should present some facts along with that. The BIG 12s leaders are doing just that--and aren't going to be swayed by anti BIG 12 rhetoric and opinion from someone that doesn't use facts and figures.

 

[Buckaineer]

I'm not your secretary, stop mistaking civility and general friendliness for weakness and naivete'. I haven't found a copy of the B1G, PAC 12 or ACC GORs mostly because I haven't looked for them. I don't care what they say, I'm strictly a WVU and Big 12 fan. Frank the Tank only mentioned the Big 12 GOR briefly and he was not slamming nor denigrating the conference. He provided a link as a courtesy and the link has an e-mail address of the recipient of the document.

I'm handling the Big 12 GOR my own way and shall continue to. I'll put my faith in a response by the WVU Registrar Dr. Steve Robinson or others on the Mountaineer athletic staff. I will post their answer here when I receive it. If they claim that the GOR is exempt from the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, §29-B-1-1 et seq., I will post that also. I have not received a response to my emails yet, so I will mail the FOIA request today. Meanwhile, I absolutely believe the Oklahoma response GOR to be exactly that. The Big 12 GOR agreement between the teams and the conference.

Spare me your meaningless tirade, I don't need it and you're not qualified to lecture me. The only thing you accomplish is pissing me off for a minute or two with your condescension and rudeness.

Its great you believe the "Oklahoma" document is real. That doesn't make it real however. There's no need for hostility. If someone presents something as a factual document, but the source of that document and the availability of that document publicly is questionable, then you may not like it, but proof is required (as is the case here since not only is the contract embedded in the tv contracts which I've provided links for, they are also the documents of a private corporation, the source is claiming to provide a BIG 12 document but somehow can't manage to find one from his own conference?).

Referencing a known homer blogger for another conference that has taken one BIG 12 member and would like more, a person that often puts out disparaging and incorrect info about the BIG 12, and claiming him as a good source when for some magical reason he can't produce the Big Ten's grant of rights should be setting off warning lights in anyone.

Its rude to claim that the document is real and become indignant when simple tests of the validity can be done-and yes you are making an attempt at getting verification although not from the supposed source which is either the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma. At the same time you are saying if WVU tells you the document is not public, then the Oklahoma document is still real? No.

 

[steeleer]

Its great you believe the "Oklahoma" document is real. That doesn't make it real however. There's no need for hostility. If someone presents something as a factual document, but the source of that document and the availability of that document publicly is questionable, then you may not like it, but proof is required (as is the case here since not only is the contract embedded in the tv contracts which I've provided links for, they are also the documents of a private corporation, the source is claiming to provide a BIG 12 document but somehow can't manage to find one from his own conference?).

Referencing a known homer blogger for another conference that has taken one BIG 12 member and would like more, a person that often puts out disparaging and incorrect info about the BIG 12, and claiming him as a good source when for some magical reason he can't produce the Big Ten's grant of rights should be setting off warning lights in anyone.

Its rude to claim that the document is real and become indignant when simple tests of the validity can be done-and yes you are making an attempt at getting verification although not from the supposed source which is either the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma. At the same time you are saying if WVU tells you the document is not public, then the Oklahoma document is still real? No.

 

[Buckaineer]

Whats the conspiracy-the people believing in an unsourced internal business document not generally available (as referenced for example by lack of any of the ACC, Big Ten or Pac 12 gors) or those that ask for simple proof--contact the University of Oklahoma and ask if its real. Its simple.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

This is an opinion piece, not a fact filled article.

The writer accuses the BIG 12 of creating its "psychological disadvantage" while proclaiming the BIG 12 can't do this, that or the other as other conferences have done, not based on fact, but the writers opinion. That is EXACTLY what Boren was referring to in the first place.

To say the BIG12 is or is not "psychological disadvantage" is just an opinion. Boren's claim that it is, is just his opinion. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

He again makes the claim of the BIG 12 being $9 million behind the SEC(based on an error filled CBS article) when in reality we don't know the numbers for SEC schools from tax reports, just what they reported--and the writer dismisses BIG 12 tier 3 revenues. Also left out is what BIG 12 schools were paid in NCAA revenues, while the SEC numbers included that. Again, this type of yellow journalism is exactly the sort of psychological disadvanatage Boren referenced.
I don't get your argument. If he left out BIG12 tier 3 revenue that is just shows BIG12 is not as far behind the SEC as some think. The bigger picture which you may or may not be grasping is the BIG12's per team payout is 3rd behind the BIG and the SEC and ahead of the ACC and PAC. The big question is just how far behind will the BIG12 fall behind the leaders.

The writer speculates the BIG 12 won't be able to get a network going because decades ago as the first one the Big Ten took a couple of years to get theirs up and running. That doesn't mean the BIG 12 TODAY won't be able to do exactly what the SEC did with theirs.
It is just speculation, but it is based on the facts of where the networks are today. The BIG and SEC created a network when things were going well, and they were able to build a foundation before the looming collapse of current content distribution. If the BIG12 wants to create a network they will have to invest heavily up front like the BIG did. Overall the BIG has better leadership, foresight and less Dysfunctionalism to get this done. I have a hard time thinking the BIG12 can or will agree to anything regarding BIG12 network. Again the BIG invested up front to pay HUGE dividends down the road. Will the BIG12 be forward thinking enough to do this? My opinion is no.

He claims certain schools don't bring this or that--not based on real numbers, but again on his OPINION. Where's the data that backs up his claim of households they "bring". It's all just made up opinion with not one piece of evidence to back it up.
Until the research companies come back with data we won't know either way. You claim Boren has the numbers, but I yet to see any facts or documents that prove this. Until this is done, it is just an opinion. Even if the research comes back positive that it could be beneficial, it won't actually be beneficial until there is network or medium agreement to help develop BIG12N. ESPN told the ACC they would help develop a network and keeps getting delayed. So unless there is a contract in place everything else is just speculation. Hopefully there won't be any teams physically added unless the network is slated to kickoff at the same time.

One must keep in mind that CBS LOVES the SEC and carries virtually 0 BIG 12 product. They obviously see an expanded, networked BIG 12 as a threat and are trying to stop that in its tracks. Next time rather than giving their opinion perhaps they should present some facts along with that. The BIG 12s leaders are doing just that--and aren't going to be swayed by anti BIG 12 rhetoric and opinion from someone that doesn't use facts and figures.
And here is a point we can both agree on.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

As I said, I am finding links to the same Big 12 GOR in multiple places, one on a national level. I am verifying it not through OK, but through WVU. A FOIA request takes a few days. Someone saying, "I don't believe it!" does not make this document fraudulent. It will stand or fall on it's own merits. Just curious though, how do all of the writers and pundits discuss and debate the contents of the GOR without having read it? Interesting. Regardless, I'll have an answer to my FOIA request in a few days.

 

[Buckaineer]

to Mountaineer Steve:

B:This is an opinion piece, not a fact filled article.

The writer accuses the BIG 12 of creating its "psychological disadvantage" while proclaiming the BIG 12 can't do this, that or the other as other conferences have done, not based on fact, but the writers opinion. That is EXACTLY what Boren was referring to in the first place.

To say the BIG12 is or is not "psychological disadvantage" is just an opinion. Boren's claim that it is, is just his opinion. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

B response: no its not "just an opinion" Boren lives and works in the BIG 12. He is directly affected by negativity that disadvantages the BIG 12. He witnessed TCU and Baylor left out of the playoffs and witness OU drop on the last day. He sees the negative press and the insinuation by others that the BIG 12 is "lesser" because its smaller. He also saw the conference have less representation in the playoff committee among other things than bigger conferences. When he says there are disadvantages he is speaking about things he has personal knowledge of not just guessing like the reporters.

B:He again makes the claim of the BIG 12 being $9 million behind the SEC(based on an error filled CBS article) when in reality we don't know the numbers for SEC schools from tax reports, just what they reported--and the writer dismisses BIG 12 tier 3 revenues. Also left out is what BIG 12 schools were paid in NCAA revenues, while the SEC numbers included that. Again, this type of yellow journalism is exactly the sort of psychological disadvanatage Boren referenced.
I don't get your argument. If he left out BIG12 tier 3 revenue that is just shows BIG12 is not as far behind the SEC as some think. The bigger picture which you may or may not be grasping is the BIG12's per team payout is 3rd behind the BIG and the SEC and ahead of the ACC and PAC. The big question is just how far behind will the BIG12 fall behind the leaders.
B Response: The argument is that to a national audience writers are proving Boren's "psychological disadvantage by misrepresenting the BIG 12 to the public at large. This impacts the schools and the conference negatively. They write articles like "BIG 12 makes xx less than others" rather than "BIG 12 makes most ever in conference history--but they don't do that to other conferences. For example in the two previous years the BIG 12 made more per school, there wasn't an article titled "SEC doesn't make as much as BIG 12" now was there. The BIG 12s payout is different than others because different schools make different amounts due to different tier 3 deals. Texas makes more than Big Ten and SEC schools. OU, KU and WVU make a similar amount. Schools like Kansas State are just behind and schools like Iowa State are further behind in media rights payouts for tiers 1,2 and 3. The gap is going to widen between what B10 and SEC schools make and the BIG 12 as time goes on-which is why Boren and the conference are now looking at the issues.


B: The writer speculates the BIG 12 won't be able to get a network going because decades ago as the first one the Big Ten took a couple of years to get theirs up and running. That doesn't mean the BIG 12 TODAY won't be able to do exactly what the SEC did with theirs.
It is just speculation, but it is based on the facts of where the networks are today. The BIG and SEC created a network when things were going well, and they were able to build a foundation before the looming collapse of current content distribution. If the BIG12 wants to create a network they will have to invest heavily up front like the BIG did. Overall the BIG has better leadership, foresight and less Dysfunctionalism to get this done. I have a hard time thinking the BIG12 can or will agree to anything regarding BIG12 network. Again the BIG invested up front to pay HUGE dividends down the road. Will the BIG12 be forward thinking enough to do this? My opinion is no.

B Response: Its speculation that isn't based on anything, while the BIG 12 has had analysts looking at the situation for awhile. Any "collapse of the current system is years away at best--cable subscriptions
are still expected to be in the 90 million range in the 2020's. The BIG 12 has looked at the issue and determined it is feasible and now they are looking into in more detail to get a better picture of specific situations with specific schools. However to claim the BIG 12 would have to go back to a situation from two decades ago when the "conference network" industry has greatly changed is baseless--and the writer provided 0 evidence to support his claim anyway.
B: He claims certain schools don't bring this or that--not based on real numbers, but again on his OPINION. Where's the data that backs up his claim of households they "bring". It's all just made up opinion with not one piece of evidence to back it up.
Until the research companies come back with data we won't know either way. You claim Boren has the numbers, but I yet to see any facts or documents that prove this. Until this is done, it is just an opinion. Even if the research comes back positive that it could be beneficial, it won't actually be beneficial until there is network or medium agreement to help develop BIG12N. ESPN told the ACC they would help develop a network and keeps getting delayed. So unless there is a contract in place everything else is just speculation. Hopefully there won't be any teams physically added unless the network is slated to kickoff at the same time.

B Response: Boren has researched this for well over a year and there were research committees prior to the current one. You haven't seen articles where Boren stated they've identified schools that would be additive? He's on video discussing the same. The analysts are providing more details because the conference hasn't decided on anyone, but that doesn't mean they haven't identified candidates-he states they have several that meet the requirements and has no reason to mislead anyone. Gee also on the committee agrees with the need to expand and that there are viable candidates. You can't claim expansion won't be beneficial without the network, because it would immediately be valuable to making the playoffs--and that is worth $6 million plus per year, not to mention even the linked CBS article states that schools could get an additional $3 million per school with expansion with these schools. Its not speculation if someone on the expansion committee is telling you they have identified candidates, the only speculation is which ones they'll select to expand with if that's what they do. But there are reasons to expand other than a network-that just makes it much more profitable.

B:One must keep in mind that CBS LOVES the SEC and carries virtually 0 BIG 12 product. They obviously see an expanded, networked BIG 12 as a threat and are trying to stop that in its tracks. Next time rather than giving their opinion perhaps they should present some facts along with that. The BIG 12s leaders are doing just that--and aren't going to be swayed by anti BIG 12 rhetoric and opinion from someone that doesn't use facts and figures.
And here is a point we can both agree on.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

to Mountaineer Steve:

B:This is an opinion piece, not a fact filled article.

The writer accuses the BIG 12 of creating its "psychological disadvantage" while proclaiming the BIG 12 can't do this, that or the other as other conferences have done, not based on fact, but the writers opinion. That is EXACTLY what Boren was referring to in the first place.

To say the BIG12 is or is not "psychological disadvantage" is just an opinion. Boren's claim that it is, is just his opinion. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

B response: no its not "just an opinion" Boren lives and works in the BIG 12. He is directly affected by negativity that disadvantages the BIG 12. He witnessed TCU and Baylor left out of the playoffs and witness OU drop on the last day. He sees the negative press and the insinuation by others that the BIG 12 is "lesser" because its smaller. He also saw the conference have less representation in the playoff committee among other things than bigger conferences. When he says there are disadvantages he is speaking about things he has personal knowledge of not just guessing like the reporters.

So you are disingenuous because Boren's opinion is the same as yours. If all the BIG12 felt the same way expansion would be a slam dunk. Expansion hasn't been and is not a slam dunk so apparently there are other schools living who don't believe they are at a disadvantage so it is an opinion. Until there are more playoff spots there will always be a team left out. The PAC was left out this past year and you don't hear them playing chicken little like you and Boren. Had UNC beaten Clemson in the ACC CFG, it would have been the ACC left out Your hopeless, and pathetic because you can't even be honest enough to admit this.

B:He again makes the claim of the BIG 12 being $9 million behind the SEC(based on an error filled CBS article) when in reality we don't know the numbers for SEC schools from tax reports, just what they reported--and the writer dismisses BIG 12 tier 3 revenues. Also left out is what BIG 12 schools were paid in NCAA revenues, while the SEC numbers included that. Again, this type of yellow journalism is exactly the sort of psychological disadvanatage Boren referenced.
I don't get your argument. If he left out BIG12 tier 3 revenue that is just shows BIG12 is not as far behind the SEC as some think. The bigger picture which you may or may not be grasping is the BIG12's per team payout is 3rd behind the BIG and the SEC and ahead of the ACC and PAC. The big question is just how far behind will the BIG12 fall behind the leaders.
B Response: The argument is that to a national audience writers are proving Boren's "psychological disadvantage by misrepresenting the BIG 12 to the public at large. This impacts the schools and the conference negatively. They write articles like "BIG 12 makes xx less than others" rather than "BIG 12 makes most ever in conference history--but they don't do that to other conferences. For example in the two previous years the BIG 12 made more per school, there wasn't an article titled "SEC doesn't make as much as BIG 12" now was there. The BIG 12s payout is different than others because different schools make different amounts due to different tier 3 deals. Texas makes more than Big Ten and SEC schools. OU, KU and WVU make a similar amount. Schools like Kansas State are just behind and schools like Iowa State are further behind in media rights payouts for tiers 1,2 and 3. The gap is going to widen between what B10 and SEC schools make and the BIG 12 as time goes on-which is why Boren and the conference are now looking at the issues.

We both assumes the gap between the B12, vs the BIG and SEC will widen. However as I stated top to bottom the BIG12 has the 3rd highest revenue per team without counting T3 rights. This means the BIG12 has a major advantage over the PAC and ACC.


B: The writer speculates the BIG 12 won't be able to get a network going because decades ago as the first one the Big Ten took a couple of years to get theirs up and running. That doesn't mean the BIG 12 TODAY won't be able to do exactly what the SEC did with theirs.
It is just speculation, but it is based on the facts of where the networks are today. The BIG and SEC created a network when things were going well, and they were able to build a foundation before the looming collapse of current content distribution. If the BIG12 wants to create a network they will have to invest heavily up front like the BIG did. Overall the BIG has better leadership, foresight and less Dysfunctionalism to get this done. I have a hard time thinking the BIG12 can or will agree to anything regarding BIG12 network. Again the BIG invested up front to pay HUGE dividends down the road. Will the BIG12 be forward thinking enough to do this? My opinion is no.

B Response: Its speculation that isn't based on anything, while the BIG 12 has had analysts looking at the situation for awhile. Any "collapse of the current system is years away at best--cable subscriptions
are still expected to be in the 90 million range in the 2020's. The BIG 12 has looked at the issue and determined it is feasible and now they are looking into in more detail to get a better picture of specific situations with specific schools. However to claim the BIG 12 would have to go back to a situation from two decades ago when the "conference network" industry has greatly changed is baseless--and the writer provided 0 evidence to support his claim anyway.
You can only go by history and history has proved the B12 was at a disadvantage more than any other Conference. You can't claim you know the BIG12 is at a disadvantageous now because of history and discount history that does not match your party line.

B: He claims certain schools don't bring this or that--not based on real numbers, but again on his OPINION. Where's the data that backs up his claim of households they "bring". It's all just made up opinion with not one piece of evidence to back it up.
Until the research companies come back with data we won't know either way. You claim Boren has the numbers, but I yet to see any facts or documents that prove this. Until this is done, it is just an opinion. Even if the research comes back positive that it could be beneficial, it won't actually be beneficial until there is network or medium agreement to help develop BIG12N. ESPN told the ACC they would help develop a network and keeps getting delayed. So unless there is a contract in place everything else is just speculation. Hopefully there won't be any teams physically added unless the network is slated to kickoff at the same time.

B Response: Boren has researched this for well over a year and there were research committees prior to the current one. You haven't seen articles where Boren stated they've identified schools that would be additive? He's on video discussing the same. The analysts are providing more details because the conference hasn't decided on anyone, but that doesn't mean they haven't identified candidates-he states they have several that meet the requirements and has no reason to mislead anyone. Gee also on the committee agrees with the need to expand and that there are viable candidates. You can't claim expansion won't be beneficial without the network, because it would immediately be valuable to making the playoffs--and that is worth $6 million plus per year, not to mention even the linked CBS article states that schools could get an additional $3 million per school with expansion with these schools. Its not speculation if someone on the expansion committee is telling you they have identified candidates, the only speculation is which ones they'll select to expand with if that's what they do. But there are reasons to expand other than a network-that just makes it much more profitable.
I will take your line. Where is the Proof buck. And don't show me a link to Boren's comments, I want to see these so called numbers that the conference is better off financially. Care to provide a link? I guess not because they don't exist. You don't know what data Boren has seen, unless of course you are his best buddy and he shared with them with you

B:One must keep in mind that CBS LOVES the SEC and carries virtually 0 BIG 12 product. They obviously see an expanded, networked BIG 12 as a threat and are trying to stop that in its tracks. Next time rather than giving their opinion perhaps they should present some facts along with that. The BIG 12s leaders are doing just that--and aren't going to be swayed by anti BIG 12 rhetoric and opinion from someone that doesn't use facts and figures.
And here is a point we can both agree on.

To your credit, you are very articulate in your beliefs, but you are more like a politician than anything else. You are dishonest and spin things to match your party line, and most on this board see right through you

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Let me make this perfectly clear, I want to be ingenuous! I agree with your post.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

PS, most of the BIG12 pub last football season was fairly positive. The BIG12 OOC record was outstanding, there were multiple teams in the hunt for the playoffs down to the last couple of weeks, a traditional BIG12 power made the playoff, and BIG12 successfully lobbied to get a 10 team CCG game while giving a big FU to ACC goals. I challenge you to go back to the days right after conference dergeg passed and before fat mouth started crying like the little Beeotch he his for the positive BIG12 press. It wasn't until Boren opened his big fat mouth and basically said, if BIG12 does not expand, don't expect OU to stick around. Since that time the pub went negative. So Boren needs to look in the mirror to see why the pub has been negative of since the 1st of the year. He generated and caused it all

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Let me make this perfectly clear, I want to be ingenuous! I agree with your post.

Ha Good one Michael.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

PS, most of the BIG12 pub last football season was fairly positive. The BIG12 OOC record was outstanding, there were multiple teams in the hunt for the playoffs down to the last couple of weeks, a traditional BIG12 power made the playoff, and BIG12 successfully lobbied to get a 10 team CCG game while giving a big FU to ACC goals. I challenge you to go back to the days right after conference dergeg passed and before fat mouth started crying like the little Beeotch he his for the positive BIG12 press. It wasn't until Boren opened his big fat mouth and basically said, if BIG12 does not expand, don't expect OU to stick around. Since that time the pub went negative. So Boren needs to look in the mirror to see why the pub has been negative of since the 1st of the year. He generated and caused it all

The man has a point. And Gee is being uncharacteristically quiet, something's up. He's a brilliant mind, but he cannot keep a secret for long.

 

[Buckaineer]

PS, most of the BIG12 pub last football season was fairly positive. The BIG12 OOC record was outstanding, there were multiple teams in the hunt for the playoffs down to the last couple of weeks, a traditional BIG12 power made the playoff, and BIG12 successfully lobbied to get a 10 team CCG game while giving a big FU to ACC goals. I challenge you to go back to the days right after conference dergeg passed and before fat mouth started crying like the little Beeotch he his for the positive BIG12 press. It wasn't until Boren opened his big fat mouth and basically said, if BIG12 does not expand, don't expect OU to stick around. Since that time the pub went negative. So Boren needs to look in the mirror to see why the pub has been negative of since the 1st of the year. He generated and caused it all

Not sure why you have it out for Boren, but you must not pay attention to the media. The national media was questioning the BIG 12 all season. The final standings AGAIN, the BIG 12 dropped into the last spot. They were saying anyone other than OU couldn't have a loss or wouldn't be in the playoffs. Notre Dame was being pushed for inclusion for the last spot as was Stanford-a two loss team. The CCG deregulation was thwarted by the Big Ten at the 10th hr and the BIG 12 had to settle for less than they wanted. Last year like this year the media was touting the SEC earnings over the BIG 12. At the end of bowl season everyone was proclaiming the BIG 12 diminished and in fifth place among the power leagues. Lots of negative press. Boren spoke out because once again the league was going down a path that would weaken them--a CCG with 10 teams guaranteed to make a rematch. He saw that a plan that included several actions the conference had avoided would be the better plan for the future. While it may be ok to you to be third its not ok with OU or other schools in the BIG 12. Its also not ok to have multiple schools falling behind financially. Its not about one year, its about stability and security long term.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

How in the world could anyone have the Big 12 behind the PAC 12 last year. The PAC had two teams out of 12 in the top final top 25 with Stanford at #3 and Oregon at #19. The Big 12 had four out of ten. Which is the stronger conference? You don't need no stinkin' calculator!

 

[Buckaineer]

How in the world could anyone have the Big 12 behind the PAC 12 last year. The PAC had two teams out of 12 in the top final top 25 with Stanford at #3 and Oregon at #19. The Big 12 had four out of ten. Which is the stronger conference? You don't need no stinkin' calculator!

IDK but some did, and many pundits were questioning whether Stanford should get in rather than OU. If Stanford didn't lose to Oregon it would have been dicey for the conference.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The Big 12 needs expansion and a CCG and they need it ASAP. Let the networks decide who they add. As far as athletic success It really does not matter, Maryland and Rutgers proved that,

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The Big 12 needs expansion and a CCG and they need it ASAP. Let the networks decide who they add. As far as athletic success It really does not matter, Maryland and Rutgers proved that,

Only if LHN folds and networks get behind BIG1N

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Kiss LHN's ass for five years if necessary. Give them a boost as they provide the facilities.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

The LHN will morph into the Big12 network and Texas will be given a little piece in perpetuity.

 

[Buckaineer]

The Big 12 needs expansion and a CCG and they need it ASAP. Let the networks decide who they add. As far as athletic success It really does not matter, Maryland and Rutgers proved that,

This. If the BIG 12 doesn't expand then its trouble ahead for the entire conference. There's no more time to waste.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I agree, and bet it will be announced this summer. Two or four, who knows? BYU or USF, who knows? But it will happen.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

I agree, and bet it will be announced this summer. Two or four, who knows? BYU or USF, who knows? But it will happen.

colorado St and BYU

 

[Buckaineer]

I agree, and bet it will be announced this summer. Two or four, who knows? BYU or USF, who knows? But it will happen.

Agree, don't see the alternative. Four makes alot of sense, but they have spoken more about just two for the most part.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The man has a point. And Gee is being uncharacteristically quiet, something's up. He's a brilliant mind, but he cannot keep a secret for long.

The BIG12 programs all made commitment to allow any expansion information to flow through one voice (Bowlsby). Apparently, and unlike Boren, Gee is a man of is word and integrity.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I agree, and bet it will be announced this summer. Two or four, who knows? BYU or USF, who knows? But it will happen.

My opinion is everything hinges on BIG12N. If they are successful of getting something in place that is profitable they will add 2 teams now. A successful BIG12N will further fracture the ACC making it more vulnerable to a BIG raid, as they get closer to GOR end. The SEC would strike next, leaving teams like FSU and Clemson to the BIG12.

 

[Rootmaster]

Then again the Big 12-2=10 Presidents might make all this expansion talk a joke. Maybe they believe in the Big East management model....particularly the one that says "do nothing until there is absolutely nothing you can do to fix it approach." It is similar to the "kick the can down the road" decision process that translates into let the next President make the decision when I've moved on style.

 

[Buckaineer]

Then again the Big 12-2=10 Presidents might make all this expansion talk a joke. Maybe they believe in the Big East management model....particularly the one that says "do nothing until there is absolutely nothing you can do to fix it approach." It is similar to the "kick the can down the road" decision process that translates into let the next President make the decision when I've moved on style.

Root why do you find it necessary to call the BIG 12 the Big 12-2=10? Do you call the ACC the Atlantic +Kentucky+partial Indiana?. Is the PAC 12 the Pacific +Arizona+Colorado+Utah? The Big Ten the 10+4=14?

I'm sure we can all do without the childish name.

As far as the upcoming decisions, Can't imagine anyone wanting a strong conference would look down the road and decide no changes are needed to ensure that.

 

[Rootmaster]

Buck...check your eyes this morning LOL. I am saying that it is entirely possible that the Presidents will kick the can down the road and let the next group deal with the expansion issue. If you haven't noticed that is the political norm today.

As far as the Big 12-2=10 is concerned....I use that to point out the fact that Big 12 is not...well 12, but 10 and that is a perceived weakness with a lot of folks. At least the rest of the conferences that have expanded and got with the program have incorrect names but are bigger than their name says they are LOLx2.

Sorry you don't like me saying it, but the Big12 is neither big in regards to market numbers or to the actual number of teams within it. They are what they can't be called...the Big 10. So, I will stick with Big 12-2=10 and you can either read it or not. Your choice. Bye.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Root why do you find it necessary to call the BIG 12 the Big 12-2=10? Do you call the ACC the Atlantic +Kentucky+partial Indiana?. Is the PAC 12 the Pacific +Arizona+Colorado+Utah? The Big Ten the 10+4=14?

I'm sure we can all do without the childish name.

As far as the upcoming decisions, Can't imagine anyone wanting a strong conference would look down the road and decide no changes are needed to ensure that.

There is no need to make changes to the name of the other P5 conference for the following reasons.

• The PAC changed is name from PAC10 to PAC12 to reflect number of teams.
• The BIG10 Morphed into the BIG, to account for any number of schools.
• The ACC and SEC do not include a number in the name.

I remember when the BIG10 first went to 11 teams without a name change, many refereed to them as the BIG10+1.