Gee: Big 12 puts expansion on hold

[Mountaineer Steve]

https://westvirginia.n.rivals.com/news/realignment-and-expansion-on-hold-for-now

Gee also serves on the Big 12 expansion committee. At this time, the league does not have plans to move to twelve schools.

“I think we’re a very stable league,” Gee said. “And I think that we’d only speak about expansion if it makes sense.”

The expansion committee still does research on potential future members, but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

“We’ve done all the analytics of what adding several teams would mean and what it would look like going into subdivisions,” Gee added.

 

[Orlaco]

My copy and paste reply to a thread on this EXACT same topic....
-------


Gordon Gee pointing out the instability from two years ago says a lot.... ....since two years ago everybody from the conference was advertising that everything was completely fine.

It's almost like it takes time to really know what's what.... ....but I'm sure realignment really is 'on hold' for now

 

[BoremanEer]

Well, there went Oklahoma.....

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Well, there went Oklahoma.....

That is possible, but not a guarantee. Boren kept insisting expansion would in enough money to make it worth while. If that is not they case, BIG12 can still move forward with 10.

Having a CCG game alone is going to add another 3 million per program a year.

 

[MikeRafone]

There are lot of people having kittens in Provo and Cincy this evening.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Take what Dr.Gee says with a grain of salt. He is not above throwing out a diversionary statement if it suits his purpose. We will know something this Summer.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

There are lot of people having kittens in Provo and Cincy this evening.

And Buck is on suicide watch as well

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

It won't make economic sense till the current 10 members will get more than their current $30 million annual checks, which is expected to rise to $40 million down the road. $300 million current total needs to be in excess of $400 million to make any financial sense.. Cincy and UConn wouldn't bring in an extra $100 million + by becoming members. WVU barely got into a Power 5 conference, thanks to Oliver Luck, thereby tripling the best payday WVU ever got from the Big East.

 

[mofo]

https://westvirginia.n.rivals.com/news/realignment-and-expansion-on-hold-for-now

Gee also serves on the Big 12 expansion committee. At this time, the league does not have plans to move to twelve schools.

“I think we’re a very stable league,” Gee said. “And I think that we’d only speak about expansion if it makes sense.”

The expansion committee still does research on potential future members, but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

“We’ve done all the analytics of what adding several teams would mean and what it would look like going into subdivisions,” Gee added.

i think it's worthless to expand,
just to expand....

the ACC and b10 look stupid carrying worthless, non producing programs ...

all b12 schools are now full members, by this summer i think..

also, all teams would already play each other, I'm not sure why b12 would have a conference championship game other than to reinforce other bad expansion decisions
yeah the money....but

take a beep breath before we jump

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

It won't make economic sense till the current 10 members will get more than their current $30 million annual checks, which is expected to rise to $40 million down the road. $300 million current total needs to be in excess of $400 million to make any financial sense.. Cincy and UConn wouldn't bring in an extra $100 million + by becoming members. WVU barely got into a Power 5 conference, thanks to Oliver Luck, thereby tripling the best payday WVU ever got from the Big East.

Have no argument with your logic. It would seem foolish to have a CCG with a round robin schedule, though. If there is no expansion, how about cutting the conference games to eight with another mandatory power 5 game?

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Have no argument with your logic. It would seem foolish to have a CCG with a round robin schedule, though. If there is no expansion, how about cutting the conference games to eight with another mandatory power 5 game?

With only 10 programs there is not enough content to cut games from the package.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Other conferences only have eight conference games.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Other conferences only have eight conference games.

You have to look at the math.
The SEC, ACC and BIG with 8 in conference games has a total inventory of 56 games.
The BIG12 with 10 programs and 9 conference games has a total inventory of 45 games.

The Big12 can't lose any additional TV inventory, and in fact for that reason is obligated by TV contracts to keep the 9 game format.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

My biggest worry concern is that evidently there will be 4 Powers conferences. The conference that folds or loses P5 status will be either the ACC or the BIG12. My opinion the 1st conference that creates a network, will win. The BIG12 has a short 10 year window to get a network and destroy the ACC. Once he ACC TV deal opens for renegotiation, they will retain 3rd tier rights and build their own network and destroy the BIG12.

 

[Buckaineer]

Where specifically in this piece does Gordon Gee state anything about BIG 12 expansion being "on hold"?

For those such as M Steve who are comprehensively challenged, I'll point it out to you--nowhere.

The writer has injected his own opinion into the piece in between quotes from Gee that have nothing to do with anything being on hold.

Not one news source has reported that anything is on hold, or that any person from the conference is reporting that anything is on hold. The BIG 12 meetings are still scheduled for May and June as they always were, and that is when the conference is expected to come to some decisions about this. It's April now. Nothing has been decided and nothing is "on hold".

Obviously this will put posters like M Steve on deathwatch, but sometimes the truth hurts.

 

[Buckaineer]

As to whether expansion "makes sense"-take a look at the facts.

Boren (OUs president), Bowlsby (the conference commissioner) and others have pointed out that the BIG 12 is going to fall behind the Big Ten and SEC significantly in the next 12-15 years financially if they don't make some changes. Changes proposed include creating a network-which analysts for the conference have determined will earn each member $4 to $6 million additional above what they make now. A conference CCG will earn each existing and new member about $2 million to $3 million apiece per school per year. So you are looking at an additional $6 to $9 million additional per school in the BIG 12 above what they make now via expansion--money that isn't going to be there if they do not expand on a per school basis.

Now, in the article and elsewhere, Gee and others representing the conference point out that with the rule change the conference doesn't HAVE to expand in order to have a CCG. But those same conference representatives including Gee have also pointed out it doesn't make sense to have a guaranteed rematch in a ten team conference and so its very unlikely they would do that. There are quotes in news articles from Gee, Boren and Bowlsby stating this in no uncertain terms. No CCG, no money -but with expansion it makes sense.

A recent article from CBS sports made the case that the SEC currently makes $9 million per school more than BIG 12 members do. The article left out some BIG 12 media rights revenues, but there will be a gap that will grow going forward, and especially with BIG 12 schools making less for their media rights. This however can be made up via expansion with the CCG and the conference network--and additional revenue will come from NCAA revenues, possible new bowl games, and new sponsorships that new members can bring to the conference. Pro rata shares for new members that are guaranteed by contract will eliminate most of any differences, and the further splits of playoff shares, bowl money and NCAA credits will be offset by the above--allowing each BIG 12 school to make more than they do now.

With the improved ability to make the playoffs that expansion brings (such as: more teams with fewer losses each year only possible via expansion-likely resulting in more highly ranked teams, the 13th "data point" that everyone else gets from a CCG)--a larger footprint, more fans and viewers for BIG 12 product and new major markets brought into the conference-the next renegotiation of the primary tv contracts will stand a much higher chance of positive increases for the league as well--helping members keep pace with the Big Ten and SEC. Without improving on field success and being left out of the playoffs numerous times, improving the footprint to be closer to other leagues and improving viewing of BIG 12 product, its going to be difficult to gain the necessary contract improvements.

 

[mofo]

As to whether expansion "makes sense"-take a look at the facts.

Boren (OUs president), Bowlsby (the conference commissioner) and others have pointed out that the BIG 12 is going to fall behind the Big Ten and SEC significantly in the next 12-15 years financially if they don't make some changes. Changes proposed include creating a network-which analysts for the conference have determined will earn each member $4 to $6 million additional above what they make now. A conference CCG will earn each existing and new member about $2 million to $3 million apiece per school per year. So you are looking at an additional $6 to $9 million additional per school in the BIG 12 above what they make now via expansion--money that isn't going to be there if they do not expand on a per school basis.

Now, in the article and elsewhere, Gee and others representing the conference point out that with the rule change the conference doesn't HAVE to expand in order to have a CCG. But those same conference representatives including Gee have also pointed out it doesn't make sense to have a guaranteed rematch in a ten team conference and so its very unlikely they would do that. There are quotes in news articles from Gee, Boren and Bowlsby stating this in no uncertain terms. No CCG, no money -but with expansion it makes sense.

A recent article from CBS sports made the case that the SEC currently makes $9 million per school more than BIG 12 members do. The article left out some BIG 12 media rights revenues, but there will be a gap that will grow going forward, and especially with BIG 12 schools making less for their media rights. This however can be made up via expansion with the CCG and the conference network--and additional revenue will come from NCAA revenues, possible new bowl games, and new sponsorships that new members can bring to the conference. Pro rata shares for new members that are guaranteed by contract will eliminate most of any differences, and the further splits of playoff shares, bowl money and NCAA credits will be offset by the above--allowing each BIG 12 school to make more than they do now.

With the improved ability to make the playoffs that expansion brings (such as: more teams with fewer losses each year only possible via expansion-likely resulting in more highly ranked teams, the 13th "data point" that everyone else gets from a CCG)--a larger footprint, more fans and viewers for BIG 12 product and new major markets brought into the conference-the next renegotiation of the primary tv contracts will stand a much higher chance of positive increases for the league as well--helping members keep pace with the Big Ten and SEC. Without improving on field success and being left out of the playoffs numerous times, improving the footprint to be closer to other leagues and improving viewing of BIG 12 product, its going to be difficult to gain the necessary contract improvements.

?expand with who,
Cincinnati, UCONN and BYU?

In my mind, if only major team that defects..that ain't happin.

 

[Buckaineer]

?expand with who,
Cincinnati, UCONN and BYU?

In my mind, if only major team that defects..that ain't happin.

Cincinnati, BYU and UConn are teams under consideration from the BIG 12 for inclusion.
Each brings benefits if added to the conference--and there are 3 or 4 other possibilities including Houston, Memphis, USF and UCF.

Here's the latest info from ESPN:

Big 12 mailbag: Expansion buzz, CFP format, league's best names
excerpt:
Alex Apyan ‎@AeroApe51


@Jake_Trotter Seems like the B12 is really giving expansion its due diligence and keeping it quiet. (1/2)

11:29 AM - 14 Apr 2016

Trotter: Yes, it's been rather quiet lately regarding expansion, but that is about to change with spring meetings coming in May. A few things to point out: The Big 12 could vote to expand this summer but wait months to decide on who to add. Expansion could lead to an extension of the league's granting of TV rights by several more years (they expire in 2025), which obviously would help stabilize the league in the immediate future. And as far as potential expansion candidates, one school I keep hearing as a real contender, should the Big 12 expand, is the University of Connecticut. BYU and Cincinnati, among others, seem like obvious favorites. But Connecticut could be a real factor in the discussion should things heat up this summer.

 

[mofo]

Cincinnati, BYU and UConn are teams under consideration from the BIG 12 for inclusion.
Each brings benefits if added to the conference--and there are 3 or 4 other possibilities including Houston, Memphis, USF and UCF.

Here's the latest info from ESPN:

Big 12 mailbag: Expansion buzz, CFP format, league's best names
excerpt:
Alex Apyan ‎@AeroApe51


@Jake_Trotter Seems like the B12 is really giving expansion its due diligence and keeping it quiet. (1/2)

11:29 AM - 14 Apr 2016

Trotter: Yes, it's been rather quiet lately regarding expansion, but that is about to change with spring meetings coming in May. A few things to point out: The Big 12 could vote to expand this summer but wait months to decide on who to add. Expansion could lead to an extension of the league's granting of TV rights by several more years (they expire in 2025), which obviously would help stabilize the league in the immediate future. And as far as potential expansion candidates, one school I keep hearing as a real contender, should the Big 12 expand, is the University of Connecticut. BYU and Cincinnati, among others, seem like obvious favorites. But Connecticut could be a real factor in the discussion should things heat up this summer.

got it and thanks....
appreciated

ESPN is the network that destroyed the big east, so im not so sure about their jadded opinion ...

Houston seems interestingbut i don't know the Financials or projected impact...

maybe, we should win a few more league games before we dice up this b12...

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Where specifically in this piece does Gordon Gee state anything about BIG 12 expansion being "on hold"?

For those such as M Steve who are comprehensively challenged, I'll point it out to you--nowhere.

The writer has injected his own opinion into the piece in between quotes from Gee that have nothing to do with anything being on hold.

Not one news source has reported that anything is on hold, or that any person from the conference is reporting that anything is on hold. The BIG 12 meetings are still scheduled for May and June as they always were, and that is when the conference is expected to come to some decisions about this. It's April now. Nothing has been decided and nothing is "on hold".

Obviously this will put posters like M Steve on deathwatch, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Read the F'en title of the blog you f'ing moron and don't take it out on me because you are f'ing wrong.

Also read the caption under Gee pictures

And this
Gee also serves on the Big 12 expansion committee. At this time, the league does not have plans to move to twelve schools.
And this
but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

Noooo you have to have the exact words because you are not smart enough to read what he is saying unless it gives it to you one letter at a time.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

got it and thanks....
appreciated

ESPN is the network that destroyed the big east, so im not so sure about their jadded opinion ...

Houston seems interestingbut i don't know the Financials or projected impact...

maybe, we should win a few more league games before we dice up this b12...

This is a quote from Gee in the original story. Pay close attention to the second 1/2 of the quote.

"The expansion committee still does research on potential future members, but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members."

 

[topdecktiger]

Where specifically in this piece does Gordon Gee state anything about BIG 12 expansion being "on hold"?

For those such as M Steve who are comprehensively challenged, I'll point it out to you--nowhere.

The writer has injected his own opinion into the piece in between quotes from Gee that have nothing to do with anything being on hold.

Not one news source has reported that anything is on hold, or that any person from the conference is reporting that anything is on hold. The BIG 12 meetings are still scheduled for May and June as they always were, and that is when the conference is expected to come to some decisions about this. It's April now. Nothing has been decided and nothing is "on hold".

Obviously this will put posters like M Steve on deathwatch, but sometimes the truth hurts.

I find it interesting that you are now discrediting a West Virginia beat writer. Some friendly fire going on here. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I find it interesting that you are now discrediting a West Virginia beat writer. Some friendly fire going on here. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

If it goes against the pro expansion message it gets discredited. Both Boren and Gee (the two major expansion proponents could come out and say we are happy and never want to expand, and it will still get discredited

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

“I think we’re a very stable league,” Gee said. “And I think that we’d only speak about expansion if it makes sense.”

The expansion committee still does research on potential future members, but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

“We’ve done all the analytics of what adding several teams would mean and what it would look like going into subdivisions,” Gee added.

I am not interested in entering this debate. However, the underlined words appear to be the writer's understanding of what was actually said as they are not in quotations. I am not criticizing the writer, he drew a logical conclusion from the remarks that were made.

I am very familiar with Dr. Gee's statements over many years. My personal opinion is that he left himself some wiggling room if needed at a later date.

 

[topdecktiger]

“I think we’re a very stable league,” Gee said. “And I think that we’d only speak about expansion if it makes sense.”

The expansion committee still does research on potential future members, but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

“We’ve done all the analytics of what adding several teams would mean and what it would look like going into subdivisions,” Gee added.

I am not interested in entering this debate. However, the underlined words appear to be the writer's understanding of what was actually said as they are not in quotations. I am not criticizing the writer, he drew a logical conclusion from the remarks that were made.

I am very familiar with Dr. Gee's statements over many years. My personal opinion is that he left himself some wiggling room if needed at a later date.

I agree the underlined passage is not a direct quote. On the larger issue, I believe Gee flat out told the writer that there isn't going to be any expansion, at least not in the immediate future. The problem is the writer made the mistake of assuming that his article would be read under normal circumstances. He didn't understand that with the expansion crowd, everything has to be 100% documented and spelled out to the T. (Of course even then in some instances, this wouldn't be enough.)

If you step back, the information in the article makes sense. The thought all along among a lot of people is that if expansion is necessary because the Big 12 is in trouble (which I don't believe), BYU and Cincinnati won't fix the problems. It just doesn't really make sense that BYU and Cincinnati (or UConn) are such gold mines, but nobody else picked them up.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I agree the underlined passage is not a direct quote. On the larger issue, I believe Gee flat out told the writer that there isn't going to be any expansion, at least not in the immediate future. The problem is the writer made the mistake of assuming that his article would be read under normal circumstances. He didn't understand that with the expansion crowd, everything has to be 100% documented and spelled out to the T. (Of course even then in some instances, this wouldn't be enough.)

If you step back, the information in the article makes sense. The thought all along among a lot of people is that if expansion is necessary because the Big 12 is in trouble (which I don't believe), BYU and Cincinnati won't fix the problems. It just doesn't really make sense that BYU and Cincinnati (or UConn) are such gold mines, but nobody else picked them up.

compared to PAC and ACC the BIG12 is ahead. Compared to the SEC and the BIG, the BIG12 is behind the 8 ball, and it might only just worst.

 

[Buckaineer]

Read the F'en title of the blog you f'ing moron and don't take it out on me because you are f'ing wrong.

Also read the caption under Gee pictures

And this
Gee also serves on the Big 12 expansion committee. At this time, the league does not have plans to move to twelve schools.
And this
but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

Noooo you have to have the exact words because you are not smart enough to read what he is saying unless it gives it to you one letter at a time.

As M Steve's panic gets bigger, you'll see him resort to hystrionic frantic raving like this.

All of the quotes his uncomprehending mind writes are statements BY THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE. Not one of them may be attributed to Gee or anyone from the BIG 12. But M Steve grows more desperate by the day to see BIG 12 expansion fail and go away so as expected he leaps and grasps at anything to remotely suggest that.

It hasn't gone away however. The long mentioned meetings in May are still scheduled to happen in May and as commissioner Bowlsby told us, at THAT time the entire membership will get together and decide their course going forward. Expansion isn't on hold, the meetings aren't on hold and Gordon Gee never stated in any way that any of it is on hold--in fact he stated they've gotten to the point where they've seen who to add, what those additions will affect, and even gone on to the subdivisions of the conference with expansion and what they'll look like. According to M Steve if you go back and read some of his earlier rantings on the matter, none of that ever happened either. He doesn't want expansion, but the BIG 12 conference is still considering expansion because they have to.

 

[Buckaineer]

I find it interesting that you are now discrediting a West Virginia beat writer. Some friendly fire going on here. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I don't know who that writer is-he doesn't work for any news organization or for anyone representing the university or Gordon Gee. There have been no mentions of any of this nonsense in the national sports media covering the BIG 12. Its a non issue. The writer obviously injected his opinion and his opinion only around unrelated statements made by Dr. Gee.

 

[topdecktiger]

I don't know who that writer is-he doesn't work for any news organization or for anyone representing the university or Gordon Gee. There have been no mentions of any of this nonsense in the national sports media covering the BIG 12. Its a non issue. The writer obviously injected his opinion and his opinion only around unrelated statements made by Dr. Gee.

I know exactly who the writer is. His name is Greg Madia. He works for this very website (WVUSports.com) as a beat writer and radio host.

You are incorrect that Madia "obviously" injected his opinion. For example, the quote:

The expansion committee still does research on potential future members, but none of the data is substantial enough for the league to pull the trigger on adding any new members.

You don't know whether that is simply Madia's opinion, or whether that is what he was told by Gee. It's possible it could be either one, but you are just as wrong to say that you know for 100% that the statement is only the writer's opinion, because you don't know that. Again, it might be Madia's interpretation, but it could also be what he was directly told by Gee.

 

[topdecktiger]

compared to PAC and ACC the BIG12 is ahead. Compared to the SEC and the BIG, the BIG12 is behind the 8 ball, and it might only just worst.

I have to disagree here. The Pac, ACC and Big 12 are in the same boat. All three have comparable payouts.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I have to disagree here. The Pac, ACC and Big 12 are in the same boat. All three have comparable payouts.

All three might be comparable when it comes to network contracts. However, it does not take into consideration tier 3 monies BIG12 schools get paid.

 

[dave]

As to whether expansion "makes sense"-take a look at the facts.

Boren (OUs president), Bowlsby (the conference commissioner) and others have pointed out that the BIG 12 is going to fall behind the Big Ten and SEC significantly in the next 12-15 years financially if they don't make some changes. Changes proposed include creating a network-which analysts for the conference have determined will earn each member $4 to $6 million additional above what they make now. A conference CCG will earn each existing and new member about $2 million to $3 million apiece per school per year. So you are looking at an additional $6 to $9 million additional per school in the BIG 12 above what they make now via expansion--money that isn't going to be there if they do not expand on a per school basis.

Now, in the article and elsewhere, Gee and others representing the conference point out that with the rule change the conference doesn't HAVE to expand in order to have a CCG. But those same conference representatives including Gee have also pointed out it doesn't make sense to have a guaranteed rematch in a ten team conference and so its very unlikely they would do that. There are quotes in news articles from Gee, Boren and Bowlsby stating this in no uncertain terms. No CCG, no money -but with expansion it makes sense.

A recent article from CBS sports made the case that the SEC currently makes $9 million per school more than BIG 12 members do. The article left out some BIG 12 media rights revenues, but there will be a gap that will grow going forward, and especially with BIG 12 schools making less for their media rights. This however can be made up via expansion with the CCG and the conference network--and additional revenue will come from NCAA revenues, possible new bowl games, and new sponsorships that new members can bring to the conference. Pro rata shares for new members that are guaranteed by contract will eliminate most of any differences, and the further splits of playoff shares, bowl money and NCAA credits will be offset by the above--allowing each BIG 12 school to make more than they do now.

With the improved ability to make the playoffs that expansion brings (such as: more teams with fewer losses each year only possible via expansion-likely resulting in more highly ranked teams, the 13th "data point" that everyone else gets from a CCG)--a larger footprint, more fans and viewers for BIG 12 product and new major markets brought into the conference-the next renegotiation of the primary tv contracts will stand a much higher chance of positive increases for the league as well--helping members keep pace with the Big Ten and SEC. Without improving on field success and being left out of the playoffs numerous times, improving the footprint to be closer to other leagues and improving viewing of BIG 12 product, its going to be difficult to gain the necessary contract improvements.

What did this article say?

Gee also serves on the Big 12 expansion committee. At this time, the league does not have plans to move to twelve schools.

“I think we’re a very stable league,” Gee said. “And I think that we’d only speak about expansion if it makes sense.”

This is what Gee said Saturday night at the CPASS event. Sorry.

 

[Buckaineer]

The writers opinion is attributable to every quote some are trying to link to Gee. The writer doesn't even say anything like Gee said or Gee went on to state. He makes matter of fact statements based not on the linked quotes from Gee, but from where only he knows.

In the meantime the conference has not commented on any of this, or cancelled its meetings where these issues will actually be decided. The media has also not picked up on any of this.

Some are desperate for expansion to be dead for some reason even though it will greatly benefit BIG 12 schools, but the conference until further notice hasnt declared it dead or on hold- an unknown writer has simply injected his opinions into unrelated statements .

 

[Buckaineer]

I have to disagree here. The Pac, ACC and Big 12 are in the same boat. All three have comparable payouts.

BIG 12 payouts are higher than PAC 12 and ACC payouts by millions per year and tier 3 revenues for tv make the gap even wider. Some BIG 12 schools make more than anyone from tiers 1,2 and 3. A couple are at about the same point as Big Ten and SEC schools, and some are behind by a few million. All are ahead of PAC and ACC payouts.

 

[dave]

The writers opinion is attributable to every quote some are trying to link to Gee. The writer doesn't even say anything like Gee said or Gee went on to state. He makes matter of fact statements based not on the linked quotes from Gee, but from where only he knows.

In the meantime the conference has not commented on any of this, or cancelled its meetings where these issues will actually be decided. The media has also not picked up on any of this.

Some are desperate for expansion to be dead for some reason even though it will greatly benefit BIG 12 schools, but the conference until further notice hasnt declared it dead or on hold- an unknown writer has simply injected his opinions into unrelated statements .

Everyone at the event knows what he said. The only one trying to refute his word is you.

 

[topdecktiger]

All three might be comparable when it comes to network contracts. However, it does not take into consideration tier 3 monies BIG12 schools get paid.

This is the biggest pet peeve I have with the whole expansion discussion. The schools in the other conferences get Tier 3 monies as well. You guys try to act like the Big 12 is the only conference where schools get Tier 3 money. They ALL have Tier 3 contracts. The only difference is, the Big 12 schools have a few TV games they can add. The thing is, those few TV games don't really make that much money. Even in the Big 12 the schools make a majority of their Tier 3 money off radio and multimedia, same as all the other schools. The reason all the other conferences bundled their Tier 3 TV rights is because those rights aren't worth much individually. They only bring in significant money when bundled. (Texas being the one exception.)

The writers opinion is attributable to every quote some are trying to link to Gee. The writer doesn't even say anything like Gee said or Gee went on to state. He makes matter of fact statements based not on the linked quotes from Gee, but from where only he knows.

In the meantime the conference has not commented on any of this, or cancelled its meetings where these issues will actually be decided. The media has also not picked up on any of this.


Some are desperate for expansion to be dead for some reason even though it will greatly benefit BIG 12 schools, but the conference until further notice hasnt declared it dead or on hold- an unknown writer has simply injected his opinions into unrelated statements .

No, the author is not making statements "from where only he knows." The author is making the statements based on his interview with Gee. Everybody else can see that except for you. The truth is, you are the one desperate to keep expansion alive, so you pretend that since the author didn't footnote every single point in the article, you can still cling to the notion that expansion is imminent. It will be interesting to see what excuses you make when the Big 12 doesn't expand after the spring meetings.

BIG 12 payouts are higher than PAC 12 and ACC payouts by millions per year and tier 3 revenues for tv make the gap even wider. Some BIG 12 schools make more than anyone from tiers 1,2 and 3. A couple are at about the same point as Big Ten and SEC schools, and some are behind by a few million. All are ahead of PAC and ACC payouts.

No, the payouts aren't higher. The payouts are just about equal. The Big 12 paid out about $27 million per school last year, except for West Virginia and TCU. That's just about what the ACC paid out last year. For example, Georgia Tech got $27.3 million last year from the ACC.


Regarding this Tier 3 business, the other schools get Tier 3 also. You don't count that, which is dishonest. For example, West Virginia makes about $9 million a year in Tier 3. Well, that is for ALL Tier 3 rights, INCLUDING TV. That's not just for TV by itself. By contrast, North Carolina makes $11 million a year on Tier 3, WITHOUT TV. The point being, the TV rights for Tier 3 aren't really all that much. The one exception is Texas, who makes $15 million from the LHN, + their IMG deal. The other schools simply aren't making as much money as you claim.

 

[Buckaineer]

Everyone at the event knows what he said. The only one trying to refute his word is you.

What did Gee say then--verbatim, because it isn't in the article. But the writers opinion is.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend that when quotes are around something-its what someone said. When you don't want to write out what someone said but want to give a brief synopsis of what he said you write something such as "Gee went on to say" or "After discussing that, Gee stated____" or some similar statement--which then allows the reader to understand that the statement is attributed to someone.

That's not what the articles writer did at all. He injected matter of fact statements around Gee's quotes which were 100% unrelated to the comments the writer injects.

 

[dave]

What did Gee say then--verbatim, because it isn't in the article. But the writers opinion is.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend that when quotes are around something-its what someone said. When you don't want to write out what someone said but want to give a brief synopsis of what he said you write something such as "Gee went on to say" or "After discussing that, Gee stated____" or some similar statement--which then allows the reader to understand that the statement is attributed to someone.

That's not what the articles writer did at all. He injected matter of fact statements around Gee's quotes which were 100% unrelated to the comments the writer injects.

He said what was in the article. It doesnt matter if you agree or not. Stop trying to rewrite a perfectly honest article.

 

[Buckaineer]

This is the biggest pet peeve I have with the whole expansion discussion. The schools in the other conferences get Tier 3 monies as well. You guys try to act like the Big 12 is the only conference where schools get Tier 3 money. They ALL have Tier 3 contracts. The only difference is, the Big 12 schools have a few TV games they can add. The thing is, those few TV games don't really make that much money. Even in the Big 12 the schools make a majority of their Tier 3 money off radio and multimedia, same as all the other schools. The reason all the other conferences bundled their Tier 3 TV rights is because those rights aren't worth much individually. They only bring in significant money when bundled. (Texas being the one exception.)



No, the author is not making statements "from where only he knows." The author is making the statements based on his interview with Gee. Everybody else can see that except for you. The truth is, you are the one desperate to keep expansion alive, so you pretend that since the author didn't footnote every single point in the article, you can still cling to the notion that expansion is imminent. It will be interesting to see what excuses you make when the Big 12 doesn't expand after the spring meetings.



No, the payouts aren't higher. The payouts are just about equal. The Big 12 paid out about $27 million per school last year, except for West Virginia and TCU. That's just about what the ACC paid out last year. For example, Georgia Tech got $27.3 million last year from the ACC.


Regarding this Tier 3 business, the other schools get Tier 3 also. You don't count that, which is dishonest. For example, West Virginia makes about $9 million a year in Tier 3. Well, that is for ALL Tier 3 rights, INCLUDING TV. That's not just for TV by itself. By contrast, North Carolina makes $11 million a year on Tier 3, WITHOUT TV. The point being, the TV rights for Tier 3 aren't really all that much. The one exception is Texas, who makes $15 million from the LHN, + their IMG deal. The other schools simply aren't making as much money as you claim.

For the last time--schools in NO other P5 conferences get tier 3 money. Not one other P5 conferences schools get that money. Its a 100% lie to claim they do. UNC having a radio deal is not the same thing as the LHN or Sooner sports tv. Its not the same thing as Texas Tech or Kansas State or some others having games on TELEVISION that they get paid for. Yes an Alabama, or UNC or a few schools here and there have nice radio, internet etc. deals--and so do BIG 12 schools have those deals IN ADDITION TO the tv deals they have. Some make more money than others. Some BIG 12 deals are written into the same contracts with some of their other revenues such as radio--but they are NOT the same thing and no one else has those deals.
BIG 12 schools are making from $15 million per year to $2 million per year on these TELEVISION deals. Many are making in the $4 million per year range.

As to the article, you are fabricating that the writer is making the statements attributed to Gee from an interview. The article isn't an interview with Gee, its from sitting at an event at which Gee spoke. Saying its from an interview and direct quotes from Gee just illustrates that you lack basic comprehension. As far as expansion--the conference has stated they will make decisions on these issues in May. Why someone from the ACC is on a BIG 12 board trying to declare BIG 12 expansion is dead just makes no sense at all--but I'm not going to be insulted by someone clearly trying to lie and misinform people about the BIG 12. The BIG 12 meetings are still on and until the conference indicates otherwise so is expansion despite your desperate desire that it not be.

The ACC payouts are lower than BIG 12 payouts. So are Pac 12 payouts. The disparity will grow each year. Since the ACC doesn't post their revenues as the other conferences do we'll have to wait for tax time to show the difference. WVU as a partial share member made more totat revenue than 7 of the 12 Pac 12 schools and at least 5 ACC schools including North Carolin, VT and Clemson in the last report on revenues from USA today.

To further illustrate the idiocy of your "tier 3 " comments which ACC schools don't have--their "tier 3 tv product is sublicensed to Raycom and Fox sports, North Carolina had $35,278,904 in Rights and Licensing for the last report from 2015 from USA today while WVU had $35,857,157 in the same rights and licensing--at a PARTIAL share from the BIG 12. If UNC got $11 million from their supposed tier 3 then they only got a little over $24 million in total ACC payouts (and that was with the Orange Bowl payout) WVU had nearly that much in partial payment from the BIG 12 while the BIG 12s top schools made from more than $25 million to $27 million without the Sugar Bowl payout which is far higher than the Orange payout--$40 million to $27.5 million.

 

[Buckaineer]

He said what was in the article. It doesnt matter if you agree or not. Stop trying to rewrite a perfectly honest article.

Its not a "perfectly honest article". At best its poor journalism. You don't inject your opinions into an article, you provide quotes and statements from the people that supposedly made them.

It doesn't matter if you want what he says to be, stop trying to rewrite the article to be some truth when its just the writers opinion and not based on what the president of WVU stated.