Looks like no Big12 expansion
- Thread starter VaultHunter
- Start date
It can't be more clear. Bob Bowlsby has stated that they want schools that bring more than pro rata value more than once. That would not be if their contract only allowed for pro rata increases no matter how you try to spin things. You don't get to pretend that the commissioner of the BIG 12 is "guessing", the man runs a multimillion $$ enterprise and negotiates the contracts. No one knows more than him about the situation.
You are inferring because Boren didn't say they will get more than pro rata that its impossible for them to get more. What he means when he talks about the situation was to quell the idea that they wouldn't even get a pro rata share because that was the lie being spread around at the time.
I get that you don't want that to be the case--you don't want anyone to think the BIG 12 can expand or do anything but in fact they can. Regardless of the negativity you spread around message boards far and wide about the BIG 12 the fact is all major conferences have composition clauses written into their contracts and those contracts allow for at least pro rata increases for the new members.
As to the SEC, everyone knows there is an average payout. But last year schools got $31 million, minus $19 million in certain bowl payouts participants were given. As per ESPN:
The total amount of the distribution is composed of revenue generated from the SEC Network, televised football, bowl games, the SEC football championship, televised basketball, the SEC men's basketball tournament, NCAA championships and a supplemental surplus distribution.http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...distribute-record-435m-revenue-member-schools
The point being-you are implying that although its an average (guestimated at that) that the SEC schools are getting $25 million from just tv now and that they get more on top of that when in truth, there is a lot more being paid than just tv payout and right now the tv payout isn't anywhere near $25 million.
The SEC network bumped them up this year, BIG 12 schools are still ahead in some cases and just behind from the lowest tier 3 BIG 12 schools in total media rights and conference payouts. Even with a mammoth radio/internet type school controlled rights deal Alabama doesn't make more than Texas.
The BIG 12 has an average payout as well. And if they add schools the average payout just for television alone may very well go UP despite your misunderstandings of the BIG 12's contracts. It will also increase significantly in other ways and with expansion they will create a network which will further increase BIG 12 payouts. That's the entire point and why Boren wants them to do this. Because he doesn't want other conferences getting ahead after the current TV deal for the BIG 12 expires.
You have also conveniently left out the SEC is locked in until 2036. The BIG 12 has looks in prior to their expiration date, and will get an entirely NEW contract in 2025. Also, with expansion a renegotiation down the road of TV rights once the current deal expires will also see a significant increase in rights fees to keep BIG 12 schools in line or ahead of everyone.
Tiger is attempting to imply that if they expand the BIG 12 can't get more than "pro rata" increases for new members but the other P5s can get "skies the limit" increases.
Its not true, but of course he keeps spinning that it is here and around the internet.
He also of course believes the commissioner of the BIG 12 is guessing when he says he can get more than pro rata for some schools, that Oklahoma's president is guessing or lying when he says that there are schools that will add to the BIG 12 right now that they may expand with--oh and he seems to think only the SEC has an "averaged" tv contract that started at a lower amount and grows throughout the contract.
He also leaves out that while the SEC currently has a higher tv contract with ESPN and CBS -it lasts through 2036, while the BIG 12's is up in 2025 and will be renegotiated at that point.
There will be defection should the BIG decide to expand with ACC teams such as any combination of UNC, DUKE, UVA and GA Tech. All of whom would get an invite long before Oklahoma.
Steve,
That is the rub in the face of people like this board invader, IF the Big Ten wanted Oklahoma (and they don't because Oklahoma is not AAU) and IF Oklahoma wanted to leave (they did but they wanted the Pac-12) it would have happened when Nebraska left - when Oklahoma was actually looking to leave. It didn't happen and it is not in the future now. Oklahoma does not meet Big Ten academic standards and frankly, I would be surprised if Oklahoma wants to go anywhere. Oklahoma is THE #2 powerhouse in the Big-12 and they would be a long way down the pecking order in any other conference.
What scares people like this invader is that it is the ACC that is a dead man walking. The Big Ten and SEC have already taken what they wanted from the Big-12 and neither is done expanding. The only place left to go is the ACC the ACC has no Texas/Oklahoma tag team to keep it together when UVA and UNC get plucked. When the dust settles, the ACC 3.0 will be the remnants + some AAC schools.
Outside of the BIG12, the BIG10 is going to be the most aggressive when it comes to expansion. The ACC is far more susceptible to a BIG10 raid then the BIG12. Duke, UNC, GT, and UNC are far more likely to get a bid from the BIG10 than OU, for the simple reason is that OU is not an AAU school, and likely can't reach that position for 15-20 years.
It can't be more clear. Bob Bowlsby has stated that they want schools that bring more than pro rata value more than once. That would not be if their contract only allowed for pro rata increases no matter how you try to spin things. You don't get to pretend that the commissioner of the BIG 12 is "guessing", the man runs a multimillion $$ enterprise and negotiates the contracts. No one knows more than him about the situation.
And he said he "thinks" that it was possible to get more money for certain schools. He didn't say he knew for sure. He also said there were only a few schools in that category.
You are inferring because Boren didn't say they will get more than pro rata that its impossible for them to get more. What he means when he talks about the situation was to quell the idea that they wouldn't even get a pro rata share because that was the lie being spread around at the time.
I'm not inferring anything. I'm directly quoting Boren. I'll post it yet again. He said:
"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's .'X' dollars, it stays 'X, dollars." http://newsok.com/article/5429694
Boren DID say that the Big 12 is locked into the pro rata increase. He said everybody's shares stay the same. If the payouts are $20 million per team now, they will still be $20 million per team if the conference expands. He specifically said, "If it's 'X' dollars, it stays 'X' dollars." Note the key word "stays." You are twisting around Boren's words because his actual meaning doesn't fit what you want to believe.
I get that you don't want that to be the case--you don't want anyone to think the BIG 12 can expand or do anything but in fact they can. Regardless of the negativity you spread around message boards far and wide about the BIG 12 the fact is all major conferences have composition clauses written into their contracts and those contracts allow for at least pro rata increases for the new members.
I don't have anything against the Big 12. Your problem is that if anyone says anything that isn't 100% pro Big 12, that is somehow "negative." All that is is just an example of you being thin-skinned. My only point is that the Big 12 can't increase its TV contract though expansion, and I've offered several examples to back up my point, none of which you have been able to refute.
You are also wrong about everyone having the pro rata increase. I also pointed out to you that the ACC got less money in 2004 for adding Miami and Virginia Tech. Well, that's proof they didn't have a pro rata clause in their contract.
As to the SEC, everyone knows there is an average payout. But last year schools got $31 million, minus $19 million in certain bowl payouts participants were given. As per ESPN:
The total amount of the distribution is composed of revenue generated from the SEC Network, televised football, bowl games, the SEC football championship, televised basketball, the SEC men's basketball tournament, NCAA championships and a supplemental surplus distribution.http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...distribute-record-435m-revenue-member-schools
I understand that. All I told you is that the SEC gets an average of $25 million a year under their new contract. I only said that because earlier in the thread, you tried to claim that the SEC didn't get extra money for adding Missouri and A&M. ("The SEC didn't get more money for adding A&M and Missouri--they got pro rata shares.") Well, clearly the SEC did get more money, because the old contract paid out an average of $17 million, and the new contract pays out an average of $25 million. That proves that the contract went up.
The point being-you are implying that although its an average (guestimated at that) that the SEC schools are getting $25 million from just tv now and that they get more on top of that when in truth, there is a lot more being paid than just tv payout and right now the tv payout isn't anywhere near $25 million.
No, I'm not implying anything. I told you from the beginning that the $25 million was an average. You originally said that wasn't true. Now that you have been proven wrong, you are trying to backtrack and act like I'm saying the SEC got $25 million this year. I never said that. I said all along that the $25 million was an average.
The SEC network bumped them up this year, BIG 12 schools are still ahead in some cases and just behind from the lowest tier 3 BIG 12 schools in total media rights and conference payouts. Even with a mammoth radio/internet type school controlled rights deal Alabama doesn't make more than Texas.
The total payout for the SEC was $31.2 million per school. The Big 12 payout was $27 million to eight schools, and ~$23 million to West Virginia & TCU. (The SEC didn't specify if A&M and Missouri got lesser amounts. They just announced a conference average.) http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/29/big-12-sets-record-for-big-revenue-too/
The Big 12 got total revenue of $252 million, so the average would have been $25.2 million per team, had they all gotten equal shares. That is total revenue, as you can see from this link:
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2015/05/big-12-divvies-up-record-252-million/
The amount of the distribution is composed of revenue generated from televised football and basketball games, the Big 12’s men’s basketball tournament, bowl games and the NCAA championships.
Now, the Big 12's TV contract with Fox and ESPN is $2.6 billion over 13 years. That works out to an average of $20 million per team each year. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-signs-tv-contract-with-espn-fox-through-2025
Now, if the Big 12 was already getting $20 million a year right now from the TV contract, then that only leaves about $5 million to account for bowl money, NCAA Tournament, CFP, and other sources of revenue. So that leaves you with one of two options. Either the Big 12 is getting paid the full $20 million now, and is really not doing well the other revenue sources, or the Big 12 is not getting the full $20 million at this point. My point is, it's not unusual for the SEC to get a lower TV payout up front, and a higher payout on the back end. The ACC had the same format. The Big Ten has the same format. As the numbers show, the Big 12 has the same format.
The BIG 12 has an average payout as well. And if they add schools the average payout just for television alone may very well go UP despite your misunderstandings of the BIG 12's contracts. It will also increase significantly in other ways and with expansion they will create a network which will further increase BIG 12 payouts. That's the entire point and why Boren wants them to do this. Because he doesn't want other conferences getting ahead after the current TV deal for the BIG 12 expires.
Boren said the payout isn't going up. It's there on record. I'll post it again:
"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's .'X' dollars, it stays 'X, dollars." http://newsok.com/article/5429694
It's plain as day what he said. The TV payouts don't increase with new teams. I'm going to keep beating you over the head with this as long as you keep arguing with me, because the facts are on my side.
There also isn't any guarantee the Big 12 will get a network. I'm sure Boren wants one. No guarantee he gets it. Keep in mind, nobody from Texas had indicated they are willing to give up the LHN. In this case, it doesn't what Boren says. The only time you can say Texas is willing to give up the LHN is if someone actually from UT says that.
You have also conveniently left out the SEC is locked in until 2036. The BIG 12 has looks in prior to their expiration date, and will get an entirely NEW contract in 2025. Also, with expansion a renegotiation down the road of TV rights once the current deal expires will also see a significant increase in rights fees to keep BIG 12 schools in line or ahead of everyone.
I haven't conveniently left out anything. I was never tuning this into a pissing contest about whether the SEC made more money that the Big 12. The only thing I said was that the SEC TV contract increased when A&M and Missouri were added, and that was true. Whether or not the Big 12 ends up making more money than the SEC has absolutely nothing to do with my comment about the SEC's TV contract. You are arguing about a point that I never made in the first place.
And he said he "thinks" that it was possible to get more money for certain schools. He didn't say he knew for sure. He also said there were only a few schools in that category.
You are inferring because Boren didn't say they will get more than pro rata that its impossible for them to get more. What he means when he talks about the situation was to quell the idea that they wouldn't even get a pro rata share because that was the lie being spread around at the time.
I'm not inferring anything. I'm directly quoting Boren. I'll post it yet again. He said:
"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's .'X' dollars, it stays 'X, dollars." http://newsok.com/article/5429694
Boren DID say that the Big 12 is locked into the pro rata increase. He said everybody's shares stay the same. If the payouts are $20 million per team now, they will still be $20 million per team if the conference expands. He specifically said, "If it's 'X' dollars, it stays 'X' dollars." Note the key word "stays." You are twisting around Boren's words because his actual meaning doesn't fit what you want to believe.
I get that you don't want that to be the case--you don't want anyone to think the BIG 12 can expand or do anything but in fact they can. Regardless of the negativity you spread around message boards far and wide about the BIG 12 the fact is all major conferences have composition clauses written into their contracts and those contracts allow for at least pro rata increases for the new members.
I don't have anything against the Big 12. Your problem is that if anyone says anything that isn't 100% pro Big 12, that is somehow "negative." All that is is just an example of you being thin-skinned. My only point is that the Big 12 can't increase its TV contract though expansion, and I've offered several examples to back up my point, none of which you have been able to refute.
You are also wrong about everyone having the pro rata increase. I also pointed out to you that the ACC got less money in 2004 for adding Miami and Virginia Tech. Well, that's proof they didn't have a pro rata clause in their contract.
As to the SEC, everyone knows there is an average payout. But last year schools got $31 million, minus $19 million in certain bowl payouts participants were given. As per ESPN:
The total amount of the distribution is composed of revenue generated from the SEC Network, televised football, bowl games, the SEC football championship, televised basketball, the SEC men's basketball tournament, NCAA championships and a supplemental surplus distribution.http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...distribute-record-435m-revenue-member-schools
I understand that. All I told you is that the SEC gets an average of $25 million a year under their new contract. I only said that because earlier in the thread, you tried to claim that the SEC didn't get extra money for adding Missouri and A&M. ("The SEC didn't get more money for adding A&M and Missouri--they got pro rata shares.") Well, clearly the SEC did get more money, because the old contract paid out an average of $17 million, and the new contract pays out an average of $25 million. That proves that the contract went up.
The point being-you are implying that although its an average (guestimated at that) that the SEC schools are getting $25 million from just tv now and that they get more on top of that when in truth, there is a lot more being paid than just tv payout and right now the tv payout isn't anywhere near $25 million.
No, I'm not implying anything. I told you from the beginning that the $25 million was an average. You originally said that wasn't true. Now that you have been proven wrong, you are trying to backtrack and act like I'm saying the SEC got $25 million this year. I never said that. I said all along that the $25 million was an average.
The SEC network bumped them up this year, BIG 12 schools are still ahead in some cases and just behind from the lowest tier 3 BIG 12 schools in total media rights and conference payouts. Even with a mammoth radio/internet type school controlled rights deal Alabama doesn't make more than Texas.
The total payout for the SEC was $31.2 million per school. The Big 12 payout was $27 million to eight schools, and ~$23 million to West Virginia & TCU. (The SEC didn't specify if A&M and Missouri got lesser amounts. They just announced a conference average.) http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/29/big-12-sets-record-for-big-revenue-too/
The Big 12 got total revenue of $252 million, so the average would have been $25.2 million per team, had they all gotten equal shares. That is total revenue, as you can see from this link:
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2015/05/big-12-divvies-up-record-252-million/
The amount of the distribution is composed of revenue generated from televised football and basketball games, the Big 12’s men’s basketball tournament, bowl games and the NCAA championships.
Now, the Big 12's TV contract with Fox and ESPN is $2.6 billion over 13 years. That works out to an average of $20 million per team each year. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-signs-tv-contract-with-espn-fox-through-2025
Now, if the Big 12 was already getting $20 million a year right now from the TV contract, then that only leaves about $5 million to account for bowl money, NCAA Tournament, CFP, and other sources of revenue. So that leaves you with one of two options. Either the Big 12 is getting paid the full $20 million now, and is really not doing well the other revenue sources, or the Big 12 is not getting the full $20 million at this point. My point is, it's not unusual for the SEC to get a lower TV payout up front, and a higher payout on the back end. The ACC had the same format. The Big Ten has the same format. As the numbers show, the Big 12 has the same format.
The BIG 12 has an average payout as well. And if they add schools the average payout just for television alone may very well go UP despite your misunderstandings of the BIG 12's contracts. It will also increase significantly in other ways and with expansion they will create a network which will further increase BIG 12 payouts. That's the entire point and why Boren wants them to do this. Because he doesn't want other conferences getting ahead after the current TV deal for the BIG 12 expires.
Boren said the payout isn't going up. It's there on record. I'll post it again:
"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's .'X' dollars, it stays 'X, dollars." http://newsok.com/article/5429694
It's plain as day what he said. The TV payouts don't increase with new teams. I'm going to keep beating you over the head with this as long as you keep arguing with me, because the facts are on my side.
There also isn't any guarantee the Big 12 will get a network. I'm sure Boren wants one. No guarantee he gets it. Keep in mind, nobody from Texas had indicated they are willing to give up the LHN. In this case, it doesn't what Boren says. The only time you can say Texas is willing to give up the LHN is if someone actually from UT says that.
You have also conveniently left out the SEC is locked in until 2036. The BIG 12 has looks in prior to their expiration date, and will get an entirely NEW contract in 2025. Also, with expansion a renegotiation down the road of TV rights once the current deal expires will also see a significant increase in rights fees to keep BIG 12 schools in line or ahead of everyone.
I haven't conveniently left out anything. I was never tuning this into a pissing contest about whether the SEC made more money that the Big 12. The only thing I said was that the SEC TV contract increased when A&M and Missouri were added, and that was true. Whether or not the Big 12 ends up making more money than the SEC has absolutely nothing to do with my comment about the SEC's TV contract. You are arguing about a point that I never made in the first place.
Last edited:
The BIG 12 CAN add revenues with expansion, the conference commissioner stated so more than once. Its a matter of negotiation based on their composition clause in their tv contracts with FOX and ESPN. The MINIMUM they'll get is pro rata share, but they may negotiate for more. Doesn't mean they'll get more, but the minimal amount will be pro rata.
The president of the University of Oklahoma stated the conference won't get less than pro rata for expansion he was never asked if they'd be able to get more, but since the earlier conversation has said that the conference has identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive to the BIG 12.
Certain candidates may add revenues such as bowl and NCAA revenue.
There may be new sponsorship revenue injected with additions
The addition of a conference network will add more.
Renegotiation in 2025 will -if the correct steps have been taken prior to then-increase the conference revenues
These things are not in question.
The president of the University of Oklahoma stated the conference won't get less than pro rata for expansion he was never asked if they'd be able to get more, but since the earlier conversation has said that the conference has identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive to the BIG 12.
Certain candidates may add revenues such as bowl and NCAA revenue.
There may be new sponsorship revenue injected with additions
The addition of a conference network will add more.
Renegotiation in 2025 will -if the correct steps have been taken prior to then-increase the conference revenues
These things are not in question.
A conference is only vulnerable if schools want out of it. Oklahoma is the only school making such noises and they have let it be known that a comoprehensive plan needs to be adopted for the conference. That plan isn't going to include other conferences P5 teams because the grants of rights makes them unavailable.
OK......................this is very complex and no one person has the answer. As I see it, the ACC is thought to be the weaker when compared to the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12. I see the ACC losing a couple of teams. Florida State to the SEC and VA Tech to the Big 10. The teams on Tobacco Road will remain loyal to the ACC as will Pitt and BC. The Big 12 will stand pat with 10 teams for at least the next 5 years.
No, you are simply wrong. You are twisting what Boren said. Again, Boren's quote:
"The contract says that our main television contract...if we go from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's .'X' dollars, it stays 'X, dollars." http://newsok.com/article/5429694
He said, the shares from the TV contract say the same. He didn't say the pro rata increase was a minimum. He flatly said the payouts stay the same. You are just trying to pretend that Boren didn't mean what he said because you don't want to believe it. His statements were clear and unambiguous.
When Boren said 6 or 7 teams could be 'additive,' he didn't say HOW they would be additive. He didn't specify if they would be additive due to the TV contract, or by alternate forms of revenue. However, he did specifically say in his earlier quote that the TV payouts would not increase with expansion. He clearly said it.
You don't know if the Big 12 will get a conference network or not. The only thing Boren said here is that he wanted one. He didn't say whether or not it was actually going to happen.
I noticed you completely sidestepped my points about the SEC's payouts. That's because you had no answer to it.
I'm "twisting" what Boren said? NO. You are twisting what Boren said--no one asked him if the conference could get more than pro rata shares. It doesn't matter anyway, expansion in the BIG 12 will lead to higher revenues no matter how its spun.
You are twisting what Bowlsby said, and what ESPN has reported. Bowlsby does not state there are schools that could be added to bring more than pro rata because he guessed it was so--that's just what you for some reason want to be so. Clearly he stated that because it is the case, otherwise there was no reason on multiple occasions to state that. ESPN didn't report that network officials and major conference officials talked with them about " the boiler plate workings of college football contracts" ( Note they didn't state contract--but plural contracts)-because the BIG 12 is the only one that is stuck at a particular #. Conferences have the same sort of clauses in their contracts period.
No one has claimed the BIG 12 is going to get a conference network --theyve stated that they WANT a conference network, and Boren's comments indicate he has a plan to accomplish that including rolling the LHN into it.
I didn't sidestep anything about SEC payouts. I just have no idea what you are trying to prove or disprove with a guestimate of SEC conference average pay? I clearly showed that the SEC isn't getting anywhere near $25 million per school from tv alone now. You failed to address any of my points such as the BIG 12 is likely to have TWO renegotiated contracts within the timeframe of the SECs current one.
The ACC might lose teams--in 2027. That's when their grant of rights is up.
This thread is worse than watching a third rerun of Groundhog Day.
I understand perfectly the opinions (and that's what they are) of the same two/few posters who insist on sharing the EXACT SAME THOUGHTS in a seemingly endless amount of posts.
I understand perfectly the opinions (and that's what they are) of the same two/few posters who insist on sharing the EXACT SAME THOUGHTS in a seemingly endless amount of posts.
Yes, TV $$ per team payout stays the same, however the split of other $$ will go down
1. College play off 52 million is split between 10 instead of 12 of 14. That is a 1 to 1 3/4 million dollar difference per team
2. The reason the TV $$ was going to stay the was the inclusion of CCG. The BIG12 is going to hold a CCG valued between 25 and 30 million. That is another 2.5 to 3 million per team per year.
3. The BIG12 has been getting 7 teams to the dance every year. No other conference can match that number even with more teams. Looking at the other larger conferences, it isn't likely (but possible), the B12 will get more teams to the dance by adding programs. That means the NCAA tournament money has to be split more ways.
We are talking millions of dollars per year. There are several programs within the BIG12 that can't see beyond the current money coming in. Adding teams and trying to kick off a network is going to cost millions and programs need long term vision to make the move and the BIG12 just don't have the 8 votes needed
For the record. On an OT post, Vernon showed a tweet where the SEC made $527.4 million in the first year of the playoffs. Including the SEC network, each school was paid $31.2 million, a very nice payday.
Now let's look at the Big 12 payout for last year. $25.3 million average per school, which WVU received 85% of. WVU receives a full share this year, which will be higher. But staying with $25.3 million add the IMG $6.6 million and that equates to a $31.9 million payout. Better than the SEC per school, and Texas makes $15 million per year from the Longhorn Network. That would earn them $40.3 million. Do they want to leave the Big 12? Seriously? Oklahoma is jealous as usual, but they have their own tier 3 rights also.
On the subject of expansion, do we really want a couple of top 10 teams to have to play in addition to the ones we play now? No, we want to do what the SEC did, or tried to do. Bring in a couple of currently 'middle of the road' schools performance wise to boost your SOS but not make it harder to win the conference championship. Do you really want to add Clemson and FSU to our already very tough schedule? Seems self-destructive to me.
Last edited:
I'm "twisting" what Boren said? NO. You are twisting what Boren said--no one asked him if the conference could get more than pro rata shares. It doesn't matter anyway, expansion in the BIG 12 will lead to higher revenues no matter how its spun.
Yes, you are completely twisting what Boren said. He flatly said that the TV payouts will not go up. You are trying to spin that and claim that because nobody "asked him if the conference could get more that a pro rata share," that somehow it invalidates or gives a different meaning to Boren's comments. That's just spin on your part. You are adding that in by yourself to avoid the fact that Boren clearly stated the payouts won't increase. He flatly said if you go to 11 or 12, the payouts stay the same as they are now. End of story.
You are twisting what Bowlsby said, and what ESPN has reported. Bowlsby does not state there are schools that could be added to bring more than pro rata because he guessed it was so--that's just what you for some reason want to be so. Clearly he stated that because it is the case, otherwise there was no reason on multiple occasions to state that. ESPN didn't report that network officials and major conference officials talked with them about " the boiler plate workings of college football contracts" ( Note they didn't state contract--but plural contracts)-because the BIG 12 is the only one that is stuck at a particular #. Conferences have the same sort of clauses in their contracts period.
I'm not twisting anything. Your own quote of Bowlsby is as follows. He said:
I think there are situations where you could add members where you could get more than pro rata increases in revenue, but there aren't very many that will do that.
He didn't say for sure that they can get more than the pro rata increase. He said, "I think." That means he doesn't know for sure. He also said, "There aren't very many that will do that." He also didn't specify which teams that would be.
No one has claimed the BIG 12 is going to get a conference network --theyve stated that they WANT a conference network, and Boren's comments indicate he has a plan to accomplish that including rolling the LHN into it.
You did. You said it in this thread
No guarantee that the Big 12 gets a network, even if they expand.
I didn't sidestep anything about SEC payouts. I just have no idea what you are trying to prove or disprove with a guestimate of SEC conference average pay? I clearly showed that the SEC isn't getting anywhere near $25 million per school from tv alone now. You failed to address any of my points such as the BIG 12 is likely to have TWO renegotiated contracts within the timeframe of the SECs current one.
I explained this to you. In an earlier post, you claimed that the SEC's TV contract did not increase when Texas A&M and Missouri were added:
That's not true. The SEC's TV contract did increase, beyond a pro rata amount, when A&M and Missouri were added, so you are simply wrong on that point.
I never said the SEC was getting $25 million now. I only said the average payout of the contract was $25 million. There is no need for you to prove they are getting less than $25 million now, because I never claimed otherwise in the first place.
I didn't address your point that the Big 12 renegotiates it contract in 2025, because it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I only said that the SEC's contract increased beyond the pro rata amount when A&M and Missouri were added, and I was absolutely right about that. When the Big 12 renegotiates its contract has nothing to do with what I said.
Yes, you are completely twisting what Boren said. He flatly said that the TV payouts will not go up. You are trying to spin that and claim that because nobody "asked him if the conference could get more that a pro rata share," that somehow it invalidates or gives a different meaning to Boren's comments. That's just spin on your part. You are adding that in by yourself to avoid the fact that Boren clearly stated the payouts won't increase. He flatly said if you go to 11 or 12, the payouts stay the same as they are now. End of story.
You are twisting what Bowlsby said, and what ESPN has reported. Bowlsby does not state there are schools that could be added to bring more than pro rata because he guessed it was so--that's just what you for some reason want to be so. Clearly he stated that because it is the case, otherwise there was no reason on multiple occasions to state that. ESPN didn't report that network officials and major conference officials talked with them about " the boiler plate workings of college football contracts" ( Note they didn't state contract--but plural contracts)-because the BIG 12 is the only one that is stuck at a particular #. Conferences have the same sort of clauses in their contracts period.
I'm not twisting anything. Your own quote of Bowlsby is as follows. He said:
I think there are situations where you could add members where you could get more than pro rata increases in revenue, but there aren't very many that will do that.
He didn't say for sure that they can get more than the pro rata increase. He said, "I think." That means he doesn't know for sure. He also said, "There aren't very many that will do that." He also didn't specify which teams that would be.
No one has claimed the BIG 12 is going to get a conference network --theyve stated that they WANT a conference network, and Boren's comments indicate he has a plan to accomplish that including rolling the LHN into it.
You did. You said it in this thread
No guarantee that the Big 12 gets a network, even if they expand.
I didn't sidestep anything about SEC payouts. I just have no idea what you are trying to prove or disprove with a guestimate of SEC conference average pay? I clearly showed that the SEC isn't getting anywhere near $25 million per school from tv alone now. You failed to address any of my points such as the BIG 12 is likely to have TWO renegotiated contracts within the timeframe of the SECs current one.
I explained this to you. In an earlier post, you claimed that the SEC's TV contract did not increase when Texas A&M and Missouri were added:
That's not true. The SEC's TV contract did increase, beyond a pro rata amount, when A&M and Missouri were added, so you are simply wrong on that point.
I never said the SEC was getting $25 million now. I only said the average payout of the contract was $25 million. There is no need for you to prove they are getting less than $25 million now, because I never claimed otherwise in the first place.
I didn't address your point that the Big 12 renegotiates it contract in 2025, because it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I only said that the SEC's contract increased beyond the pro rata amount when A&M and Missouri were added, and I was absolutely right about that. When the Big 12 renegotiates its contract has nothing to do with what I said.
You are correct that the ACC is wearing the bull's-eye these days but your dispersion scenario is not possible.
The SEC has a stance that it will not expand into states already occupied by an existing SEC member. This means the Florida, Georgia and South Carolina are off the list for the SEC East. That leaves North Carolina and Virginia, because the SEC will not pluck a team farther north than Virginia - the whole "Dixie" thing, you know. The two best candidates in that area are UNC and UVA as both are large state flagship schools with a vast endowment and alumnus base.
The Big-Ten has a stance that while it is not a hard line, they have treated as such in the past, they do not accept any candidate that is not an AAU member. In the ACC only a few schools - in spite of all their chest thumping about academics, meet that benchmark. Out of 15 members in the "we value academics more than anyone else conference" only 4 are AAU members: Pitt, UVA, Duke, and Georgia Tech. GT is just too far south and not in a contiguous state for the Big Ten footprint - strike them. Duke is a small, private school and also not in contiguous state. That leaves Pitt and UVA as qualified candidates for the Big Ten.
As both the Big Ten and the SEC need 2 more schools to round out their 16 mega conference plans and there are only 3 candidates for those 4 slots, someone has to compromise. I think Pitt and UVA go to the Big Ten and UNC falls into the SEC's lap. But the SEC is short a team and the only remaining team that has a chance in the ACC is VT. But, VT is a bare minimum candidate at best. They have been mediocre in football for a decade and their basketball program outside of the very recent success is dismal. They have a new football coach and he looks pretty god so far but if he is a bust, they may slide right off the list and the SEC would have to rethinks its priorities.
That is true so long as it is only one school that wants to leave. The dynamics change if it 2 or 3 or more that for various reason want out. The whole structure would come down and the GOR would just be a court room entanglement that had to be cleaned up, but cleaned up it would be. The GOR is like a lock on your front door, it keeps out honest people but crooks can still get in. The GOR keeps any one school from testing the wall, but let several push on it and it will collapse. The BIg-12 GOR is no different. If Texas and Oklahoma wanted out, the GOR would not stop them. If just one did, the GOR is probably a barrier.
The Big 12-2=10 will expand, go to two divisions, hold a CCG, and launch a network/subscription service soon...or someone will leave and the conference will fall apart. Then the bogus committee that decides the four team playoff circus show will simply say the champions of the Pac, ACC, Big 10 and SEC make it automatically. Of course if ND runs the table they will move to the head of the line and someone else falls out. This whole debate is silly. Sounds a lot like the old discussions of the Big East which went nowhere but destroying that conference. Greedy folks looking at the shortrun.
I disagree on the GOR. Whether one or five schools want out, the defendants are the conference, ESPN and FoxSports. Right now all tier one and two broadcast revenue goes directly to the broadcast conglomerate. It would very likely continue to do so during a legal battle until it was settled. The 'structure' is strong enough that the ACC did away with the $50 million exit fee. In spite of donations, five schools together could not match the hundreds of millions of dollars the broadcasters would spend on a legal defense. They make significant revenue from the GOR. If nothing else, they could use delay tactics to keep the case from being resolved for several years. That is why no one has contested it.
I'm more than confident the BIG 12 knows their own contracts and understands who they will be adding to the conference and what they will receive for such.
Boren, Gee and more than likely most others are confident that they should expand and will secure the future of the conference with a comprehensive plan.
As the conference gets closer to expansion, the wolves will come out of the woodwork shouting "they can't do this" or "they can't do that". But none of that nonsense matters--they've been claiming nonsense all along and not one thing has proven to be true on their end.
The February meetings will be internal meetings based on facts, not message board fantasy. The conference leaders have a sound idea of what expansion is possible and what it will do for the membership. Despite the efforts from the outside to trick fans -and they hope others-into being scared, or thinking this or that is impossible, it seems that gradually the conference members are coming to their senses and will sooner rather than later get things done that already should be done.
Boren, Gee and more than likely most others are confident that they should expand and will secure the future of the conference with a comprehensive plan.
As the conference gets closer to expansion, the wolves will come out of the woodwork shouting "they can't do this" or "they can't do that". But none of that nonsense matters--they've been claiming nonsense all along and not one thing has proven to be true on their end.
The February meetings will be internal meetings based on facts, not message board fantasy. The conference leaders have a sound idea of what expansion is possible and what it will do for the membership. Despite the efforts from the outside to trick fans -and they hope others-into being scared, or thinking this or that is impossible, it seems that gradually the conference members are coming to their senses and will sooner rather than later get things done that already should be done.
Again, seems plausible until you go to the next phase. Let us assume it was Texas and Oklahoma that wanted to leave and that both decide on the SEC. Crazy, I know but it works to make a point. FoxSports, The Big-12 and ESPN are the defendants as you state versus, Texas, Oklahoma and the SEC. Explain to me just how much ESPN wants to sue the brands that are Texas and Oklahoma not to mention effectively 14 more schools in the SEC? That is the source of their revenue. ESPN does not care what conference Texas is located in so long as it has access to the Texas product. Same goes for Oklahoma. The Big-12 is going to be miffed but they are getting a paycheck that helps to soften the blow from a reduced ESPN and FoxSports package, because both of those networks would draw down those package totals. So in the end the only defendant is the Big-12. And the Big-12 is no different than was the Big East when they got left behind. A GOR is only as powerful as the partners in it want it to be.
I see your point and it is indeed well thought out. However, that's not the way litigation works. ESPN and Fox would be co-defendants, not plaintiffs and therefore would be suing no one. They would have no choice but to aggressively defend the GOR as it affects four out of five (?) power five conferences. Fox alone has massive resources and would lose substantial income and broadcasting rights if the GOR was declared void. ESPN would also lose the GOR with the ACC in collateral damage. Besides, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of even simple exit fee agreements. In the case of the ACC vs Maryland the courts denied every motion Maryland made even though Maryland and FSU voted against it. Maryland eventually settled by paying the ACC $31 million dollars. The issues were much more complex in that case because of the restraint of free trade laws.
The GOR on the other hand does not stop any team from changing conferences. It is simply an investment transaction that involves selling a school's rights for first and second tier broadcasts for an annual fee that the school willingly agreed upon. Besides, Texas would lose money big time. They would have to give up the LHN to join the SEC. Teams in the SEC earned about $31.2 million last year including the SEC network. Texas made over $40 million right where they are between the Big 12 payout and the LHN.
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head and that is what I've been saying for a while now. When you think about it, adding an FSU and Clemson to this conference is tantamount to suicide.
Fans all juiced up looking at those two to add to the Big 12 is like someone looking at food where their eyes are bigger than their stomach. It would be colossal overkill in my opinion.
I still say adding one school, Louisville is the perfect mate for WVU and the conference. Adding just that one team adds multiple options for the conference. And I don't care what the circumstances are regarding GOR's. I understand the difficulty but if the Big 12 could get together and realize and recognize the importance of adding UL, then you never know what could happen.
I'd like to ask the ACC if they had to do it over again, who would they really like to have in their conf., UConn or UL? How does anyone really know if they would be willing to swap schools and allow UL out of their contract? Sounds pretty out there but you never know.
And the hell with BC and their objections to UConn. They need to STFU and be happy they're in a major conf. UConn is a much better fit for the ACC than UL and the ACC knows it.
It's nice to dream and the fact is no one really knows what will or would happen, even in the near future. Contracts are broken and/or renegotiated all the time. The question is, what conf would UL rather be in between the two?
I have to give credit where it is due. I have seen much less compelling arguments than three of you have presented on this post in actual courtrooms involving much more complicated cases. I don't know who you guys are, but you present quite an impressive intellect. And you do it in a reasonably civil manner. You are truly an asset to this forum. I hope Vernon is catching this.
The BIG 12 has identified 6 or 7 candidates for expansion that will be additive to the conference-straight from the president of Oklahoma. None of them are under a grant of rights agreement and the league was advised that would be the best option (again according to Boren's direct statements).
If the BIG 12 expands over the next few years, its going to be from this pool of schools: Cincinnati, UConn, UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, BYU.
In 2027 or so, who knows? The conference may decide to grow larger and seek current P5 schools, but that is a long way off. Nothing that happens now stops any of that from happening later-in fact it makes it more possible because it will stabilize the BIG 12 and put it on solid grounds beyond the current contracts.
If the BIG 12 expands over the next few years, its going to be from this pool of schools: Cincinnati, UConn, UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, BYU.
In 2027 or so, who knows? The conference may decide to grow larger and seek current P5 schools, but that is a long way off. Nothing that happens now stops any of that from happening later-in fact it makes it more possible because it will stabilize the BIG 12 and put it on solid grounds beyond the current contracts.
There's no indication that anyone in the ACC is interested in going anywhere. Even if some schools left, there will always be some remaining that aren't likely to get looks from someone else. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, BC, Wake Forest, Miami, NC State, FSU, Clemson, Louisville Georgia Tech--these schools are likely to still be there even if others chose to move to say the SEC and Big Ten. So the grant of rights isn't going to be dissolved or forgiven. The least likely to want to move are the most desired anyway--Virginia and North Carolina--closely followed by Duke (which if it doesn't have great basketball is probably of no interest elsewhere anyway). If UVA and UNC don't move-the core remains and the chances are slim that anyone else desires to go anywhere.
I'm not sure why people keep acting as though the ACC is on the brink after all this time anyway. That league has stabilized itself with expansion and new contracts. Its the primary conference of ESPN now-outside of the SEC with all rights owned and they are getting huge promotion and prime time slots now--which has dramatically boosted recruiting and tv ratings. Even when there was a great chance for more defections there, nothing happened because in the end that's where teams wanted to be. So there must be a desire for another home and its just not there from any indication.
This is the situation. At some point you have to ask what are any hold outs on expansion holding out for? There aren't any available P5 schools--that was a missed opportunity five years ago. They can't just sit and stay the same as now until 2025 and expect they'll get new contracts that will provide a stable environment beyond 2025 because the Big Ten and SEC monies will be locked in and climbing through the mid 30's in the case of the SEC and probably a similar timeframe for the Big Ten.
I do not think anyone ever wants to switch conferences, except when it is an obvious move up. The nightmare of moving is a huge task to undertake and spans 5 or 6 years in addition to all of the day-to-day operations that must go on. But, when protecting an investment is at stake, I think motivation changes. The reason the ACC is a dead man walking has been covered many times. It is possible they will limp along and be unaffected by any future conference realignments, but that is not likely. Clemson, FSU and Georgia Tech wanted out a few years ago, just as much as a host of schools in the Big-12 wanted out and some of those teams did leave. Once the idea is implanted it never goes away and all of those schools have spent time, money and effort in moving from the ACC, even if it came to naught to date.
State flagship universities are state level investments that are tendered by more than their administration. The state legislature is keenly aware of the status and exposure of their flagship school. Manchin could not keep his hands out of WVU's pockets during his terms in office is a good example. Virginia Tech was going to be left out of the ACC, in stepped the state government to pressure UVA which pressured the entire ACC to let them in. Iowa State probably saved the Big-12 when the state legislature forced the issues with that schools validity hanging in the balance and they tried to demand that the Big Ten take them in to join Iowa.
The biggest reason the ACC is in this situation is money. WVU is going to pull in several million dollars more than the highest paid ACC member this year and WVU is not the top money winner in the Big-12 and the Big-12 is not the top money producing conference. Schools like FSU and Clemson and GT can stand by so long and let that gap widen. UVA and UNC have to take notice as well, as the gap widens, their distaste for jumping ship is going to grow. It is inevitable.
The problem with the money issue is that things won't remain as is over the course of the next decade plus.
In 2027 the ACC will get a new contract. Their fans have been posting for years that they have look ins coming up as well. It remains to be seen what they'll get, but they've been doing well competitively and ratings wise so one can probably expect a significant bump.
The BIG 12 meanwhile must deal with its own situation and shore up what it can to make sure its future looks good.
Everything you said is spot on and that is just TV $. Each team in the big 12 should expect to lose millions per year from other revenue areas via expansion for several years to come
Can this court of opinion adjourn at least until after the Big 12 meetings in February? While all of these 'Friend of the court briefs' are quite imaginative and sometimes compelling, the court of reality must wait until the Big 12 meetings are over to make an adjudication. Will someone please agree with me on this?
The BIG will get a nice bump in coming TV deal but word is it w
The BIG 10 will be getting a nice bump from TV deal, but I read multiple stories where the money is not going to be near the figures they were originally hoping for.
Here are the TV players
NBC is a non starter.
CBS IS happy with NFL, ties to the SEC, NCAA tournament , and PGA schedule.
That leaves ESPN and FOX.
ESPN is being put on a massive spending diet by owner Disney, and unless another company with a fusion of cash comes in to buy ESPN, the $$ they can spend will be down.
There hasn't been a lot of chatter about FOX, but their current plate of content is getting full.
Most likely, ESPN and FOX will split the TV rights as they did with the PAC and BIG12. It remains to be seen how much the BIG will haul in but I don't think it will blow people away
Unfortunately neither one of you understands the situation or the contracts.
Again , Bowlsby has stated more than once that there are schools which could be added worth more than pro rata.
Not possible if the contract would not allow for more.
Regardless, expansion candidates will be additive as Boren stated. The only way the conference can significantly improve revenues is via expansion.
Many believe the B10 deal will be the last of the major deals. Some think FOX is in the drivers seat there.
If so that could greatly enhance BIG 12 coverage on ESPN. Expansion will be necessary for more inventory certainly.
Who knows what the Big Ten will get, but will be more than now, but not enough to buy out a GOR and conference buyout.
Who is a better candidate than Cincinnati that is available? NO P-5 school is moving right now, maybe later when the next tidal wave comes along but no one can predict that event. UConn suffers from location, location, location as far as the Big-12 is concerned. I expect they will end up in an ACC version X at some point.
Similar threads
