I know we disagree in a few areas on this but if you study the options for Oklahoma, there really aren't any. Neither the SEC nor the Pac-12 is going to add a single school even if it is Oklahoma. If they are going to jump into the court room over the GOR they are going to grab more than one school. That takes time and a lot of obvious effort to put together. It also means at least 2 schools headed to the SEC, but who would go with Oklahoma. It wont be Texas, it has everything it wants right now and can replace any school in the Big-12 even with bottom feeders and keep on going. If it is the Pac-12 they would need to add 4 schools. Which 3 go with Oklahoma? I just don't see either conference taking Oklahoma. Both have had the chance and passed when there was no GOR, I seriously doubt they try it now that there is one. The Big Ten is not going to look at a non-AAU school when UVA, UNC and Pitt are sitting out there.
Looks like no Big12 expansion
- Thread starter VaultHunter
- Start date
I know we disagree in a few areas on this but if you study the options for Oklahoma, there really aren't any. Neither the SEC nor the Pac-12 is going to add a single school even if it is Oklahoma. If they are going to jump into the court room over the GOR they are going to grab more than one school. That takes time and a lot of obvious effort to put together. It also means at least 2 schools headed to the SEC, but who would go with Oklahoma. It wont be Texas, it has everything it wants right now and can replace any school in the Big-12 even with bottom feeders and keep on going. If it is the Pac-12 they would need to add 4 schools. Which 3 go with Oklahoma? I just don't see either conference taking Oklahoma. Both have had the chance and passed when there was no GOR, I seriously doubt they try it now that there is one. The Big Ten is not going to look at a non-AAU school when UVA, UNC and Pitt are sitting out there.
Unfortunately what you don't realize or fail to admit that each program in the BIG12 stand to lose millions per year from
- 2.5 to 3 million each for 10 team CCG that Bowlsby said was worth between 2.5 and 3 million
- 1 to 1.7 million less from the Split of Playoff money
- Undetermined amount of money from split of NCAA tourney money.
You can't lose money you don't have.
If you've got 12 teams, youll negotiate for a nice CCG for 12 teams rather tha a 10 team deal.
Playoff money doesn't reduce that much for 12 rather than 10. This can be mitigated in tv negotiations with higher than pro rata shares or entirely wiped out with CCG revenues, along with the further split of NCAA and bowl money.
Teams like UConn And Cincy are regular NCAA participants and have contributed millions to their conferences.
New teams allow for more bowls. In 2019 those deals will be redone.
Another point. Loss of playoff participation money. Less likely to be in with 10 teams with or without CCG. The conference is already down $6million and that will quickly add up every time they get left out.
Regardless of anyone's biased opinion, Cincinnati appears to have been told what they are lacking for a membership offer and are frantically addressing those deficits to the tune of over $100 million dollars. Their accomplishments in the sports arena during the last five years is very respectable. I have no idea who would come with them, but I would bet they are among the top three candidates. It would certainly be no worse than the BIG taking Rutgers or Maryland or the SEC taking Missouri.
The concern isn't necessarily Oklahoma leaving today or tomorrow. Everyone knows they are under a grant of rights although Boren alluded to that not being challenged in court yet. As for another team most suspect Kansas since that would be the "bridge" and they are AAU.
The concern is more at the end of the current contract. The Pac 12 gets a new contract a year before the BIG 12 and tried to poach BIG 12 schools before. The SEC has shown it will be aggressive. If OU isn't happy then then yes they could try to move--they are being heavily hammered daily by bloggers and message board posters from elsewhere bashing the BIG 12 while pretending to be OU fans and its had a "psychological" effect on them in a major way.
I remember reading (not sue where) the reason the $$ would stay Flat after adding teams was the inclusion of CCG. If that is true then my premies is 100% correct. there is 2.5 to 3 million loss in revenue from a 10 team CCG that was not apart of the process.
Also you keep saying more than pro rata, but that is not going to happen. It might have valid back when each team was making 1/2 to 1/3 what the current market is baring. As the per team revenue explodes as it did during the last contracts so to does the amount of money a new program has to bring in to keep everyone whole. Assuming everything being equal There are no G5 programs that will bring in more pro rata per team. Now with that said, any G5 program being added will not receive a full share right away and unlike the 4-5 years WVU had to wait I suspect the full share won't be reached for a 10 year period. Where do you think this windfall is going to come from? ESPN is losing millions of subscribers and is cutting 100's of million from the budget over the next few years. They can't afford to raise it more than the guaranteed pro rata.
It is true the BIG12 can add more bowls, but it is not guaranteed those bowls payout will be at the level to cover expenses. Especially when schools are required to sell 10-15k tickets when better tickets for less can be had on the open market. All other P5 conference partake in bowls that don't fully cover expenses. Why do you think BIG12 adding games will be sufficient enough to bring in added revenue.
Your last point makes no sense. If BIG12 did not go through all the trouble of getting deregulation passed only to forgo a 10 team CCG game giving them the 13th data point. So why would BIG12 lose money from not holding a game.
Who did you have in mind? UConn I understand, but Cincinnati is 35 - 17 since 2012 with three consecutive bowls. They just rebuilt their stadium into a very nice facility which now seats 45k with room for expansion. That was an $83 million investment. They cover a large TV market and are very dedicated to do whatever it takes to join a power 5 conference. I'm not a particular fan of Cincinnati but WVU could have easily been where they are. The Bearcats are not the only power 5 school trapped in a lower conference. Houston comes to mind and possibly Memphis. Boren from Oklahoma said there are 6 or 7 teams that meet the criteria.
Would you rather have someone like FSU and Clemson so the Big 12 could be the most top heavy conference in the BCS? Should WVU have to beat four or five top 15 teams every year in their own conference to have a shot at the playoffs? Alabama didn't, Clemson and Michigan State didn't either. The PAC 12 only ended up with 2 teams in the top 25. What is the attraction in being so top heavy that at season' end there is no one left standing among the elite?
I'd rather see two teams that are now dominant in a lower conference and dedicated to moving up. Teams that might finish 5th or 6th in their first year in the Big 12. Do you forget that Texas A&M and Missouri were middle of the conference teams in the Big 12 when the SEC took them? They wanted no part of Texas or Oklahoma.
It's not that people want the conference to be top heavy. The issue is, most people want to bring in teams that will contribute financially. To do that, you need some combination of prestige and market size. The question is whether any of the available schools offer the right combination to bring in significant revenue.
You mentioned earlier that Cincinnati was no different that Rutgers, Maryland, or Missouri. Regarding prestige, you are mostly right (although I would argue that Missouri and Maryland have better traditional name recognition, however slight). However, the big question is with market. Rutgers is the only FBS school in New Jersey. They don't share the market. Missouri is the only FBS school in the state. They don't share the market. Maryland only has one other FBS school, which is Navy, who isn't in a P5 league. The problem with Cincinnati is that they have the 800 lbs. gorilla of Ohio St in their market. The question is whether Cincinnati can deliver its market, in a way that someone like Rutgers can.
For comparison, the AAC (which Cincinnati is in) only gets a payout of $2 million dollars per team. That's what all of the teams combined are worth. That's also including some pretty big markets like Dallas, New Orleans, Houston, Tampa, Orlando, Memphis, Philadelphia, and of course Cincinnati. If Cincinnati was that valuable, I would think they could give a little bit bigger boost to the AAC.
I truly appreciate your argument. Cincinnati was merely an example although they are geographically far away enough from OSU to bring in the UM - MSU comparison. As Mr. Boren indicated, exhaustive studies have concluded there are several schools that meet the conference as well as the broadcast conglomerate's criteria. Prestige is relative and always changing. A former Big East school that is putting many millions of dollars to upgrade it's athletic programs may be worth talking to, no matter who it is. If the Big 12 cannot come to a consensus in their February meetings, then we have a serious debate. If they expand, you can bet it will be with the concurrence and approval of ESPN and FoxSports. If they decide to maintain the status quo, uh-oh.
It's a fact the BIG 12 will get at least pro rata for expansion. Boren has stated some schools will be additive to the conference so no one is going to lose money via expansion.
One has to laugh at the endless message board claims of this or that school not worth anything when they actually just don't want the schools to be worth anything. The conference and media consultants have studied the particulars and found 6 or 7 that will be additive. Where is the evidence to support that they will not? It isn't there.
In 2019 most bowl deals for every conference will be renewed. The BIG 12 has a very good opportunity to add to their bowls here. big 12 bowls have very good payouts and there's no reason new ones won't as well. After all, the other conferences don't have so many bowl tie ins because they are losing money. Why then would the BIG 12?
NCAA revenues are another source of money split between members and the BIG 12 has a good chance there with several schools to add to the coffers. UConn, Memphis and Cincinnati have added millions over the years to their conferences for example.
Several schools have a large number of potential corporate sponsors in the area and this may be an additional source of revenue.
But as we have seen, the problem here isn't really what these schools can bring, it's the obsessed imagined idea that the ACC is magically going to fall apart and send teams to the BIG 12.
This is NOT going to happen. First, as Boren stated, the BIG 12 is seen as unstable. Some view it as non competitive with the other conferences due to losses outside the conference and shaky playoff participation.If a comprehensive plan isn't adopted this isn't getting better. The BIG 12 isn't going to be together after 2025 because those that can will move on. That is why it's imperative to do something while the conference is stable and the money situation is good.
Waiting on an imagined fantasy of the ACC breaking up is not going to make BIG 12 tv ratings higher, it's not going to boost recruiting, it's not going to add fans, and it isn't going to boost revenues or allow for a conference network while that is still possible.
One has to laugh at the endless message board claims of this or that school not worth anything when they actually just don't want the schools to be worth anything. The conference and media consultants have studied the particulars and found 6 or 7 that will be additive. Where is the evidence to support that they will not? It isn't there.
In 2019 most bowl deals for every conference will be renewed. The BIG 12 has a very good opportunity to add to their bowls here. big 12 bowls have very good payouts and there's no reason new ones won't as well. After all, the other conferences don't have so many bowl tie ins because they are losing money. Why then would the BIG 12?
NCAA revenues are another source of money split between members and the BIG 12 has a good chance there with several schools to add to the coffers. UConn, Memphis and Cincinnati have added millions over the years to their conferences for example.
Several schools have a large number of potential corporate sponsors in the area and this may be an additional source of revenue.
But as we have seen, the problem here isn't really what these schools can bring, it's the obsessed imagined idea that the ACC is magically going to fall apart and send teams to the BIG 12.
This is NOT going to happen. First, as Boren stated, the BIG 12 is seen as unstable. Some view it as non competitive with the other conferences due to losses outside the conference and shaky playoff participation.If a comprehensive plan isn't adopted this isn't getting better. The BIG 12 isn't going to be together after 2025 because those that can will move on. That is why it's imperative to do something while the conference is stable and the money situation is good.
Waiting on an imagined fantasy of the ACC breaking up is not going to make BIG 12 tv ratings higher, it's not going to boost recruiting, it's not going to add fans, and it isn't going to boost revenues or allow for a conference network while that is still possible.
And how do message board posters know anything? All we know is what the conference's leaders tell us- and that is 6-7 schools not in GOR commitments will be additive if they join the BIG 12.
You don't compare what a team gets in a G5 league with where they'll be in a P5 league because contracts guarantee pro rata increases at minimum.
As usual, I agree with your analysis. It's not really the ACC or the Big 12 that is worried at the moment, it's the PAC 12. They missed the playoffs and had two teams in the final top 25. #17 and #19. Check this out: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/...-stability-pac-12-has-issues-on-and-off-field
Its true that the PAC is having troubles financially. And they just missed the playoffs.
But they are fairly immune to raiding being so far west, and they are likely to be aggressive again in expansion and that means coming hard after BIG 12 schools as they did before. There's far more fan interest in the BIG 12 but more fans as a number out west. Their contracts are up earlier.
The BIG 12 membership would be wise to have all of their ducks in order when the Pacs contract is up for renegotiation.
But they are fairly immune to raiding being so far west, and they are likely to be aggressive again in expansion and that means coming hard after BIG 12 schools as they did before. There's far more fan interest in the BIG 12 but more fans as a number out west. Their contracts are up earlier.
The BIG 12 membership would be wise to have all of their ducks in order when the Pacs contract is up for renegotiation.
Geography isn’t the issue with Cincinnati vs. Ohio St. I’ll be willing to bet you there are more Buckeye fans in Cincinnati that Bearcat fans. Most people in Ohio are going to identify with Ohio St rather than Cincinnati. I’ll give you comparison, Georgia vs. Georgia Tech. UGA owns that state, and Georgia Tech has won a national championship as recently as 1990. (More recently than UGA.) I feel pretty confident the situation is probably more pronounced in Ohio.
I also take issue with this idea of Boren’s ‘additive’ comment being definitive. That is not the consensus view in the conference. For example, someone here posted a video of TCU’s AD, and he didn’t agree that these teams were really going to be valuable. My problem is that ‘additive’ is very vague. Some posters here are trying to assign a more definitive meaning to the word than the word actually has. My other problem is that Boren is not pushing for expansion strictly for value. He has said that he feels the Big 12 is at a disadvantage for getting into the playoffs, for example. Point being, it sounds to me like Boren is prepared to expand for the sake of stability, even if the actual value of the teams themselves is not that great. That’s why I question how much value ‘additive’ actually describes. It seems that Boren sees a minimal increase in value as being worth it, for the sake of stabilizing the conference. My question is if the rest of the league (particularly Texas) feels the same way, and I haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me that the majority of the league is on board with Boren’s vision.
Pro rata my a$$ as well as your repetitive "additive" crap. Your manifestos are getting beyond annoying so cut the crap and tell us who you're really representing, Cincy? UConn? Memphis? Just do it and your "arguing" could be more palatable.
Now to your bull$hit: It's a fact the BIG 12 will get at least pro rata for expansion. Boren has stated some schools will be additive to the conference so no one is going to lose money via expansion.
It isn't a fact until it happens and there are no guarantees. And frankly there is no way that adding an 11th school is not going to affect positively or negatively, the shares of the other 10.
One has to laugh at the endless message board claims of this or that school not worth anything when they actually just don't want the schools to be worth anything. The conference and media consultants have studied the particulars and found 6 or 7 that will be additive. Where is the evidence to support that they will not? It isn't there.
You mean like your incessant claims of this or that? Yours aren't included because you say so? you want proof? Cincy, Memphis and UConn are in the AAC. Did you miss the part where AAC members bring in a paltry figure compared to others?
UConn, Memphis and Cincinnati have added millions over the years to their conferences for example.
What kinds of millions? Two million per team as one said in another post? If they were that powerful they wouldn't be stuck in the AAC so get over yourself with this agenda. And don't bother reversing the agenda thing on me because it won't work. These schools have an image problem as well as a history of fairly poor performance, except maybe UConn and they haven't been around at the 1A level very long. You think they're going to come right in and compete with OU and UT? They'll struggle with Kansas for crying out loud.
Several schools have a large number of potential corporate sponsors in the area and this may be an additional source of revenue.
You're reaching for god's sake.
First, as Boren stated, the BIG 12 is seen as unstable. Some view it as non competitive with the other conferences due to losses outside the conference and shaky playoff participation.
Where in the world does Boren get this because the Big 12 is anything but unstable, especially with constant top 10 teams year after year. And "shaky playoff participation"? They're one for two just like the Pac 12. You're ridiculous.
The BIG 12 isn't going to be together after 2025 because those that can will move on.
Really? Prove it! Now you are fear mongering. Where is your proof because your statement isn't speculating, it's stated as fact.
That is why it's imperative to do something while the conference is stable and the money situation is good.
I thought you said it was unstable? Didn't someone you stand behind say it was unstable?
What's really irritating is people like you coming on here dressed up like a Mountaineer fan but never mention them unless it has something to do with this like WVU is a metaphor or something. There is no proof of anything you say unless it actually happens where you can point to it and say "there." So don't give us this crap of you being just a fan coming here arguing some point because you have way too much time on your hands to be typing this much over an issue like this. So which school do you work, or are associated with?
Expand above to see rest of answers
A: i said it has disadvantages that must be addressed so that it wont become unstable. Its ok today- in 9 years it wont be. Intelligent people dont wait for a crises to look long term.
You have ignored every single bit of fact and evidence because it doesnt fit your agenda. You pretend what leaders state is made up, being left out of the playoffs doesnt matter, tv numbers and footprint dont matter- basically anything real that doesnt fit your do nothing agenda you pretend doesnt exist.
The question isnt why does a fan of WVU like me care- but who are you and what is your agenda? If you werent dismissive of every real situation and fact that will deeply impact WVUs future then one could take you seriously. But you are obviously working the do nothing angle hard- even to the point of being belligerent. What benefit comes to WVU if the league does nothing?
Last edited:
I believe after a few years and everyone seeing the amount of money they could be making in the Big 12...there will big several other schools ready to leave their power 5 conference for ours. The ACC schools to be exact. The supposedly power basketball conference. Looks like the Big 12 may be in the driver seat there as well. I'm glad to be where we are...the alternative may not have been pretty . Let's get back on track today! Let's gooo Mountaineers!!!
The future of conference networks in the age of unbundling:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...e-networks-if-cord-cutting-accelerates-012016
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...e-networks-if-cord-cutting-accelerates-012016
Another perspective from Dallas:http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...2/sherrington-big-changes-needed-big-12-fixed
If the writers quoted by skygusty are correct, the Big 12 meetings will have a guest or two among them to listen and give input on any and all decisions regarding the future of the conference. These guests will be representatives from ESPN and FoxSports. The value factor of a particular team to the conference seems to consist primarily of the number of cable subscribers in a team's area. Stipulations can be made by the conference to any potential new member to bring their program and facilities up to Big 12 standards. This was obviously done with WVU. A team's image can only be improved by one thing; winning against power 5 opponents in and OOC. Considering who pays for whatever is done, I think we know who will make or strongly influence any final decisions of the matters at hand.
Here is a quote Buck will hate
"
1. I think conference expansion and realignment is dead for the foreseeable future.
Why do I say that? Because the number one rule of conference expansion is no one is expanding to take less money. That is, no existing conference is adding members who don't bring in more money to everyone. That's why the Big 12 isn't expanding. Because no one out there brings in substantial money. Not unless the Longhorn Network gets turned into the Big 12 Network some day, and I doubt that ever happens.
ESPN reminds me of Blockbuster, RIM (Blackberry) they had something that took them to the top of the industry, but did not react strong to a changing world and market as they watched their empire crumble. People are sick and tired of paying 100's of $ a month for TV content, and are cutting the cord in droves. Amazon, Netflix and the like will be the king of media content, and ESPN will a shell of itself.
I have over 12,000 posts so for you to question who I am proves you're not for real or you would know me, or at least be familiar with me. And you conveniently ignore specific points people throw at you and don't answer them because it would expose you for the salesman you are.
Also, I never said was against expansion so how could I be a "do nothing"? You have a convenient little way of reversing everything people accuse you of, which tells me something.
Another point is, how do you know Boren will be there in nine years? How do you know he'll think the way he does by then the way he does now? How do you know what the cable TV system will be in nine years?
I'll say it again, if those "additive" schools were as good as you say they are they wouldn't be in non-P5 conferences right now. Whatever money they brought in to their conferences, past and present, isn't what even WVU has brought in or other schools.
A: tv ratings are low. The OOC record against P5s is bad especially for bowls. Texas and UT are doing well financially but several schools are beginning to fall behind...,
And those "additive" schools are going to magically up the Big 12's TV ratings? That's laughable. And by the way, "Texas and UT" are the same school so who's head is up who's ass there? And just how are those "additive" schools not going to fall behind when the one's in there now are "falling behind" as you say? You're stepping on yourself now.
As far as my head up my a$$, some of those schools you mentioned were brought into the BE because other better schools left. Just because they brought in money there doesn't mean it would be enough to satisfy Big 12 schools. So take your mind fu*&ing somewhere else.
You also ignored the Chuck Neinas quote several posts ago. That was convenient on your part.
And you also didn't answer the question of who you are. You should know who I am if you're who you say you are and I don't remember you on this board before.
Last edited:
You can't even think of expanding without input from the Networks. It has been stated the TV per team payout will stay the same through expansion, but that includes a CCG. It is obvious to most that adding G5 programs will not add money enough to keep or grow the per team out. That does not even take into consideration 3.5 - 3 million a 10 team CCG game will bring per team, or the fact that each team will receive 1 to 1.7 million less from Playoff money. It is all about the bengerman's and why the BIG12 won't get enough votes to expand. As long as there is an LHN, there can't be a real BIG12 network and TexA$$ is not going to give that up. As long as there is not a real BIG12 network there is no reason to expand
They could still have their own network just like any school that wants one. But they would probably be broadcasting less important content. But there's plenty of all around sports to broadcast for fans of schools that are "popular" and have hungry fan bases. Not everyone but there are plenty out there.
I think WVU is one of them. I would love to see someday Internet streaming of sports events we could see just be clicking on and paying. A good example would be the women's soccer tourney this year. I think several soccer matches weren't even available on the Internet. Now I would have paid to see that and I think plenty of fans would have that follow the sport.
You wouldn't even need announcers for some of these sports, just someone to operate the camera with a scoreboard visible or juxtaposed. But UT could still have their network if they wanted to. I don't see that as a zero sum game. It would just be part of their Tier three package.
Last edited:
Having lived in Cincinnati for a 25 year stint in my past I can safely say that in my experience Ohio State has little presence among fans. If I had to rank the fan bases, it would be the Reds, Bengals, Cincinnati, UK, Notre Dame, Xavier, Dayton, NKU and then OSU.
Cincinnati is a pro-football town and a basketball college town. When they do follow college football it is UC and UK. Notre Dame has enough fans to make their presence known but it was rare to come across an OSU fan. Everyone knew of OSU, but in Cincinnati, Columbus is seen as being something close to Cleveland and everyone in Cincinnati hates Cleveland. Cincinnati looks south, not north and the region is a conglomerate of fan bases not truly dominated by any one school in any sport until you get to the professional level.
When Cincinnati was in the Big East, the people of Cincinnati "discovered" college football and liked it. UC went on a publicity run because of it and added almost 150 million dollars worth of improvements that came as a direct result. The market in Cincinnati belongs to Cincinnati, not OSU and Cincinnati is the biggest market in Ohio.
I spent most of my life in Charleston WV and have relatives in Cincinnati and the surrounding area. What you are saying makes sense to me and Nippert Stadium is now indeed impressive to look at. I am not familiar with the other upgrades but it does seem as though the Bearcat administration is on a mission. I'm not saying they will be invited to the Big 12, but it would not surprise me. The closer I look the better the fit, but the Benjamins will be the deciding factor. I have not seen the studies Boren refers to.
The LHN issue is not that simple, because IMG is also involved. In technical terms, the contract is between ESPN and IMG, with Texas being a third party. The other problem is that the revenue simply isn't there for the other sports. Football makes almost all the money, with men's basketball making up the rest. For example, the SEC relies almost completely on the football games to make a profit. Ad revenue generated from the other sports is minimal.
I'm just not sold on the whole conference network idea. Keeping your third tier rights seems like a good idea to me. WVU is doing fine with a $6.6 million most recent payout and I know UT is happy with their $15 million. It seems to me that any school pushing for a conference network is not doing enough to sell their own product. The SEC and the Big 10 are doing well marketing their own conference and good for them. I cannot believe schools like FSU, Clemson, Oregon, Stanford and even USC or UCLA could not do better with their own third tier rights than sharing them with the conference 'also rans'.
Good points Michael. What works for some doesn't mean it would work for others, as the old saying goes. The Big 10 and SEC are well established conferences that have only changed minimally with a few teams. The ACC on the on the other hand, was never FB strong. On top of that they changed dramatically with first, the BE raid then another clump of teams which has changed their identity greatly compared to the SEC and Big 10, which has relatively kept the same image.
I wonder if there was a way to keep the Tier 3 rights for everyone while still having some kind of conf. network, maybe for football only? or FB and BB only? And Tier 3 could be for Internet streaming or other sports placed on that conf network channel as some kind of shared business practice where the network channel could take turns highlighting each school at various times?
There is a huge disconnect with reality here.
Reading some of the attacks/ replies/ nonsense, one notices that somehow, Gordon Gee president of WVU isn't to be believed, knows nothing about expansion or candidates and is just lying when he stated that he wants to expand and that expansion is likely. David Boren and Bob Bowlsy lied when they stated the BIG 12 contracts are written so that the BIG 12 will get pro rata shares at least for added schools. OUS president is just playing games and making things up when he says the expansion committee and media consultants for the BIG 12 have identified multiple non P5 schools that will be additive to the conference and they just need to pick two of these. He's faking it when he states that status quo is unacceptable and if the league doesn't adopt a comprehensive plan then he has to represent OUs interests and consider other conferences- who btw have been talking with OU to get them to move. Boren is nuts because everything is hunky dory and there are no problems to deal with. no problem with fanbase, tv ratings, recruiting, everyone is doing great financially compared to every other league etc.
All that is made up lies, but someone that writes an article unasociated with the conference knows absolutely what is going on and should be trusted because after all, they believe in the BIG 12 can't do anything proactive mantra.
Reading some of the attacks/ replies/ nonsense, one notices that somehow, Gordon Gee president of WVU isn't to be believed, knows nothing about expansion or candidates and is just lying when he stated that he wants to expand and that expansion is likely. David Boren and Bob Bowlsy lied when they stated the BIG 12 contracts are written so that the BIG 12 will get pro rata shares at least for added schools. OUS president is just playing games and making things up when he says the expansion committee and media consultants for the BIG 12 have identified multiple non P5 schools that will be additive to the conference and they just need to pick two of these. He's faking it when he states that status quo is unacceptable and if the league doesn't adopt a comprehensive plan then he has to represent OUs interests and consider other conferences- who btw have been talking with OU to get them to move. Boren is nuts because everything is hunky dory and there are no problems to deal with. no problem with fanbase, tv ratings, recruiting, everyone is doing great financially compared to every other league etc.
All that is made up lies, but someone that writes an article unasociated with the conference knows absolutely what is going on and should be trusted because after all, they believe in the BIG 12 can't do anything proactive mantra.
Another laughable thought process:
"Since school x,y,z isn't in a conference making more money, they must not be worth anything. If they were, they'd have already been added".
Then why did the ACC add SU and Pitt- both of which more than doubled what they were making prior to that. What about WVU, or Utah, or TCU? Surely they must not have been worth anything because they were making so much less than they now make in the BIG 12 and PAC 12, right? Why did anyone ever even consider them?
Could go on with multiple schools brought into a higher payout conference. What schools make in one lower revenue conference doesn't mean that they aren't worthy of a higher paying one in any shape or form.
These arguments aren't thought out at all.
"Since school x,y,z isn't in a conference making more money, they must not be worth anything. If they were, they'd have already been added".
Then why did the ACC add SU and Pitt- both of which more than doubled what they were making prior to that. What about WVU, or Utah, or TCU? Surely they must not have been worth anything because they were making so much less than they now make in the BIG 12 and PAC 12, right? Why did anyone ever even consider them?
Could go on with multiple schools brought into a higher payout conference. What schools make in one lower revenue conference doesn't mean that they aren't worthy of a higher paying one in any shape or form.
These arguments aren't thought out at all.
Tier 3 rights.
There are some BIG 12 schools making $2 or $3 million for tv tier 3 rights. meanwhile SEC schools got $5 mil for year one SEC network rights. bIg Ten schools got $7-8 mil for BTN rights.
The BIG 12s conference payouts are gradually becoming lower than what these conferences pay and by 2025 most schools won't be able to maintain their financial status compared to schools in conferences locked into long term contracts like the SEC and probably Big Ten. Those conferences will have growing revenues into the mid 2030s. The BIG 12 has to try to renew a contract that will start 2025 and it must guarantee that BIG 12 schools are making what these other conferences are. Not easy to do if you haven't gotten ratings, haven't had competitive success, cable is dying off etc. that's why now is the time to secure the future, not 12 years from now when it is too late.
The BIG 12 needs to do this with a combination of revenue from a network whatever form it takes and the network partners as well.
It's true that numbers will change over the next decade or two as cable subscribers opt out of sports plans. However, these networks aren't going to just go away immediately, they are going to become some sort of streaming subscriber based networks most likely. If you have one, you'll still be making money, just from those who are avid watchers. If you don't have one then you have no chance to make that revenue.
There are some BIG 12 schools making $2 or $3 million for tv tier 3 rights. meanwhile SEC schools got $5 mil for year one SEC network rights. bIg Ten schools got $7-8 mil for BTN rights.
The BIG 12s conference payouts are gradually becoming lower than what these conferences pay and by 2025 most schools won't be able to maintain their financial status compared to schools in conferences locked into long term contracts like the SEC and probably Big Ten. Those conferences will have growing revenues into the mid 2030s. The BIG 12 has to try to renew a contract that will start 2025 and it must guarantee that BIG 12 schools are making what these other conferences are. Not easy to do if you haven't gotten ratings, haven't had competitive success, cable is dying off etc. that's why now is the time to secure the future, not 12 years from now when it is too late.
The BIG 12 needs to do this with a combination of revenue from a network whatever form it takes and the network partners as well.
It's true that numbers will change over the next decade or two as cable subscribers opt out of sports plans. However, these networks aren't going to just go away immediately, they are going to become some sort of streaming subscriber based networks most likely. If you have one, you'll still be making money, just from those who are avid watchers. If you don't have one then you have no chance to make that revenue.
WVU and other schools tier 3 rights include more than just tv rights. WVU is getting $4 million or so for tier 3 tv and every conferences schools get money they control for radio/ internet etc- via IMG or another. Meanwhile conference networks are paying out $5 to $8 mil for SEC and b10 schools and those conferences schools also have deals for radio/ internet rights etc, Some are getting Texas sized sums for these things. The BIG 12 needs to make sure their schools get $5-$8 mil or more for tv tier 3 rights and also can self market those other things for high payouts.
Buck, I don't understand where that came from. It's a shame that the interviewer did not ask a follow-up question regarding revenues. One can easily infer from his answer that he was speaking of a minimum to assure that the existing schools would not lose money through expansion with two or more of of six or seven secretly identified and thoroughly researched schools not currently among the power 5. Someone is obviously still coveting Oklahoma and I am convinced it is the PAC 12. They are very bottom heavy and in need of a 'flagship' university to keep them with a school in the top 10 on a regular basis. It would also help their fledgling TV network. Some of the vitriol being spewed back and forth is getting out of hand between some very intelligent posters with opposing viewpoints. Sometimes we have to simply agree to disagree and wait for the chips to fall where they may. The Big 12 meetings in February should be quite illuminating. I would appreciate not being personally attacked by other posters for simply voicing my opinion.
I would appreciate not being attacked for discussing information coming from the conference.
It's ridiculous to claim all of these things coming from Gee, Boren, Bowlsby etc. are lies and mistatements or somehow made up. Boren clearly stated that the conference has thoroughly researched schools and identified several that will be additive. Some are going berserk over this because they've personally decided these schools aren't "good enough". And of course they aren't going to be the ACC schools they covet.
The only thing I disagree with is that WVU is getting $4 million or so from IMG. The most recent payout was $6.6 million as per the athletic department. As the litigation and outright sabotaging efforts wind down and profits expand through inclusion of the former plaintiffs in business dealings that will only increase. When the contract becomes stagnant or recedes, WVU should be among those trying to get Texas to see the long run. But for 2016, WVU will pocket nearly $32 million from the Big 12 and IMG combined. That has to be considered. I do not argue as eloquently as some of you, but I am big on research.
Hey, Buckaineer may be right in the end I just don't like people coming on here masquerading as WVU fans when they're clearly representing some other school who is on the outside looking in. It is plain as day what he's doing and I just wished he would admit it because if he did it would change the entire dynamic of the discussion. He doesn't address everything thrown his way but he reverses things thinking he's being clever as if we've never seen that before. It's an old trick.
Plus, he says WVU is making $4 off T3 rights when it's been said plenty of times that they're making $6 million. He ignores what Chuck Neinas said about ND being the only school to add value.
I don't care what some contract says, I just don't see how some other school that has no great rep in FB is going to add enough value so existing members don't lose money. If that is so, then explain exactly how that is going to happen instead of this guy constantly spewing the pro rata, and 6 to 7 "additive" crap. I want to know exactly where this money is going to come from because if I were in the room listening to this sales pitch, this is what I would be asking.
During the discussions and debates in the Big 12 meetings there will be an '800 lb. gorilla' in the room addressing those very issues that concern you. His name is ESPN/FoxSports. I guarantee it.
It is what is included in that $6.6 million. It's not just the football, basketball and or Olympic sports coverage as say Indiana gets $7-8 million for as a member of the Big Ten from the BTN or Vanderbilt just got over $5 million for the SECn.
WVUs rights include many things that Indiana and Vanderbilt and all the other schools also are able to keep for themselves and sell. Schools like UNC and Alabama have huge deals for things like radio, Internet etc. as good as some full BIG 12 deals. The BIG 12 also has everyone at differing levels so some are beginning to fall behind every year.
Similar threads
