The BIG 12 has media consultants and as Boren stated have already discussed numbers and all that. Negotiation for an actual contract would be where those networks get more involved.
Looks like no Big12 expansion
- Thread starter VaultHunter
- Start date
The BIG 12 has media consultants and as Boren stated have already discussed numbers and all that. Negotiation for an actual contract would be where those networks get more involved.
That's not the 800lb gorilla, the gorilla is an attitude. Who is happy and wants to work things out no matter what, or who wants to work things out and if it doesn't go their way, they will try to leave continuing the instability of college football in general.
Or, if the LHN is that big a problem then that looks like a pretty good gorilla.
I've been here for years and on the other WVU boards. Always been a WVU fan probably longer than Papillion.
I've paid attention to realignment and like discussing it. I clear up misconceptions if I see someone making misstatements because it's a waste of everyone's time to keep going over things that are known and pretending fantasies some individuals have are the truth when they just aren't.
When you have someone that "doesn't care what some contract says" because they don't want it to be true, you understand you aren't dealing with someone based in reality. Reality is what WVU and the BIG 12 must deal with because if they don't there are major problems. Honestly- if you have a contract guaranteeing something, you don't need a sales pitch-- these are legally binding agreements. But of course people not dealing with what's real also don't believe in legally binding agreements like grants of rights or tv contracts- yet feel a need to attack others for discussing the truth.
Chuck Neinas isn't the commissioner any longer and the person that is has stated there are schools that will add value. The president of Oklahoma has stated again that after scientifically researching candidates the composition committee and media consultants have identified additive schools. He isn't lying and there's no benefit to him claiming something of this nature, he just stated the truth- again, to get through to those that matter that it is time to deal with reality and set aside the non scientific emotional thoughts about these things.
When you have someone that "doesn't care what some contract says" because they don't want it to be true,
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You making things up just to win points or favor with others. When did I say I didn't want anything to be true that may be favorable to or for, the Big 12? Name one time.
And what reality is could mean different things to different people. What I meant was about the contract and reality is I want to see the numbers and see exactly how the conf isn't going to lose out by adding other schools that are G5 right now. That's it. You want to crucify me for wanting to see that in black and white then go right ahead.
I did say you may be right in the end. And if you are a Mountaineer fan then fine and I apologize. Honestly, I don't care if you are or are not. I just see what I'm reading and have a hard time believing someone would spend this much time, if they're already representative from a school that is sitting pretty good, like WVU is. To me, and a few others, you just come off like you're really representing one of those "additive" schools.
Direct quote from Pap:
"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. "
But I'm "making things up". This is what I'm talking about. I don't care about scoring points. I don't care to argue with you or waste time on rants about me because I talk about what is actually happening.
In reality the contracts are what the league states. It's not open to interpretation and there's no need to do that. They'll tell everyone the details as they see fit- no conference is completely open on such topics. That doesn't mean they are lying.
Instead of always going back to ground zero and starting from scratch, why not deal with what is known and move forward from there. After all it's not like the conference doesn't know what they've got or are going to be fooled by misinformation.
WVU is doing well right now. As a fan I don't want them revisiting five years ago because some don't want to deal with the truth. That is what happens on message boards but that also spreads to conference leaders based on some comments that we are able to see I.e, coaches still upset they have to play a power school OOC when everyone else is doing that.
Just like OUs president pointed out, it's time to move past the rhetoric and to actually deal with these issues on a scientific rather than emotional level.
Nice way to pick another quote and divert away from what I asked you. Then you go on another one of your rants. I'm done with you. Have fun and hope it works out for you.
And they will know for a fact that adding G5 programs will bring in less revenue per school, and is why they can't get the votes
If you are referring to the comments Boren made, I have to disagree. There wasn't any need for a follow up question. He plainly said the payouts will say the same. People who are trying to say Boren only meant that the amount was a minimum are just wishing that to be so. There is absolutely nothing in his comments that you can use to infer that he meant the amount was only a minimum. That's just someone who doesn't like the ramifications of Boren's comments, and is trying to convince themselves otherwise.
I do agree with your statement that Boren said this to calm fears that adding schools would lose money. The issue really isn't losing money. The issue is, if there isn't a big increase in revenue, then that limits the choices of schools you have for expansion. Then it becomes a question of if you're expanding just for the sake of expanding.
I understand your conclusions and will not even attempt to argue what Boren's thoughts were when he made his statement. I know that sometimes I wish people would listen to what I mean instead of what I actually say, but that's just me. I'm not reading too much into anything Boren says because he is simply one man trying to do the best he can for his school. I know a consensus will hopefully be attained on several issues at the Big 12 meetings in February.
Being a lifelong WVU fan I expect President Gee to do what is best for the Mountaineers in the long and short run. I am very satisfied with the financial rewards of being in the Big 12 so far. I still say that if and who expansion invitations are offered to will ultimately be approved or vetoed by ESPN/FoxSports. If I'm holding the checkbook, I have the power as well as the final say. I will also do my own financial impact studies in addition to those done by the conference. It does come down to the Benjamins.
As far as expanding for the sake of expansion, why not even if it's a financial wash? It's the Big 12, not 12 minus 2. The conference is currently a little top heavy anyway and there is security in numbers. Look at the SEC expansion. They had to have Missouri, who happened to be 1 -7 in the conference and 5 - 7 overall this past year. Their bottom four teams were a combined 17 - 31.
Texas A&M, another 'must have' was a respectable 8 - 5 but only 4 - 4 in conference. The SEC didn't add them to be stronger, just bigger without threatening the top tier programs. If it's about market share and cable households, Missouri has less than one million.
Texas A&M, another 'must have' was a respectable 8 - 5 but only 4 - 4 in conference. The SEC didn't add them to be stronger, just bigger without threatening the top tier programs. If it's about market share and cable households, Missouri has less than one million.
Last edited:
Because then you don't get anything out of it. You don't get more money, you don't get better teams. You just get two extra mouths to feed. No point in doing that.
The SEC didn't add Missouri and A&M just to get bigger. They added them because those schools brought in a lot of revenue. Having St Louis and Kansas City in the footprint helped to get a larger TV contract. That also got the SEC additional subscribers to the network. Missouri's cable number isn't as small as you think. Only 20 states have 1 million+ subscribers. Three of those are already in the SEC's market. Of the remaining 17, most are inconveniently located for the SEC: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Illinois, California, Minnesota. That leaves you only seven others that are relatively close(and I'm sort of stretching with some of these): Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, and Missouri. Out of that group, Texas and Missouri make the most sense. Plus, if you look at the pre-expansion SEC, only Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee have more subscribers. Missouri has more than South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Kentucky. So yeah, adding 900,000 subscribers was a lot for the SEC.
http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
I certainly admire and respect your research, Buddy! But it still comes down to the top five SEC teams bringing in those that were no threat to them on the gridiron. A&M scared them for a year or two before settling in as a mid level team. No conference wants to bring in someone that can kick everyone's ass except the PAC 12. They have no standard bearer. Their top two teams for 2015 were #17 and #19 in the AP polls. They need a hero.
The part about bringing in teams that aren't a threat to the top teams isn't really the point. The only team in expansion that is a threat to the top (well, at least theoretically) is Nebraska. That's not the issue. The point is that the teams picked in expansion were teams that added value to the conference, whether by name or by market. You can take a mid-level P5 teams like Rutgers or Colorado, and they still bring value with their market, even though they aren't very successful otherwise. That's why I made the point about Cincinnati earlier. They don't have the name value, and there is a big question about whether they actually deliver their market. So the problem there is you don't know if a team like that offers any value. Texas A&M and Missouri delivered monetary value to the SEC, so there was a purpose for bringing them in.
One thing I don't get with the Pac 12 reference. What do you mean about the two best teams being #17 and #19? Stanford finished #3.
Busted! You are absolutely right. Utah and Oregon were the teams they had to beat to get there. I stand corrected.
That is the way I understand, our deal with IMG includes our radio broadcast, advertising signage, and I thought a fee for taking over sale of tickets.
Actually they already know that, and is why the BIG12 has not expanded already when all signs indicate from a playoff position they should.
Because it is only a financially wash when it comes to TV, but not when it comes to pay out of CCG and playoff money which alone amounts to 3.5 to 5 million
The SEC expanded to create a new network which is their primary source of new revenues. They've also gotten more revenues through the addition of new bowl games, the creation of the "champions" bowl (Sugar) with the BIG 12 which now pays out as much as the Rose, conference payout from the playoffs which didn't exist before and other new revenues not related to tv pay.
CBS balked at paying more money when their inventory of number of games didn't change with SEC expansion.
The BIG 12 can also generate new revenues through the addition of new territories which will allow for a new conference wide network that will create significant new revenues for everyone. The BIG 12 also has a new tv contract coming up in under a decade that--if the right steps have been taken will bump BIG 12 revenues higher and keep them on par with anyone long term.
Last edited:
Championship money doesn't exist. No one loses championship money if expansion happens--they gain money. To claim they do is a lie. A CCG is new money that if added with a comprehensive plan that includes expansion increases everyone's pay from what it is now including new members. Undoudtedly if you have 12 teams you will negotiate to get a certain CCG payout for 12 rather than 10 teams anyway.
Playoff money doesn't drop significantly with additions either.
Each P5 conference recieves a $50 million base payout from the playoffs (not related to money made from participation in the playoffs)
Divided 10 ways that equals $5 mil per school
Divided 12 ways that equals $4.17 mil per school
So with 12 schools rather than 10, the BIG 12 schools in place now lose about $830,000 each with further distribution
If you add a CCG--again something that currently doesn't exist:
With 12 teams you add
at $25 million=$2.08 million in new revenue per school
at $30 million=$2.5 million in new revenue per school
That more than covers any further split in playoff distribution money by a minimum of an additional $1.25 million per school.
To look at the financial situation further:
With a 10 team CCG each BIG 12 school gets
at $25 million=$2.5 million per school ($420,000 more than at 12 schools)
at $30 million=$3.0 million per school ($500,000 more than at 12 schools)
But playing a guaranteed rematch increases the likelihood of being left out of the playoffs
Being left out of the playoff = a loss to the conference of $6 million per year.
Per school in the conference, that is $600,000 lost per school each year the playoffs are missed
With a 10 team CCG each BIG 12 school gets
at $25 million=$2.5 million per school ($420,000 more than at 12 schools)
at $30 million=$3.0 million per school ($500,000 more than at 12 schools)
But playing a guaranteed rematch increases the likelihood of being left out of the playoffs
Being left out of the playoff = a loss to the conference of $6 million per year.
Per school in the conference, that is $600,000 lost per school each year the playoffs are missed
I think you need to go back and look at the details as to why the financial TV $$ do not go down. I read that Expanding to 12 teams and keeping the money included the CCG. If that is correct then there is a 2.5 to 3 million dollar difference.
Also, after dergulation was passed Bowlsby said indicated the 10 team CCG would be worth 2.5 to 3 million.
Because expansion includes a CCG there have been no numbers released on what a 12 team conference game is worth. The BIG12 CCG will already be seen coast to coast, so even if it is worth more there is no way in He77 it would be worth 5 million more.
Not clear on what you are trying to say here but look at the numbers above. You can do the math yourself.
The BIG 12 can decide to not expand,but add a CCG now, or they can decide to expand first and then add a CCG.
They could also add a CCG now, and expand later, in which case the terms of the CCG won't change at all--it will already be set for whatever term they agreed to when they created the CCG.
The math above explains any potential losses--do the math yourself, its accurate and there isn't going to be a loss of $2.5 to $3 million per school in ANY scenario--nowhere close to that. Again the numbers above show exactly what would be lost per school from further distribution of CCG money (if that were created prior to expanding) and from further distribution of conference payout from playoffs.
If the conference creates a CCG first and then expands later--here is what would be lost in CCG money per school (again from above):
With a 10 team CCG created before expansion each BIG 12 school gets
at $25 million=$2.5 million per school ($420,000 more than at 12 schools)
at $30 million=$3.0 million per school ($500,000 more than at 12 schools)
But that doesn't mean the schools lost money if the conference expands to 12 schools, because they don't get that CCG money now.
So if you get $2.08 million for a CCG with 12 instead of $2.5 million for 10, you are still ahead of what you get now by $2.08 million per year.
Last edited:
Agreed on the payouts. ESPN is a very tough spot right now. They have over reached on contracts (all sports) while millions are turning them off.
According to all sources they have an obligation to keep the per team payout static. However it is ridiculous to think they will pay more out of the goodness of their heart for something they already own, when they are looking to cut $100 million from its 2016 budget and $250 million from 2017.
It is the same issues for ACC network which Swofford lied about. He knew ESPN was not going to launch an ACC network by 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20...... He knew the cost ESPN absorb with other networks and that they ESPN was NOT going to pay more or lose additional money for content they already owned.
Something to keep in mind--BIG 12 contracts are with TWO major networks that split BIG 12 payouts.
If expansion happens TWO not one will be increasing the overall BIG 12 payouts.
If expansion happens TWO not one will be increasing the overall BIG 12 payouts.
Actually, that's not true about the ACC network. Georgia Tech's AD discussed this not too long ago. The ACC network was actually slated to launch in 2017. Then earlier last year, ESPN told the ACC they wanted to delay the launch. It just so happens, ESPN did that right after Disney read them the riot act about cutting expenses. Point being, the actually was an ACC network in the works. Problem is, the financial situation for ESPN in 2016 is worse than it was back in 2012.
I've already demonstrated to you that the regular TV contract went up for the SEC. The increase in the TV contract is larger than the payout from the SECN.
The inventory of games did go up. The SEC had a total of 96 games before expansion, then 112 games after expansion. Inventory is irrelevant to CBS, because all they do is broadcast the one 3:30 game each week. It's not like ESPN, where they have multiple timeslots to fill on multiple networks.
I stand corrected on launch date, however the biggest part of my post was correct:
ESPN will not pay more or absorb additional cost for content they already own and have existing channels to show.
I fully believe Swofford was aware of this, but misled the conference to get programs to sign GOR.
Swofford wasn't aware of it. When I said they had a launch date, I'm not saying it was just a technical thing. ESPN was actually working on the network and was actually going to put the network into operation. They suspended work on the network sometime last year. Point being, back in 2012 when the GOR was signed, Swofford didn't know ESPN was going to abruptly stop work in 2015.
Just as a matter of fact, here are what contributed to the actual payouts in the SEC reported last year of $31.2 million per school--note that its not all from television:
"The significant jump in revenue this year is thanks in large part to the SEC Network, which is currently in its ninth month. In addition to revenue generated from the league's new network and bowl games, football and men's basketball television broadcasts, the SEC's football championship and men's basketball tournament and NCAA championships are among the things that played a factor in the conference's earnings for the year."
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/05/sec_schools_to_each_reportedly.html
As to Missouri and Texas A&M increasing tv rights in the SEC--here is what happened with the CBS deal --NO increase:
from May 14, 2013 Jeremy Fowler article on CBS Sports.com:
The Southeastern Conference and CBS have reworked their long-term contract in light of the SEC's new 24-hour channel and the additions of Texas A&M and Missouri, according to sources.
The terms of the deal are expected to remain intact ($55 million per year until 2023-24), with CBS lifting the exclusive 3:30 p.m. broadcast window so the SEC can air football games on its ESPN-operated channel on Saturdays.
"The significant jump in revenue this year is thanks in large part to the SEC Network, which is currently in its ninth month. In addition to revenue generated from the league's new network and bowl games, football and men's basketball television broadcasts, the SEC's football championship and men's basketball tournament and NCAA championships are among the things that played a factor in the conference's earnings for the year."
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/05/sec_schools_to_each_reportedly.html
As to Missouri and Texas A&M increasing tv rights in the SEC--here is what happened with the CBS deal --NO increase:
from May 14, 2013 Jeremy Fowler article on CBS Sports.com:
The Southeastern Conference and CBS have reworked their long-term contract in light of the SEC's new 24-hour channel and the additions of Texas A&M and Missouri, according to sources.
The terms of the deal are expected to remain intact ($55 million per year until 2023-24), with CBS lifting the exclusive 3:30 p.m. broadcast window so the SEC can air football games on its ESPN-operated channel on Saturdays.
Last edited:
Sorry, but you provided a link to an article prior to the actual agreement that consists of an estimate of what SEC schools would get if the deal went the way they thought it might. The SEC hasn't provided terms of its actual tv contract payouts. The CBS deal did not increase at all.
There is 0 evidence to support that anything has actually transpired on an ACC network. We have heard numerous reports from the ACC suggesting something "in the works"-always pushed back for this or that reason but ESPN isn't reporting that they were working on a network, or going to put it into operation.
So what you are saying the SEC added T&M and Mizzu and they did not get more money from TV deal?
The only thing current I can find regarding an ACC Network is by Raycom Communications. They're calling it an 'ad hoc' TV network. I'm not quite sure what that means in this context. http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/ACC_Network
I explained this, and you purposely ignore and twist what I said to fit your agenda. The average from the old contract (including both ESPN and CBS) paid out $17 million per school. The new TV contract (again including both ESPN and CBS) pays out an average of $25 million. So, the average payout is up roughly $8 million. You try to claim that because the payout for the first year of the contract is not $25 million, that means the overall average isn't $25 million. Not true. The payouts start out lower at the beginning of the contract, and get higher over time. That's true for the Big 12. It's true for the ACC. It's true for the Big Ten. It's true for the Pac 12.
As I also said, the increase came from ESPN. They had to increase the payout, for the simple fact that they bought the SEC's Tier 3 rights, which were previously retained by each school. (That's also not counting anything added for Missouri and A&M.)
I told you, the ESPN contract did increase. You asked for a link. I provided you with one.
No, there is evidence. The AJC interviewed Georgia Tech's president back in October. Here is part of the article:
The launch of an ACC network run in partnership with ESPN, which has been expected for 2017, will likely take longer than expected.
“(ESPN) had come back and said that in some of the other instances where (conference) networks have started, they lost considerable amounts of money in the first couple of years,” Peterson said. “What they’d like to do is delay the start for a couple years and do the necessary preparation.”
The cable giant has asked for the delay, according to Georgia Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson, who made the statement at last week’s Georgia Tech Athletic Association quarterly board meeting. Conversations between the league and network are ongoing. The conference and network have discussed partnering on a dedicated ACC channel at least five years.
In exchange for a later start date, ESPN could make additional payments on top of the rights fees already paid to the conference, Peterson said. The conference signed an extension with ESPN in 2012 to continue their partnership through the 2026-27 academic year, a deal that was renegotiated with the addition of Notre Dame later that year and a grant of rights agreement in 2013.
http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/co...rnallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral
Bob Bowlsby: Big 12 has ‘no imperative’ to expand
http://collegesports.blog.statesman.com/2016/01/26/bob-bowlsby-big-12-has-no-imperative-to-expand/
http://collegesports.blog.statesman.com/2016/01/26/bob-bowlsby-big-12-has-no-imperative-to-expand/
Bob Bowlsby should be a politician. He tailors his answers to fit his audience, talks a lot, but says nothing. Going into the February meetings, how could he not know where each president and AD stand on every issue? He is not that incompetent. 'No imperative' means they are not required to, not that they won't. He chooses his words carefully to maintain credibility. I have no idea if they will vote to expand or not, but he does. He is simply not tipping his hand.
I stated that CBS balked at giving the SEC more for expansion which they did. ESPn created a new contract with the SEC and the terms haven't been announced. It's difficult to tell exactly what the SEC gets from just their ESPN tv contract as an average. Prior to their new contract it was about $14 mil per school average for both ESPN and CBS payouts after Mizzou and A&M got pro rata shares. Most of the new boost to SEC revenues comes from conference playoff money $50 mil per year, the Sugar Bowl $40 mil per year when not playoffs, new bowl agreements and of course the SEC network.
Last year each school got $31.2 mil plus bowl participants split another $19 mil but only about half came from CBS and ESPN tv alone.
A&M and Mizzou were added to create the SEC network- primarily A &M because they needed money from Texas cable subscribers.
But you have always said every time a conference expanded that gone a huge bump from TV. Guess not huh. And please don't lie by denying this fact
I have never said that. I've said the BIG 12 like other conferences can get more than pro rata for expansion and that as with everyone else it's a matter of negotiation.
In the SECs case, CBS didn't gain anything and didn't give an increase. ESPN wanted to start the SECn so re did the contract- but extended it 10 or more years as well.
Similar threads
