ADVERTISEMENT

Looks like no Big12 expansion

If the four of us were having this discussion over beers in a sports bar, I wouldn't get a word in would I? But I would be putting away some wings!
 
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.
Typical, I know you would lie about it
 
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

As I stated, the only mention of any of this has come from the ACC. ESPN is not reporting anything about creating or delaying an ACC network, schools in the conference that don't want other schools to leave, and the commissioner continue to repeat these stories. The network has been silent other than when they created an ACC online network along with other minor conferences a year or two back because they knew the conference wanted something like the Big Ten or SECn. It just didn't add any revenue.
 
If the four of us were having this discussion over beers in a sports bar, I wouldn't get a word in would I? But I would be putting away some wings!

Keep writing- at least you have something to say other than personal attacks or desperate attempts at spin.
 
As I stated, the only mention of any of this has come from the ACC. ESPN is not reporting anything about creating or delaying an ACC network, schools in the conference that don't want other schools to leave, and the commissioner continue to repeat these stories. The network has been silent other than when they created an ACC online network along with other minor conferences a year or two back because they knew the conference wanted something like the Big Ten or SECn. It just didn't add any revenue.

Ok, well by that logic, nothing about the Big 12 contract increasing has come from ESPN or Fox. Also, nothing about 6 or 7 teams being 'additive' has come from ESPN or Fox. That's only coming from Big 12 people.
 
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.

Lol. This is funny. First,

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.

Then in the very next sentence:

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.

If you're claiming you don't know what they get from the contract, then you don't whether or not they got pro rata shares. You contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Impressive.
 
Ok, well by that logic, nothing about the Big 12 contract increasing has come from ESPN or Fox. Also, nothing about 6 or 7 teams being 'additive' has come from ESPN or Fox. That's only coming from Big 12 people.

Wrong ESPN directly asked Bowlsby about pay increases and reported his answer- more than once.

There's nothing remotely similar about the two.

Re: expansion candidates, Boren simply reported that the composition committee and the BIG 12s media consultants have identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive. He didn't say they've negotiated with ESPN and that ESPN and/or FOX and the BIG 12 have Agreed to terms.

The ACC members are claiming that negotiations were done and agreed to but ESPN keeps "pushing the agreed to launch back". ESPN has never even stated anything more than they would consider looking at if an ACC network made sense years ago, and then announcing they had created a digital one that generates 0 $ additional for the ACC also a year or two back now. Nothing about a 2017 launch date or this other storyline at all.
 
Lol. This is funny. First,



Then in the very next sentence:



If you're claiming you don't know what they get from the contract, then you don't whether or not they got pro rata shares. You contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Impressive.

Missouri and A and M were given pro rata shares ( or less) initially when they came into the SEC all 14 members received a reported $14.3 million per school.

excerpt:
The SEC has been renegotiating its long-term rights deals with ESPN and CBS to take into consideration the conference's recent additions of Missouri and Texas A&M. When those deals began in with the 2009-10 school year, they were worth $3 billion over 15 years (with the conference having grown to 14 schools, that now works out to an annual average of $14.3 million per school).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/

Then ESPN renegotiated the SECs contract to coincide with the launch of the ESPN owned Sec network. They gave the SEC an undisclosed amount for the regular ESPN portion of the tv contract, an SEC network with an undisclosed amount going to the SEC and extended the SECs contract out another decade into the mid 2030s.

Unless that is, you believe people will buy that Missouri and A & M weren't paid for SEC membership initially. Missouri and AtM joined the SEC July 1, 2012. The new contracts came into place in 2014.
 
Last edited:
Wrong ESPN directly asked Bowlsby about pay increases and reported his answer- more than once.

There's nothing remotely similar about the two.

Re: expansion candidates, Boren simply reported that the composition committee and the BIG 12s media consultants have identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive. He didn't say they've negotiated with ESPN and that ESPN and/or FOX and the BIG 12 have Agreed to terms.

The ACC members are claiming that negotiations were done and agreed to but ESPN keeps "pushing the agreed to launch back". ESPN has never even stated anything more than they would consider looking at if an ACC network made sense years ago, and then announcing they had created a digital one that generates 0 $ additional for the ACC also a year or two back now. Nothing about a 2017 launch date or this other storyline at all.

ESPN isn't going to ask Bowlsby anything about pay increases. He's the one that asks them, not the other way around. ESPN has the money, and they tell Bowlsby (or whoever) what they are willing to pay. ESPN doesn't go to Bowlsby and ask, "How much should we pay you?"

Boren simply reported that the composition committee and the BIG 12s media consultants have identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive.

Yeah, that's the point. It doesn't matter what the 'composition committee' or the 'media consultants' say. The only ones who determine if those schools are 'additive' are ESPN and Fox. No one else. Therefore, until either ESPN or Fox says those schools are 'additive,' it's just speculation.
 
Missouri and A and M were given pro rata shares ( or less) initially when they came into the SEC all 14 members received a reported $14.3 million per school.

Then ESPN renegotiated the SECs contract to coincide with the launch of the ESPN owned Sec network. They gave the SEC an undisclosed amount for the regular ESPN portion of the tv contract, an SEC network with an undisclosed amount going to the SEC and extended the SECs contract out another decade into the mid 2030s.

Unless that is, you believe people will buy that Missouri and A & M weren't paid for SEC membership initially.

No, the point is, whatever amount Missouri and A&M initially got had nothing to do with the networks. You are throwing around this phrase 'pro rata' too loosely. One the one hand, you use it to refer to the amount the networks pay the conference, then you also use it to refer to the amount the conference distributes to each member. Two completely different situations.
 
ESPN isn't going to ask Bowlsby anything about pay increases. He's the one that asks them, not the other way around. ESPN has the money, and they tell Bowlsby (or whoever) what they are willing to pay. ESPN doesn't go to Bowlsby and ask, "How much should we pay you?"

Boren simply reported that the composition committee and the BIG 12s media consultants have identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive.

Yeah, that's the point. It doesn't matter what the 'composition committee' or the 'media consultants' say. The only ones who determine if those schools are 'additive' are ESPN and Fox. No one else. Therefore, until either ESPN or Fox says those schools are 'additive,' it's just speculation.

I believe that is pretty much what I said earlier. The man with the checkbook has the ultimate vote.
 
ESPN isn't going to ask Bowlsby anything about pay increases. He's the one that asks them, not the other way around. ESPN has the money, and they tell Bowlsby (or whoever) what they are willing to pay. ESPN doesn't go to Bowlsby and ask, "How much should we pay you?"

Boren simply reported that the composition committee and the BIG 12s media consultants have identified 6 or 7 candidates that will be additive.

Yeah, that's the point. It doesn't matter what the 'composition committee' or the 'media consultants' say. The only ones who determine if those schools are 'additive' are ESPN and Fox. No one else. Therefore, until either ESPN or Fox says those schools are 'additive,' it's just speculation.

Oh really?

excerpt from 2012:

ESPN:
I haven't seen the physical TV contract the Big 12 just signed with Fox and ABC/ESPN for $2.6 billion over 13 years, but does it give you the flexibility to renegotiate for more money if you were to expand at some point?

Bowlsby:
Yes. It certainly accomodates that.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55478/part-2-big-12-commish-bob-bowlsby-qa

Or this from ESPN in 2015:

The Big 12's TV contract calls for pro-rata increases with expansion. In other words, the conference’s members won't be losing TV money, as they've stated before, with expansion.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/100511/big-12-expansion-no-longer-an-if-but-rather-a-when

As to your other BIG 12 hater nonsense, the BIG 12 hasn't taken the step of deciding to expand, that doesn't mean their in depth scientific research and media consulting on the matter are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelwalkerbr
No, the point is, whatever amount Missouri and A&M initially got had nothing to do with the networks. You are throwing around this phrase 'pro rata' too loosely. One the one hand, you use it to refer to the amount the networks pay the conference, then you also use it to refer to the amount the conference distributes to each member. Two completely different situations.

Missouri and A&M came into the SEC and the SEC didn't receive a pay increase for those additions as you claimed. AtM and Missouri received equal pro rata shares from the SEC. All schools are paid by their conference after their media partners pay the conference. When the new contracts were done (not because the SEC can negotiate for increases with expansion and the BIG 12 can't as you erroneously and ridiculously claim) Missouri and AtM continued to get equal shares.
 
I believe that is pretty much what I said earlier. The man with the checkbook has the ultimate vote.

Except that in the case of major college conferences such as the BIG 12 a minimum of pro rata increases is written into the contracts. In negotiation things such as increased inventory, matchups, market exposure and length of contracts come into play. The BIG 12 has identified additive candidates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelwalkerbr
Keep writing- at least you have something to say other than personal attacks or desperate attempts at spin.

I rest my case, Anyone want another beer? Bowlsby is indeed the consummate politician. He talks a lot, doesn't say anything, but makes you feel like he agrees with you. The same holds true for other conference commissioners. And he knows exactly where all of the school presidents stand as well as the broadcast conglomerates. The February meetings are little more than a formality of what has already been approved.

The SEC network is making a little money, the PAC 12 is losing, right? The ACC is being delayed until ESPN decides if it is a profitable venture. Now tell me, what would you do if you were the president of the University of Texas? I realize that I do not have the rational intellect of you three, nor can I argue so eloquently. But I can keep it civil, because I believe in the end we are all Mountaineer fans simply trying to figure out what the hell is going to happen.
 
Well, at least some here are Mountaineer fans. Others? Not even sure why they are here other than to try to convince the grass roots of the BIG 12 that the conference can't do anything.
 
I rest my case, Anyone want another beer? Bowlsby is indeed the consummate politician. He talks a lot, doesn't say anything, but makes you feel like he agrees with you. The same holds true for other conference commissioners. And he knows exactly where all of the school presidents stand as well as the broadcast conglomerates. The February meetings are little more than a formality of what has already been approved.

The SEC network is making a little money, the PAC 12 is losing, right? The ACC is being delayed until ESPN decides if it is a profitable venture. Now tell me, what would you do if you were the president of the University of Texas? I realize that I do not have the rational intellect of you three, nor can I argue so eloquently. But I can keep it civil, because I believe in the end we are all Mountaineer fans simply trying to figure out what the hell is going to happen.

I agree that the Big 12 contract calls for a pro rated increase for any additional members that are approved by ESPN/FoxSports. As far as broadcast money, the ten current members will not pay anything. As far as other revenues, that is essentially up to the success of the additive members, is it not? The current ten could either lose or gain income, but it would not be much. A conference championship game would statistically be much more equitable with twelve members and two divisions.
 
I agree that the Big 12 contract calls for a pro rated increase for any additional members that are approved by ESPN/FoxSports. As far as broadcast money, the ten current members will not pay anything. As far as other revenues, that is essentially up to the success of the additive members, is it not? The current ten could either lose or gain income, but it would not be much.

If Boren states that 6 or 7 schools would be additive-it indicates the current conference members will not lose anything with the addition of two of those schools. He didn't specify where the sources of the money to make this happen will come from. Could be from negotiation, could be from things the new schools bring to the table -i.e. NCAA credits, sponsorships, etc. along with pro rata increases.
 
I agree. We simply are not privy to the details of negotiations. I know he said current members would NOT lose money. But the bottom line for any expansion is that the broadcasters must believe it will increase their revenue or it will not happen. Do you guys agree with that?
 
I agree. We simply are not privy to the details of negotiations. I know he said current members would NOT lose money. But the bottom line for any expansion is that the broadcasters must believe it will increase their revenue or it will not happen. Do you guys agree with that?

No it doesn't work that way. The BIG 12 has a composition clause that guarantees at minimum pro rata increases with expansion. This means if the BIG 12 chooses to expand, they will get per their contract at least pro rata for the added members. Its not determined by if the network partner wants it or not.

That being the case, I'm certain the BIG 12 or any conference will discuss possible additions with their tv partners before adding them. For all we know the media consultants Boren referred to are from ESPN and FOX.
 
No it doesn't work that way. The BIG 12 has a composition clause that guarantees at minimum pro rata increases with expansion. This means if the BIG 12 chooses to expand, they will get per their contract at least pro rata for the added members. Its not determined by if the network partner wants it or not.

That being the case, I'm certain the BIG 12 or any conference will discuss possible additions with their tv partners before adding them. For all we know the media consultants Boren referred to are from ESPN and FOX.

Amen. Wanna beer, anyone? So if anyone is added, who will it be? I say Cincinnati and BYU. The reason I say Cincinnati is the nearly $200 million they have spent and committed to spend to bring all of their athletic facilities up to Big 12 standards. As far as Memphis, the Liberty bowl has issues. U Conn is way off the mark in football with 40k seats in an older stadium. Houston isn't even close or trying. I don't know about the others.

Also, as far as TV sets and cable subscribers, Cincy is Ohio's largest metropolitan area. Columbus isn't even close.
 
Last edited:
Oh really?

excerpt from 2012:

ESPN:
I haven't seen the physical TV contract the Big 12 just signed with Fox and ABC/ESPN for $2.6 billion over 13 years, but does it give you the flexibility to renegotiate for more money if you were to expand at some point?

Bowlsby:
Yes. It certainly accomodates that.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55478/part-2-big-12-commish-bob-bowlsby-qa

Or this from ESPN in 2015:

The Big 12's TV contract calls for pro-rata increases with expansion. In other words, the conference’s members won't be losing TV money, as they've stated before, with expansion.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/100511/big-12-expansion-no-longer-an-if-but-rather-a-when

As to your other BIG 12 hater nonsense, the BIG 12 hasn't taken the step of deciding to expand, that doesn't mean their in depth scientific research and media consulting on the matter are wrong.

None of what you posted addresses what I said. ESPN doesn't ask Bowsbly how much he wants them to pay him (i.e. the Big 12). You said:

ESPN directly asked Bowlsby about pay increases and reported his answer- more than once.

ESPN doesn't ask Bowsby how much he wants them to pay him. Maybe you meant that an ESPN reporter asked Bowlsby a question about the contract. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the executives at ESPN.


Missouri and A&M came into the SEC and the SEC didn't receive a pay increase for those additions as you claimed. AtM and Missouri received equal pro rata shares from the SEC. All schools are paid by their conference after their media partners pay the conference. When the new contracts were done (not because the SEC can negotiate for increases with expansion and the BIG 12 can't as you erroneously and ridiculously claim) Missouri and AtM continued to get equal shares.

You're wrong. The SEC did get an increase because Missouri and Texas A&M joined the conference. The only reason the SEC got a new TV contract is because they expanded. Otherwise, they would still be under the old contract (which ran to 2024) and would still be getting that same amount they were getting paid previously. The mistake you are making is that you think because Missouri and A&M joined in 2012, and the SEC didn't get a new contract immediately, that there wasn't an increase. If Missouri and A&M hadn't joined the conference, the SEC wouldn't have the new contract today.

Except that in the case of major college conferences such as the BIG 12 a minimum of pro rata increases is written into the contracts. In negotiation things such as increased inventory, matchups, market exposure and length of contracts come into play. The BIG 12 has identified additive candidates.

That's where you are getting this mixed up. There is nothing in the TV contracts about what each team gets. The networks just pay one lump sum to the conference, and the conference splits that up between the individual schools. The pro rata clause in the Big 12's TV contract applies to the conference, not the individual schools. That's the difference between the Big 12 and the other leagues.
 
Missouri and A and M were given pro rata shares ( or less) initially when they came into the SEC all 14 members received a reported $14.3 million per school.

excerpt:
The SEC has been renegotiating its long-term rights deals with ESPN and CBS to take into consideration the conference's recent additions of Missouri and Texas A&M. When those deals began in with the 2009-10 school year, they were worth $3 billion over 15 years (with the conference having grown to 14 schools, that now works out to an annual average of $14.3 million per school).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/

Then ESPN renegotiated the SECs contract to coincide with the launch of the ESPN owned Sec network. They gave the SEC an undisclosed amount for the regular ESPN portion of the tv contract, an SEC network with an undisclosed amount going to the SEC and extended the SECs contract out another decade into the mid 2030s.

Unless that is, you believe people will buy that Missouri and A & M weren't paid for SEC membership initially. Missouri and AtM joined the SEC July 1, 2012. The new contracts came into place in 2014.

I should have included this in the previous post, because this explains why you don't understand the TV contracts. Missouri and A&M did not get pro rata share. There were no pro rata shares. I'll explain why. Here is a link to the SEC's old contract.http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/05/televison-contract-breakdown/
Both were signed in 2009, and both ran for 15 years. The CBS deal was $825 million, and the ESPN deal was $2.25 billion. Add those together, and you get a total value of $3.075 billion. You divide 3.075 by 15 years, and you get an annual sum of $205 million to the SEC. You divide that by 12 schools, and you get $17.1 million each. You divide $205 million by 14 schools, and you get $14.6 million each (which is where you figure of $14.3 comes from). You tell me what is "pro rata" about that.
 
I should have included this in the previous post, because this explains why you don't understand the TV contracts. Missouri and A&M did not get pro rata share. There were no pro rata shares. I'll explain why. Here is a link to the SEC's old contract.http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/05/televison-contract-breakdown/
Both were signed in 2009, and both ran for 15 years. The CBS deal was $825 million, and the ESPN deal was $2.25 billion. Add those together, and you get a total value of $3.075 billion. You divide 3.075 by 15 years, and you get an annual sum of $205 million to the SEC. You divide that by 12 schools, and you get $17.1 million each. You divide $205 million by 14 schools, and you get $14.6 million each (which is where you figure of $14.3 comes from). You tell me what is "pro rata" about that.

pro ra·ta
[prō ˈrädə]
ADJECTIVE
  1. proportional:
Which means that Mizzou and AtM got the same amount upon joining the SEC as the other members of the SEC (actually a bit less for both was reported in the first payouts after they joined)

You claimed that the SECs contract went up because the SEC expanded with those two schools:

"The SEC did get more money for A&M and Missouri. The SEC's payout for TV rights went up from $17 million to $25 million. That's an $8 million increase."

When in fact it was two years after AtM and Mizzou joined before ESPN reworked the contract due to the creation of the SEC network and a need to extend the SEC contract out much further to protect ESPNs interest. AtM and Mizzou continue to get pro rata shares. Its never been reported what the SEC is paid in combination from ESPN and CBS for tv rights either-your $25 million per school average was a guess from before the new contracts were signed.

Nothing you've claimed about any of this is true so its pointless to keep going over the situation. The BIG 12 isn't locked into a maximum rate for expansion anymore than anyone else was or is, and the SEC did not get increases for adding AtM and Mizzouri. ESPN reworked their contracts in conjunction with creating the Disney owned SEC networks and extended them out another decade.
 
Last edited:
None of what you posted addresses what I said. ESPN doesn't ask Bowsbly how much he wants them to pay him (i.e. the Big 12). You said:

ESPN directly asked Bowlsby about pay increases and reported his answer- more than once.

ESPN doesn't ask Bowsby how much he wants them to pay him. Maybe you meant that an ESPN reporter asked Bowlsby a question about the contract. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the executives at ESPN.




You're wrong. The SEC did get an increase because Missouri and Texas A&M joined the conference. The only reason the SEC got a new TV contract is because they expanded. Otherwise, they would still be under the old contract (which ran to 2024) and would still be getting that same amount they were getting paid previously. The mistake you are making is that you think because Missouri and A&M joined in 2012, and the SEC didn't get a new contract immediately, that there wasn't an increase. If Missouri and A&M hadn't joined the conference, the SEC wouldn't have the new contract today.



That's where you are getting this mixed up. There is nothing in the TV contracts about what each team gets. The networks just pay one lump sum to the conference, and the conference splits that up between the individual schools. The pro rata clause in the Big 12's TV contract applies to the conference, not the individual schools. That's the difference between the Big 12 and the other leagues.


Spin, spin and more spin. You claimed ESPN did not, would not ask Bowlsby about pay increases for expansion--everyone can see the link. They did and reported it on ESPNs website. What, are you now trying to claim that John Skipper didn't come out and announce it -LOL!!!

You said that ESPN never said that the BIG 12 would get increases for expansion, I again linked ESPN stating just that on their website.

Which is 100% unlike all the claims from the ACC about an "ACC network" all generated from themselves and not backed up by anyone at the networks---but all you ACC types do is spin so its not surprising.

You claiming the SEC got more money when they added AtM and Mizzouri has been clearly shown to be false. It was two years after they joined the conference that ESPN reworked the SECs contracts and that was to insert the SECnetwork into the equation and to extend the SEC out for another decade.

It had nothing to do with your bogus claims of the BIG 12 being locked into a contract that doesn't allow them to negotiate for more revenues while everyone else could "unlock" their contracts to get more for expansion.

Stop running around the internet trying to paint a false picture about the BIG 12. You don't know anything about the BIG 12 or expansion in the BIG 12 so stop lying about it--and the other conferences as well.
 
Regardless if you think there is a need to expand or not, (from WVU standpoint the answer is yes if to the East), Bowlsby knows there aren't enough votes and is why he is pushing this spin.

Here is what we know:

Texas, TCU, are firmly against expansion. With two votes firmly against, only 1 more is needed to kill expansion from moving forward

OU and WVU are openly and strongly for expansion

ISU indicated this week a positive for expansion

Baylor's chancellor is on the expansion committee, but has been surprisingly quite

Other programs are on the fence.

Bowlsby isn't an idiot. He knows exactly where the votes are, and has to come out with a spin to offset all the negativity Boren has caused.

Frankly. I think Boren handled the whole situation piss poorly and is finding more resistance than had he worked internally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skygusty
Boren appears to be speaking out because Bowlsby will not.

Bowlsby seems to be representing only one side of the equation even making comments at times such as that he hasn't taken an informal account of where conference leaders stand on the issue and he doesn't intend to.

This obviously didn't sit well with Boren who is under intense pressure from his "constituents" at OU. So Boren spoke out.

Its really amazing to see the different sides of the equation here and its not good for the conference. Bowlsby claims the conference hasn't really looked at any schools, isn't evaluating anyone, then someone else will come out and state that yes they have a composition committee, name the people on it and state they've done all the research and identified candidates for inclusion-its just a matter of choosing which two.

There are two conflicting sides and schools in the middle, and Bowlsby is only sharing the anti expansion side of the equation. That he won't poll everyone (or has at least stated that) means he probably doesn't believe the anti expansion sentiment is the strongest voice--he is only representing one piece of the puzzle.

These meetings coming up are going to be important to the conferences future. Right now the conference doesn't seem have a leader, although Boren is trying to take on that role.
 
Without expansion, the Big 12 is one school defection from implosion. but hey I hear everyone who keeps saying "no one else is worthy of membership."

Concerns:

Pac-12 decides to expand to 14 or 16 schools.
ESPN drops LHN
Schools like Oklahoma appear to be looking

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
Concerns:

Pac-12 decides to expand to 14 or 16 schools.
ESPN drops LHN
Schools like Oklahoma appear to be looking

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Concerns:
BIG 12 decides to expand to 12 schools

Arizona and ASU grow tired of low Pac payouts and seek better opportunities eastward.

Arizona columnists are already writing about it.
 
pro ra·ta
[prō ˈrädə]
ADJECTIVE
  1. proportional:
Which means that Mizzou and AtM got the same amount upon joining the SEC as the other members of the SEC (actually a bit less for both was reported in the first payouts after they joined)

You claimed that the SECs contract went up because the SEC expanded with those two schools:

"The SEC did get more money for A&M and Missouri. The SEC's payout for TV rights went up from $17 million to $25 million. That's an $8 million increase."

When in fact it was two years after AtM and Mizzou joined before ESPN reworked the contract due to the creation of the SEC network and a need to extend the SEC contract out much further to protect ESPNs interest. AtM and Mizzou continue to get pro rata shares. Its never been reported what the SEC is paid in combination from ESPN and CBS for tv rights either-your $25 million per school average was a guess from before the new contracts were signed.

Nothing you've claimed about any of this is true so its pointless to keep going over the situation. The BIG 12 isn't locked into a maximum rate for expansion anymore than anyone else was or is, and the SEC did not get increases for adding AtM and Mizzouri. ESPN reworked their contracts in conjunction with creating the Disney owned SEC networks and extended them out another decade.

You are just digging your hole deeper. I clearly showed you that the SEC schools were getting $17.1 million each before expansion. After expansion, that figure dropped to $14.6 million. That's not pro rata. That's simply splitting a pot extra ways.

Yes, it was 2 years after Missouri and A&M joined that ESPN reworked the contract. And you know what? It doesn't matter. The only reason they could rework the contract 2 years later was because Missouri and A&M joined. You have this idea in your head if the contract doesn't get reworked the day after expansion, then it wasn't because of expansion. Just misunderstanding on your part. What's funny is, the link you used disproves your own point. You posted this excerpt from the article:

The SEC has been renegotiating its long-term rights deals with ESPN and CBS to take into consideration the conference's recent additions of Missouri and Texas A&M. When those deals began in with the 2009-10 school year, they were worth $3 billion over 15 years (with the conference having grown to 14 schools, that now works out to an annual average of $14.3 million per school). http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/

It plainly says the reason for the negotiation was the additions of Missouri and Texas A&M. You can't twist that around. The reason for the negotiation was because of adding new teams. It says it plain as day, and you can't deny it.

Spin, spin and more spin. You claimed ESPN did not, would not ask Bowlsby about pay increases for expansion--everyone can see the link. They did and reported it on ESPNs website. What, are you now trying to claim that John Skipper didn't come out and announce it -LOL!!!

You said that ESPN never said that the BIG 12 would get increases for expansion, I again linked ESPN stating just that on their website.

Which is 100% unlike all the claims from the ACC about an "ACC network" all generated from themselves and not backed up by anyone at the networks---but all you ACC types do is spin so its not surprising.

You claiming the SEC got more money when they added AtM and Mizzouri has been clearly shown to be false. It was two years after they joined the conference that ESPN reworked the SECs contracts and that was to insert the SECnetwork into the equation and to extend the SEC out for another decade.

It had nothing to do with your bogus claims of the BIG 12 being locked into a contract that doesn't allow them to negotiate for more revenues while everyone else could "unlock" their contracts to get more for expansion.

Stop running around the internet trying to paint a false picture about the BIG 12. You don't know anything about the BIG 12 or expansion in the BIG 12 so stop lying about it--and the other conferences as well.

The whole point of my comment is that Bowslby can't name the price. ESPN and Fox name the price. Until ESPN and Fox say they are going to pay more, that's all that matters. ESPN and Fox have not said they are going to pay more money for Big 12 expansion.

My claims regarding the SEC getting more money for A&M and Missouri have not been proven false. The quote you picked out specifically says the reason the SEC renegotiated its contract was because of adding A&M and Missouri. I also showed you that there was no pro rata increase either. The old contract simply got split 2 extra ways. That's not a pro rata increase, or a pro rata anything.

My claims about the Big 12 contract are 100% correct, and Boren himself supports my claim. He clearly said if the Big 12 expands, the contract increases at a specific rate, with the effect that the schools get the same amount of money. The other conferences don't have that in their contracts. You just made up a different interpretation of Boren's comments, because you don't want to admit that I'm right.

I know a lot more about the issue than you, because I actually know how the contracts work, and you don't.
 
Boren appears to be speaking out because Bowlsby will not.

Bowlsby seems to be representing only one side of the equation even making comments at times such as that he hasn't taken an informal account of where conference leaders stand on the issue and he doesn't intend to.

This obviously didn't sit well with Boren who is under intense pressure from his "constituents" at OU. So Boren spoke out.

Its really amazing to see the different sides of the equation here and its not good for the conference. Bowlsby claims the conference hasn't really looked at any schools, isn't evaluating anyone, then someone else will come out and state that yes they have a composition committee, name the people on it and state they've done all the research and identified candidates for inclusion-its just a matter of choosing which two.

There are two conflicting sides and schools in the middle, and Bowlsby is only sharing the anti expansion side of the equation. That he won't poll everyone (or has at least stated that) means he probably doesn't believe the anti expansion sentiment is the strongest voice--he is only representing one piece of the puzzle.

These meetings coming up are going to be important to the conferences future. Right now the conference doesn't seem have a leader, although Boren is trying to take on that role.

I think you are looking at this wrong. Bowlsby is just stating the way the current vote is going. If he came out publicly like Boren indicating the sky is falling if we don't expand then he ends up looking like an idiot and further destabilize the conference when it does not pass

Bowlsby knows he needs 8 votes to pass expansion, he is not going to come out in public and state we have to expand when he knows it won't pass. If he believes the conferences needs to expands, he will work behind the curtain, with Gee and Boren to present the case. The only thing Boren has accomplished is alienate conference members and make the BIG12 look less stable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelwalkerbr
Concerns:
BIG 12 decides to expand to 12 schools

Arizona and ASU grow tired of low Pac payouts and seek better opportunities eastward.

Arizona columnists are already writing about it.

The Pac is a stable conference. Those schools may complain but will not leave.

Texas is the lynch pin of the Big 12 and if they lose the LHN they will be looking for revenue.

The low population states in the Big 12(Oklahoma,Iowa,Kansas,West Virginia) would not make a Big 12 network possible.

Texas would be welcomed in the B1G, Pac and ACC at any time and they know it..

There was a rumor that Texas was looking to join the ACC Conference in conjunction with Notre Dame. Could still happen in the future. If Notre Dame would ever be forced to join a conference, it would be either the ACC or the B1G.

You can always back fill if you had to.

Strength in numbers.

That was always the problem with the Big East (8 football schools and 8 basketball schools).

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
Last edited:
pro ra·ta
[prō ˈrädə]
ADJECTIVE
  1. proportional:
Which means that Mizzou and AtM got the same amount upon joining the SEC as the other members of the SEC (actually a bit less for both was reported in the first payouts after they joined)

You claimed that the SECs contract went up because the SEC expanded with those two schools:

"The SEC did get more money for A&M and Missouri. The SEC's payout for TV rights went up from $17 million to $25 million. That's an $8 million increase."

When in fact it was two years after AtM and Mizzou joined before ESPN reworked the contract due to the creation of the SEC network and a need to extend the SEC contract out much further to protect ESPNs interest. AtM and Mizzou continue to get pro rata shares. Its never been reported what the SEC is paid in combination from ESPN and CBS for tv rights either-your $25 million per school average was a guess from before the new contracts were signed.

Nothing you've claimed about any of this is true so its pointless to keep going over the situation. The BIG 12 isn't locked into a maximum rate for expansion anymore than anyone else was or is, and the SEC did not get increases for adding AtM and Mizzouri. ESPN reworked their contracts in conjunction with creating the Disney owned SEC networks and extended them out another decade.

I have always claimed that nothing topdeck says is accurate. He is an ACC attention-whore running from site-to-site trying to plant his twisted ideas. Why he does this is probably best left to the men in white coats to determine but has the worst case of multiple personality disorder I have ever encountered. He serves no purpose here and I would enjoy seeing Vernon ban him.
 
I have always claimed that nothing topdeck says is accurate. He is an ACC attention-whore running from site-to-site trying to plant his twisted ideas. Why he does this is probably best left to the men in white coats to determine but has the worst case of multiple personality disorder I have ever encountered. He serves no purpose here and I would enjoy seeing Vernon ban him.

I have noticed the same thing. Also wonder why posters like this are allowed on BIG 12 boards when they are just here to spread misinformation. Other conferences and schools don't allow such posting on their sites.
 
I think you are looking at this wrong. Bowlsby is just stating the way the current vote is going. If he came out publicly like Boren indicating the sky is falling if we don't expand then he ends up looking like an idiot and further destabilize the conference when it does not pass

Bowlsby knows he needs 8 votes to pass expansion, he is not going to come out in public and state we have to expand when he knows it won't pass. If he believes the conferences needs to expands, he will work behind the curtain, with Gee and Boren to present the case. The only thing Boren has accomplished is alienate conference members and make the BIG12 look less stable.

Bowlsby isn't stating anything about a vote because a vote hasn't been taken. He is dismissing that there's interest in expansion in the league on behalf of a few (even admitting he doesn't really know what the opinions on expansion are) and dismissing that the composition committee has researched and identified schools.

Some of that could be deflecting while "negotiations" happen, but some of it is just irresponsible and has obviously caused problems in the conference--causing presidents like Boren and Gee to make public statements to try to get others off their rear ends and into the actions they need to be taking.

Boren bringing serious issues to light so the conference can discuss them and ACT on them is the only thing that is going to keep the conference from collapsing down the road. Pretending their aren't any problems, no one wants or needs to do anything and everything will magically be ok is the problem, not the solution.
 
Here's some media opinions :

G R E G S W A I M SHOW
‏@G Sw aim @Jake_Trotter What do you think will happen, if anything, at #Big12 meetings next week as far as expansion, LHN/B12 network, OU leaving?

Jake Trotter ‏@Jake_Trotter · 2h2 hours ago
@G Swai m I don’t see anything being voted on until the May meetings. Next week will be mostly them talking.
 
Bowlsby isn't stating anything about a vote because a vote hasn't been taken. He is dismissing that there's interest in expansion in the league on behalf of a few (even admitting he doesn't really know what the opinions on expansion are) and dismissing that the composition committee has researched and identified schools.

Some of that could be deflecting while "negotiations" happen, but some of it is just irresponsible and has obviously caused problems in the conference--causing presidents like Boren and Gee to make public statements to try to get others off their rear ends and into the actions they need to be taking.

Boren bringing serious issues to light so the conference can discuss them and ACT on them is the only thing that is going to keep the conference from collapsing down the road. Pretending their aren't any problems, no one wants or needs to do anything and everything will magically be ok is the problem, not the solution.


Reality

Texas wants the conference to remain at 10 schools.

If Texas wanted the conference to expand to 12 schools it would have already been done.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT