You'll also take a lot less money for years to come. The B12 is in a good spot right now. The next 8 years are booked and should be very good to us.
The collapse of the Big 12
- Thread starter Pitt5593
- Start date
You'll also take a lot less money for years to come. The B12 is in a good spot right now. The next 8 years are booked and should be very good to us.
Hmmmm. If posting facts from news articles makes one a "geek tool", what does posting lies and ignorant troll rants make YOU?
That's not how it worked. The ACC, Pac 12, and SEC renegotiated their TV contracts as a direct result of expanding. Those conferences did not complete their previous TV deals. They renegotiated them as a result of expansion. The lone exception was the Big Ten. The let their contract run to completion. That's because they decided to split their rights between ESPN and Fox. Previously, the rights had been with ESPN. They couldn't involve Fox if they had renegotiated the contract with ESPN. Also, the Big Ten did renegotiate their BTN deals immediately.
The Big 12 would not have gotten a new contract. That's was the whole point of the pro rata clause. That's also why the Big 12 would have had to keep the new schools at a reduced share. The pro rata money was all they were getting, so for the other schools to get extra money, the only way was to take it out of the new schools' share.
The SEC is obviously the better conference compared to the ACC
But give me WVU in the ACC any day.
I know it would mean a little less revenue but it would still be way more than anything from the AAC.
Louisville
Pitt
BC
Miami
VT
Virginia
Syracuse
It would be so nice to play these teams on a regular basis
Plus having quality OOC games throw in. I'm perfectly happy with being a Big12 member but the ACC is where I hope to see WVU one day.
But give me WVU in the ACC any day.
I know it would mean a little less revenue but it would still be way more than anything from the AAC.
Louisville
Pitt
BC
Miami
VT
Virginia
Syracuse
It would be so nice to play these teams on a regular basis
Plus having quality OOC games throw in. I'm perfectly happy with being a Big12 member but the ACC is where I hope to see WVU one day.
Good one man! I'm way over my head with you!!!! LOL at you as the ultimate Mr Obvious! Check my posting closely fool and you'll be educated. The others on this site know a tool vs someone with legitimate opinions and sources. You and a few of the local village idiots feel free to one line your way to happiness but you add no value.
If WVU were to join the ACC in 2030, WVU would get their 1st ACC title b4 Pitt. There's your value.
Quite the twist by you as usual.
The ACC renegotiated AFTER adding Pitt and SU.
The PAC 12 did the same, they got a new deal after adding Utah and CU, not prior.
Likewise, the SEC had to wait a few years after adding A n M and Mizzou before the SEC network came about and the networks re did their deals. Initially, exactly as the BIg 12 would have, they got pro rata shares for adding schools.
If you are trying to make a claim of length of time in your never ending attempts to project your psychological problem with the BIg 12 onto the conference, the BIG 12 was doing the exact same thing the Big Ten did. Add schools without redoing deals right away, and then redoing them when they came do.
Why are you trying to project this as a negative for the BIG 12 when everyone else did the same?
The BIG 12 considered it only because the PLAYOFF came about, and without 12 teams they are disadvantaged in making the playoff. Of course they would try to correct that because there's nearly a decade left in existing contracts. Stop making out to be some lie of a reason you want to dream up to disparage the conference.
I'm not trying to project anything as a negative. I'm just stating facts. The other conference did not have the same situation as the Big 12, and that's what you are trying to claim.
When you said the ACC, Pac 12, etc. didn't get new contracts until AFTER the new teams joined......well that's the whole point. The only reason they got to renegotiate their contracts is because of expansion. They added new schools, and that's what unlocked the renegotiation clause in the contracts. If they hadn't expanded, they wouldn't have gotten to renegotiate their contracts. They simply would have had to wait until the contracts expired.
The ACC, SEC, and Pac 12 all renegotiated their contracts before they expired. That was because of expansion, a direct result of it. The Big Ten was the lone exception, and I explained why. The Big Ten's Tier 1 contract was with ESPN (plus CBS for basketball). The Big Ten wanted to split those rights between bot ESPN and Fox. Well, they couldn't do that if they simply renegotiated their contract. They can only renegotiate the contract with the included party, which in this case was ESPN. They only way Fox could get involved was to wait for the contract to expire, in which case the Big Ten could take the rights to the free market.
That's not what was going to happen with the Big 12. The Big 12 was simply going to get the pro rata increase. That's it. They weren't going to renegotiate. If the contract was renegotiated, then the pro rata increase wouldn't even be used. They would just sit down and renegotiate whatever amount they could get. The entire point of the pro rata clause was to preclude renegotiation.
They also weren't going to do the same thing as the Big Ten either. That's because the Big 12 already has its rights split between ESPN and Fox. As I pointed out, Fox wasn't part of the Big Ten's original contract. They wanted to split their rights. The Big 12 rights are already split, so there would be no reason for the Big 12 to wait out the remainder of their contract.
They also weren't going to do the same thing as the SEC either. The SEC added Missouri and A&M in 2012, and renegotiated their TV deal in 2013. The SEC also did not get pro rata shares. The SEC did not get an increase of any kind, not even a pro rata increase, during the one year between expanding and renegotiating. In fact, the SEC's payout per school (from the TV contract) for that one year of 2012 was less that what it had been in 2011.
Last edited:
Sorry, that's 100% correct. The Big 12 was only getting the pro rata increase, and that would require keeping the new schools at a reduced share. This has been well established.
As far as the truth, I was correct on this, not most of the other posters.
There was no requirement or desire to keep other schools at a reduced share. You were wrong as usual. New schools come in at a reduced share for a 5 year time frame because that is their "entry fee" just like WVU and TCU did. In the future you should learn to be correct about what you say if you don't want to be told you are wrong.
No, I'm not wrong. There was no requirement for the new schools to take a reduced share, but there absolutely was a desire. That's because it's the only way for the other schools to get extra money. The pro rata clause only pays enough to cover the cost of adding new schools. The only way to get extra money is to keep the new schools at reduced shares, and pay the rest to the other schools.
West Virginia and TCU were no on 5 year timeframes. West Virginia and TCU got 50% in year one, 67% in year two, and 85% in year three. Year four was 100%. That's only 3 years of reduced shares. Sorry, you're the one why needs to do some research.
You said there was a requirement and now you say there wasnt. Were you wrong then or now? As usual you are wrong and too stubborn to accept it.
No, I have never said there was a requirement.
Here's how it works. The Big 12 has a "pro rata" clause in its contracts with Fox and ESPN. This clause states that, if the Big 12 expands, Fox and ESPN increase their payments to the conference by a specific amount. How the money is divided up among the schools within the conference is not mandated. The conference is free to divide the money any way they choose. There is no "requirement."
However, here is the problem. This is how the pro rata clause works. The Big 12's TV contract currently pays roughly $200 million a year to the conference. $200 million / 10 schools = $20 million per school. If the Big 12 expanded by 2 schools (thus triggering the pro rata increase), the payout would increase to roughly $240 million a year. Well, there is a problem with that. $240 million / 12 schools = $20 million. See? You don't get any extra money from the pro rata increase. You just end up with the same amount you had before. All that does is keep the schools from losing money if the conference expands.
The problem is, if you aren't getting extra money, then expansion is sort of pointless. The only way for the current 10 schools to get any extra money is to keep paying the new schools a reduced share, and the other 10 schools split the remainder. For example, let's say the Big 12 takes 2 new schools, and they only get a payout of $5 million each. That leaves a remainder of $30 million from the pro rata increase. $30 million /10 schools = $3 million. That means the original 10 schools would get $23 million each, instead of $20 million. But, that means the new schools only get $5 million each, instead of $20 million if the pot was divided equally. Once the new schools get a full share, then the other schools stop getting extra money, as I demonstrated in the previous paragraph. That's why the whole plan for the Big 12 was to pay the new schools reduced shares.
So no, it is not a "requirement", and I never said it was. There is no "rule" that says the new schools have to get paid a reduced share. What I did say is that the 10 current schools wouldn't get any extra money, unless they paid reduced shares to the new schools. It wasn't a "requirement." Nobody forced the Big 12 to do that. This was the plan that the Big 12 independently came up with. The math simply doesn't work otherwise.
Last edited:
No, I didn't. I explained to you how it works. You are just mad because you can't refute what I said.
They have not mattered in football since Marino last played and that was nearly 35 years ago. They're still bragging about their national title won 40 years ago. I was at the Pitt/Marshall game. Saw a young Pitt fan almost get into a fistfight with an old Marshall fan. I told my nephew (huge Moo Tech fan) to keep his mouth shut. No one on Pitt's side cares about a plane crash or 1AA national titles.
Weird post but ok! Actually what's your point? Outside of begging to get into a fight in the Pitt student section Heinz Field is one of the safest places for visiting fans to watch a football game in all of college football.
Pitt and Marshall have something in common. The big winning that Jackie Sherrill did at Pitt and Bob Pruett did at Marshall was a direct result of massive cheating....... Period. Documented fact in both cases. Check out Sherrill's cheating at his next head coaching stop as well. He was a serial cheater...... Pruett, oh my god. He and Sherrill were two of the biggest cheaters to ever be head coaches in college football.......
You refuted what you said idiot. You can't say there is a requirement and then say there is no requirement without looking like a fool. I linked both quotes. Explain your own stupidity.
I didn't say there was a requirement. You misunderstood (intentionally) what I said. I did not say partial payments to the new schools was required for ESPN/Fox to give the Big 12 the pro rata shares. I said partial payments are required for the current 10 schools to get any of the pro rata money. If the new schools don't get partial payments, then their full share will eat up the pro rata money. The only way there is any pro rata money left over for the current 10 schools is if the new schools only get partial shares. It's not "required" as in the sense that it's a rule written down somewhere. It's "required" in terms of common sense. You give all the pro rata money to the new schools, then there isn't any money left over for the other schools.
You have NEVER addressed that point. You have NEVER explained how the new schools can get full shares and the current schools still get any extra money. Explain that.
Your quotes are in black and white. Now I intentionally misunderstood? How about you stop intentionally writing shit you don't mean? How about you take responsibility for yourself and stop trying to blame everyone else for your failures.
I'm not writing anything I don't mean. I explained it to you. You haven't once addressed the issue. Explain how the current Big 12 schools can get the pro rata money without paying the new schools a partial share. Explain that. You can't.
I have no idea what you are asking. You said that the Big 12 was going to require the new schools to take a smaller share and that is the only way they could make money and I said you were wrong and then you changed your story and said there was no requirement.
Bottom line is you were wrong and I called you out on it and you changed your story because you were wrong.
Deal with it.
No, I didn't change my story at all. What I said is absolutely correct. The Big 12 WAS going to pay the new schools a smaller share, and that IS the only the conference could make more money. That's 100% true. You haven't refuted that at all.
Why would I refute that? That is the truth. That isn't what you originally stated though and that is why I pointed out you were incorrect. Congrats for finally getting it correct.
I don't think there is a pathway for WVU to become more attractive to another conference, outside of getting into the National Championship playoffs and maybe even winning the NC. WV will not see any statewide population growth in the foreseeable future. It may gain some in the E. Panhandle, the Mon Valley and the Kanawha Valley, but numbers are going to steadily decline in most counties for a long time to come. The school will not improve dramatically academically because there is no real will to restrict enrollment and move marginal qualifiers to regional campuses. The fix is in. Everybody with any influence wants to grow the enrollment, build more housing, more restaurants, and skim all they can off of the student influx. The administration does not really care if the dropout rate is high as long as the enrollment is high. There is a sliver of hope for the SEC but odds are low. Hopefully Texas and Oklahoma don't leave the BIG12 because that looks like our only path to remain in a conference of relevance.
Because that IS what I said the first time. Here is my original statement that you quoted:
That's what I said in my first post, and that's what I said in the last post, that you agreed with:
I said the same thing every time. The Big 12 WAS going to pay the new schools reduced shares, and that was the ONLY way the other schools could make extra money. I've said that the entire time. You even agreed in your last post this is true, so there is no reason for you to argue with me.
That is not what you said. i called you out and you eventually got to the truth. you're welcome.
LOL. It's exactly what I said. The posts are printed on the screen. It's there in black and white.
