(02-14-2016 07:51 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 07:36 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:15 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:01 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I don't think he's worried about Big 12 expansion personally.

I'd rather he goes hard after Wichita or an Air Force/CSU combo, but I don't think he sees the Big 12 as a threat.

The sportswriters will write what generates clicks, and he knows that.

Yeah, I suppose they brought up the subject at the recent AAC meeting, just for grins.

Why not... The MWC brought up Rice and UTEP for grins. You always have to cover scenarios.

The fact of the matter is, this "haircut" that the Big 12 was talking about runs completely contrary to what we have heard about the networks adjusting to pay 11 and 12 the same slice as 1-10.

There is a lot of information in the public sphere that is dubious at best.

I think Aresco is acting on information that he knows to be true. He's a connected guy and is going by what his contacts are telling him. I really don't think he pays the dirt writers any mind.

Actually Boren publicly stated that. The problem is it only covers football tv contract revenue and not bowl money etc

Yep, as usual Homer has no clue, it does not cover playoff money, bowl money, tourney money, sugar bowl tie in money etc.

UConn and Cincinnati go to the tournament more often than not, so adding them would add more tournament credit money -- making that a non-issue. Having a championship game and a network will add a ton of money -- yes, I realize the Big 12 could technically do both now, but a championship game with a round-robin schedule is silly and a network is more profitable with more markets. Also, I am certain the new members would be on a 5-year or so graduated payout, so if anything, the current Big 12 schools would stand to make even more money for at least a couple years.