The new Big 12 TV deal is expected to be announced any day, perhaps here this week as a celebration of the league's new-found strength. Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

One industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, "Appalachian State or Florida State." And according to another industry source, ESPN wouldn't stand in the way of Big 12 expansion even after negotiating a new deal with the ACC.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...0-12-or-14

But does that mean the contract payout does not go up per school with new members? If it can't go up, I think they stay at 10 because dividing all that BCS money and Tournament money and bowl money is 20% more per school 10 ways than it is 12 ways.

(05-30-2012 08:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

If the contract says that expansion doesn't raise the per-school payout, that basically means no expansion. The Big XII doesn't NEED No. 11 and No. 12. They're now in the "Big Four", without a CCG. A CCG would mean $2-3M per school, no matter who No. 11 and No. 12 are.

Correction--this means no expansion by raiding the ACC.

(05-30-2012 08:43 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  But does that mean the contract payout does not go up per school with new members? If it can't go up, I think they stay at 10 because dividing all that BCS money and Tournament money and bowl money is 20% more per school 10 ways than it is 12 ways.

No, it more like they will not "lose $$$$" if they add schools. If they add "certain schools" they will make even more..."FSU, Notre Dame, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech etc. etc."

Just as a college fball fan, it would be nice to go a year without crazy expansion. As an SDSU fan entering the big east, it's existential.

Texas does not want to add more teams . The Horns could care less about ESPN . The smaller B12 schools will fall in line because they fear Texas . It is really that simple . Texas has all of the power in the B12. Why do you think 4 schools bolted for greener pastures.

It is great for us that the B12 pauses for a while. The best thing for the BE is everyone stands pat for a couple of years.

GASP! App State to the XII! WVU's travel partner I guess.

(05-30-2012 09:28 PM)justinslot Wrote:  GASP! App State to the XII! WVU's travel partner I guess.

Works for me. App State and Tulane. I bet it'll be entertaining reading the different interpretations of that on the realignment forum.

(05-30-2012 08:45 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:43 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  But does that mean the contract payout does not go up per school with new members? If it can't go up, I think they stay at 10 because dividing all that BCS money and Tournament money and bowl money is 20% more per school 10 ways than it is 12 ways.

No, it more like they will not "lose $$$$" if they add schools. If they add "certain schools" they will make even more..."FSU, Notre Dame, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech etc. etc."

I disagree. Read the actual statement carefully. You left out a key phrase in your OP. Here it is, cut and pasted directly from the story you linked:

Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

One industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, "Appalachian State or Florida State."
_____________

IMO, that means THERE IS NO BUMP IF FSU IS INVITED. It also probably applies to any money gained from a CCG. Giving any 2 schools the same money costs about $40M a year. So, a lot of it would come from the CCG, and the rest would likely be made up by the network having extra inventory. The networks aren't going to give money away, especially when it is worded as "any two teams are the same."

That tells me there is no incentive for the B12 to expand. UNLESS something in the new playoff format gives them incentive to bleed off the remaining good ACC FB teams, to complete the dominance by the top 4 conferences. I doubt that.

However, even then, that will make UT's and OU's path harder, for no additional money, and it will also give rise to new "BCS Busters" in the ACC or BE, who could run the table and steal a playoff spot.

The other expansion possibility would be if Notre Dame decided to join somewhere, but as long as they have access to the playoff, that's not happening, either.

Seems to me like that pretty much shuts the door on expansion, at least until some more TV contracts come up. The B1G is in 5 years, and I think the rest are 13-15 years out, at least. JMO.

(05-30-2012 09:15 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  It is great for us that the B12 pauses for a while. The best thing for the BE is everyone stands pat for a couple of years.

Mmmhmm... Yeah, NOW you guys think that, after, one year ago, rooting like hell for the demise of the BE

(05-31-2012 07:25 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 09:15 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  It is great for us that the B12 pauses for a while. The best thing for the BE is everyone stands pat for a couple of years.

Mmmhmm... Yeah, NOW you guys think that, after, one year ago, rooting like hell for the demise of the BE

Not anywhere near as bad as Swofford raiding the BE twice, once without a real need, and then turning around and saying he thought all the ACC teams should hold together for the good of the conference.

I never rooted for the BE to die, but people have a tendency to pull for whatever tends to help them at the moment.

(05-30-2012 09:15 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The best thing for the BE is everyone stands pat for a couple of years.

Currently, the new Big East is like 18 dandelions in an upscale lawn. If our enemies (ESPN, etc.) are going to eradicate our conference, they had better do it now. A little more time is all that is needed for long-term security.