Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

Texas committed to the Big 12 before ESPN won the LHN contract. OU is getting $7 million from Fox for their Tier 3. Texas, in a much bigger state and with twice the number of students, makes sense getting twice as much.

If you look at recent ratings (which is what matters), the ACC and Pac 12 are vastly overpaid. The SEC is underpaid. The Big 10 and Big 12 are about right.

(07-16-2013 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

Texas committed to the Big 12 before ESPN won the LHN contract. OU is getting $7 million from Fox for their Tier 3. Texas, in a much bigger state and with twice the number of students, makes sense getting twice as much.

If you look at recent ratings (which is what matters), the ACC and Pac 12 are vastly overpaid. The SEC is underpaid. The Big 10 and Big 12 are about right.

WHOA! The ACC overpaid? Are you kidding me? If it was paid fairly it would be way out in front of both the Pac-12 AND the Big XII. The ACC is the most underpaid league in college football!

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

I agree with both of these statements which I think begs a third, "Just how much will FOX be willing to extend to Delany to try to secure tier 1 rights when the current Big 10 contract is up?" It seems to me that ESPN rushed to extend the SEC contract and provide the network they desired and assisted the ACC in order to lock down for a longer duration the best region for college football % wise in viewers. Then they go after Texas and Kansas for singular deals to essentially undermine FOX's growing influence with two of the top three revenue generators in the Big 12.

It appears to me that the FOX strategy to compete with a solid Southeast and Eastern Seaboard is to lock down California and Texas and then go after the Big 10. It is a little reminiscent of the old days where one conference was on one network and another on the competitor's network.

So the original question was, "Is the Big 12 overpaid?" Yes if you evaluate the relative value of each of their teams market reach, but no if you see them as having 3 or maybe 4 of the better brands essentially open to affiliation until the Big 10 contract with ESPN expires in two years.

It is also interesting that FOX's timing on this comes at a time when ESPN is reportedly suffering in ratings. Why not up the anti and make them sweat?

Ultimately I think the balloon is going to deflate on sports TV contracts. I don't look for any cataclysmic collapse, but I do look for a return to cheaper stadium seating and lower costs in TV packages. College sports has been more an icon of Baby Boomers % wise than other generations and as Boomers head into retirement in record numbers I expect their diminished participation to reflect in the numbers. Thankfully each generation has generated enough fans to keep the industry from collapsing, but it will return to less loftier heights than it presently knows. And its cheap cost of production and compelling live performances will keep it a favorite of television producers for some time to come.

(07-16-2013 09:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

Texas committed to the Big 12 before ESPN won the LHN contract. OU is getting $7 million from Fox for their Tier 3. Texas, in a much bigger state and with twice the number of students, makes sense getting twice as much.

If you look at recent ratings (which is what matters), the ACC and Pac 12 are vastly overpaid. The SEC is underpaid. The Big 10 and Big 12 are about right.

WHOA! The ACC overpaid? Are you kidding me? If it was paid fairly it would be way out in front of both the Pac-12 AND the Big XII. The ACC is the most underpaid league in college football!

Some posters just have ACC tourette's - they can't help themselves - they're psychologically hardwired to emote negative things about the ACC regardless of any facts to the contrary - expect an epidemic of this now that the Big East is no more.

The B12 lost four schools and only added two. Therefore, is the new B12 of equal value to the former B12? NO!!! Fox overpaid for a B12 that added only WV and TCU. I’ll admit that WV is a better football program than Misso. However, TCU doesn’t come close to the football tradition of A&M. Factor in the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, the B12 is getting overpaid for its current group of schools. Furthermore, being overpaid will cause the death of the B12 because it has nearly reached its earning potential in my opinion. WV and TCU were added to keep the contract valid and not evaluated for their earning potential for the conference. WV has a small market so if it isn’t playing entertaining football, it adds practically no value to the conference. TCU will never come close to being as valuable as A&M was to the B12. TT and OSU will always be seen as the “little brothers;” thus living off their big brothers. K St is in a small market and isn’t a national brand despite playing in a BCS bowl (the appeal just isn’t there). KU is more valuable in the B10 because the B12 lacks the basketball competition. Iowa St belongs in the MWC. Baylor isn’t a big money school in any sport. Consequently, this will cause TX and OU to leave once the GOR expires. Both schools will continue to get "overpaid" in other power conferences....

I don't see how the Big 12 as a whole is overpaid. You could even argue they are underpaid.

If I've read the facts correctly, the Big 12 sold 57 games (19 to ABC, 38 to Fox) for $200M/year. That's essentially $3.5M/game, giving no credence to basketball or olympic sports. Numbers from here: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205680799

The PAC12, for example, sold 45 games, although that includes the CCG which is more heavily weighted, obviously. That comes out to roughly $5.5M/game, giving no credence to basketball or olympic sports. Numbers from here: http://media.al.com/sports_impact/other/...20here.pdf

Of course, it makes sense that the PAC would get paid more per game.

With more teams, the PAC has more inventory. The networks are getting to select the cream of the crop because they are getting a bigger selection of games/inventory (due to more teams) and are contractually obligated to air fewer of them. In other words, they aren't forced to air less desirable conference matchups. The PAC12 has retained the rights to those less desirable matchups and is trying to monetize them with a PAC 12 Network. So far, I'm not sure that's paid off. Maybe it will in the long run.

The Big 12, on the other hand, took a different angle. It basically sold all of it's inventory when you consider that it's letting each school retain rights to one game and that they sold 57 games to networks. Thus, the networks are getting all of the inventory- including the premium matchups (OU vs UT) and the undesirable ones which is going to make their average payout/game less.

The question is, which model is best? If the PAC 12 Network takes off like the B1G Network did, then obviously that model will win. But if it doesn't, the Big 12 model could work out better by letting each school monetize their 3rd tier rights. As we've seen, the larger schools like OU, UT, KU, etc, have been able to make a substantial sum off these 3rd tier deals.

At this point in time, the net-net is about the same with each school guaranteed roughly $20-21M/year (average over life of contract).

But, circling back around, is the Big 12 overpaid? I don't think so. They are getting less per game for a justifiable reason. If they were getting paid MORE per game than the PAC despite the networks having to take more crap inventory, then I would probably agree. But that does not seem to remotely be the case.

(07-16-2013 10:10 AM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  I don't see how the Big 12 as a whole is overpaid. You could even argue they are underpaid.

The B12 is fortunate it isn't 6 feet under let alone underpaid. Let's keep the discussion real.... Do you really believe Baylor is worth $20 mil a year in sports?

(07-16-2013 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

Texas committed to the Big 12 before ESPN won the LHN contract. OU is getting $7 million from Fox for their Tier 3. Texas, in a much bigger state and with twice the number of students, makes sense getting twice as much.

If you look at recent ratings (which is what matters), the ACC and Pac 12 are vastly overpaid. The SEC is underpaid. The Big 10 and Big 12 are about right.

Say what? According to Neilson's 2011 survey entitled The State of the Media, the ACC had the second best ratings among all conferences in college basketball, behind the Big Ten, and the third best ratings among all conferences in college football, behind only the Big Ten and SEC. I would have included the 2012 report but it is not as accessible for purposes like this one.

Also, according to Forbes, it actually ranked ahead of the SEC in total revenues in 2012.

I get that people hate the ACC. You should, it's the only other league out there that is a legitimate threat to join the likes of the SEC and B1G. However, honesty has to have a place in the discussion or it's just blind hatred/jealousy/fear.

(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 lost four schools and only added two. Therefore, is the new B12 of equal value to the former B12? NO!!! Fox overpaid for a B12 that added only WV and TCU. I’ll admit that WV is a better football program than Misso. However, TCU doesn’t come close to the football tradition of A&M. Factor in the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, the B12 is getting overpaid for its current group of schools. Furthermore, being overpaid will cause the death of the B12 because it has nearly reached its earning potential in my opinion. WV and TCU were added to keep the contract valid and not evaluated for their earning potential for the conference. WV has a small market so if it isn’t playing entertaining football, it adds practically no value to the conference. TCU will never come close to being as valuable as A&M was to the B12. TT and OSU will always be seen as the “little brothers;” thus living off their big brothers. K St is in a small market and isn’t a national brand despite playing in a BCS bowl (the appeal just isn’t there). KU is more valuable in the B10 because the B12 lacks the basketball competition. Iowa St belongs in the MWC. Baylor isn’t a big money school in any sport. Consequently, this will cause TX and OU to leave once the GOR expires. Both schools are much more valuable in other power conferences.

To add to your argument the SEC chose between Missouri and West Virginia and picked Mizzou based largely upon the markets of which you speak (and upon academics). Everything you say is accurate. The thing that is up in the air is whether the networks will be content with the 65 teams presently in the P5 conferences, or whether they are looking for minimal additions to that number, or are they looking for a smaller number? What they desire for their business model will dictate to some extent what we wind up with. If they feel that obtaining the Heartland and Southwest can be obtained most economically by taking 4 teams instead of 10 they will wait for the GOR to expire and then relocate those 4 teams (maybe 6). If they want to keep a greater number of teams but use them to blur the borders of the 3 of the remaining conferences to draw in more viewers extraneous to the Southwest and Heartland then they will keep the present number of schools and see to it that some go to the SEC, some to the Big 10, and some to the PAC (and even possibly the ACC). This will actually maximize interest in the teams of that area by their new associations. In that case the placement of those schools could void the GOR and dissolve the conference at anytime.

There is also the possibility that they, at some point for various reasons from maintaining some semblance of a victories bell curve, bring in some niche markets, or avoid legal entanglements, add up to the number 70 or 72. If they (the networks) decide that having more extraneous control over the playoffs is in their interest I could see them preserving the Big 12, expanding with a few more teams, and having more say over 3 wild card teams that they could help determine, in an 8 team playoff.

While a remote possibility let's assume that in a four team playoff of champions in a world in which there are only 4 power conferences that Stanford wins the PAC, Arkansas wins the SEC, anyone not named Ohio State or Michigan wins the Big 10, and Clemson wins the ACC. What do you think the advertising rates would be for that 4 team field? They are all good teams but none of them are essentially national draws. The networks will live in fear of this possibility. The good way to offset that would be to have 5 conference champions and 3 wild cards that could then be on a good, but near miss year, Southern California, Ohio State and Alabama. Now the ratings are saved.

The reason however that I believe this will not be the choice of the networks is because they also want compelling match-ups in all time slots. They also want lower overhead. 66 to 68 teams with some having affiliations like ND has in 4 conferences with an expanded playoff to 8 teams still gives them everything they want. Less fluff in the schedule, a clear and discernible path to the playoffs, and yet those second position teams that are the clearest hedge to keep national interest high.

These things are all extraneous to conferences and will be determined by those who write the checks. So if further consolidation transpires it will be at the networks bidding. If we want to keep those checks in the dollar range to which we have become accustomed we are going to have to work together. The time for conference partisanship and "me only" thinking has passed. Otherwise we will have less say over our future than we have now.

(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 lost four schools and only added two. Therefore, is the new B12 of equal value to the former B12? NO!!! Fox overpaid for a B12 that added only WV and TCU.

The Big 12 tv deals that were recently signed were for 10 teams, not 12. We aren't being paid for 12 so losing 4 is irrelevant to this particular point.

Quote: I’ll admit that WV is a better football program than Misso. However, TCU doesn’t come close to the football tradition of A&M.

I'd have to find it but I saw somewhere where it was said that WVU had better ratings than all the departees other than NU. So since the tv deals were done AFTER CU/NU bolted its easy to see the two newbies keeping payments level. WVU replaces A&M ratings wise and TCU does enough to keep us level with MU who wasn't ever a ratings knockout for us.

Quote: Factor in the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, the B12 is getting overpaid for its current group of schools.

Factoring them in is foolish when the contracts were signed AFTER they left. The current contracts never paid us for their draw so please kill this talking point.

Quote: Furthermore, being overpaid will cause the death of the B12 because it has nearly reached its earning potential in my opinion. WV and TCU were added to keep the contract valid and not evaluated for their earning potential for the conference. WV has a small market so if it isn’t playing entertaining football, it adds practically no value to the conference.

In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

Quote: TCU will never come close to being as valuable as A&M was to the B12.

Which is why their replacing Mizzou ratings wise is a better comparison. WVU replaces the national ratings of A&M and the outside footprint attention MU gave us. TCU gives us additional recruiting and Texas tv exposure A&M gave us with ratings that should effectively minimize the loss of Mizzou.

Quote: TT and OSU will always be seen as the “little brothers;” thus living off their big brothers. K St is in a small market and isn’t a national brand despite playing in a BCS bowl (the appeal just isn’t there). KU is more valuable in the B10 because the B12 lacks the basketball competition. Iowa St belongs in the MWC. Baylor isn’t a big money school in any sport. Consequently, this will cause TX and OU to leave once the GOR expires. Both schools will continue to get "overpaid" in other power conferences....

People were saying the Big 12 wouldn't do well because of markets this round of contracts yet were wrong. As long as the Big 12 performs well on the field (no reason to expect it to change) it will be paid. Texas may or may not stay but the money will most likely be there.

(07-16-2013 09:51 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mainly because the FS1 commercial thread is getting bogged down in the question. But I say no.

Fox anted up a lot of money for Big 12 games as part of their strategy to buy up premium content and then launch an all-sports channel to compete with ESPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that school-for-school game-for-game the Big 12 contract is in line with the other power conferences or any particular power conference, it's just the A Number One reason the Big 12 is getting big money.

ESPN funded the LHN, partially to prevent one conference from monopolizing college athletics west of the Kansas-Missouri border.

The extension brought the Big 12 more money, presumably because Fox was willing to pay serious money for the Big 12 Tier-One package when the ESPN-Big 12 deal expired. So ESPN had to either pay up or see the most valuable Big 12 games shown on FOX.

The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

Texas committed to the Big 12 before ESPN won the LHN contract. OU is getting $7 million from Fox for their Tier 3. Texas, in a much bigger state and with twice the number of students, makes sense getting twice as much.

If you look at recent ratings (which is what matters), the ACC and Pac 12 are vastly overpaid. The SEC is underpaid. The Big 10 and Big 12 are about right.

WHOA! The ACC overpaid? Are you kidding me? If it was paid fairly it would be way out in front of both the Pac-12 AND the Big XII. The ACC is the most underpaid league in college football!

Some posters just have ACC tourette's - they can't help themselves - they're psychologically hardwired to emote negative things about the ACC regardless of any facts to the contrary - expect an epidemic of this now that the Big East is no more.

ACC fans on this board are just delusional. It doesn't matter how many people are in your market. It matters how many people watch. If it was all about markets the pecking order would be:
1) Big 10
2) CUSA
3) AAC

Look at the actual average TV ratings for football last year (posted on this board a few months ago).
1. SEC far ahead
2. Big 10
3. Big 12 just behind B10 and comfortably ahead of Pac 12
4. Pac 12
5. ACC
With the others way behind the ACC.

(and to tie into the other thread, almost all of the ratings are on a downward trend over the last few years).

(07-16-2013 10:22 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 is fortunate it isn't 6 feet under let alone underpaid. Let's keep the discussion real.... Do you really believe Baylor is worth $20 mil a year in sports?

Did you even read my post or did you just make a random statement? Is Washington State worth $21M in the PAC? Is Wake Forest worth what they are getting paid in the ACC? Vanderbilt in the SEC? Northwestern in the B1G?

My comments in bold:

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 lost four schools and only added two. Therefore, is the new B12 of equal value to the former B12? NO!!! Fox overpaid for a B12 that added only WV and TCU.

The Big 12 tv deals that were recently signed were for 10 teams, not 12. We aren't being paid for 12 so losing 4 is irrelevant to this particular point.

1) You keep missing the point> Is the value of the current conference worth equal value to the former B12? Where do I even mention the current B12 contract is for 12 schools? You won't find it mentioned in 3 threads that we've discussed this subject in.

Quote: I’ll admit that WV is a better football program than Misso. However, TCU doesn’t come close to the football tradition of A&M.

I'd have to find it but I saw somewhere where it was said that WVU had better ratings than all the departees other than NU. So since the tv deals were done AFTER CU/NU bolted its easy to see the two newbies keeping payments level. WVU replaces A&M ratings wise and TCU does enough to keep us level with MU who wasn't ever a ratings knockout for us.

2) WV wasn't added to replace A&M: TCU was. Do you expect me to believe a TX school was added to replace the market in another state—please.... The problem is the B12 thought TCU could deliver the Fort Worth market, but it can't.

Quote: Factor in the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, the B12 is getting overpaid for its current group of schools.

Factoring them in is foolish when the contracts were signed AFTER they left. The current contracts never paid us for their draw so please kill this talking point.

3) Please read point 1 again.

Quote: Furthermore, being overpaid will cause the death of the B12 because it has nearly reached its earning potential in my opinion. WV and TCU were added to keep the contract valid and not evaluated for their earning potential for the conference. WV has a small market so if it isn’t playing entertaining football, it adds practically no value to the conference.

In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

4) If TX and OU ever leave, we will see how valuable your small markets really are....

Quote: TCU will never come close to being as valuable as A&M was to the B12.

Which is why their replacing Mizzou ratings wise is a better comparison. WVU replaces the national ratings of A&M and the outside footprint attention MU gave us. TCU gives us additional recruiting and Texas tv exposure A&M gave us with ratings that should effectively minimize the loss of Mizzou.

5) Please read point 2 again.

Quote: TT and OSU will always be seen as the “little brothers;” thus living off their big brothers. K St is in a small market and isn’t a national brand despite playing in a BCS bowl (the appeal just isn’t there). KU is more valuable in the B10 because the B12 lacks the basketball competition. Iowa St belongs in the MWC. Baylor isn’t a big money school in any sport. Consequently, this will cause TX and OU to leave once the GOR expires. Both schools will continue to get "overpaid" in other power conferences....

People were saying the Big 12 wouldn't do well because of markets this round of contracts yet were wrong. As long as the Big 12 performs well on the field (no reason to expect it to change) it will be paid. Texas may or may not stay but the money will most likely be there.

6) Please explain what Baylor has done to be worth $20 mil a year in sports since if "Texas may or may not stay but the money will most likely be there."

(07-16-2013 11:38 AM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:22 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 is fortunate it isn't 6 feet under let alone underpaid. Let's keep the discussion real.... Do you really believe Baylor is worth $20 mil a year in sports?

Did you even read my post or did you just make a random statement? Is Washington State worth $21M in the PAC? Is Wake Forest worth what they are getting paid in the ACC? Vanderbilt in the SEC? Northwestern in the B1G?

Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in my above post....

(07-16-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in the above post....

I believe you are setting up a straw man argument. Whether Baylor is worth $20M/year or not is not the question.

Whether the Big 12 is worth $200M/year or not is the question.

I believe they are not overpaid. I supported that opinion with facts that detail that they are making less/game than another conference which structured it's TV deal within a very close proximity of time.

I established the reasons they were being paid less and the business plan of each conference.

Your response and proposed question address none of these issues nor have you established why you think it's overpaid other than carving out one team and claiming it's not worth it's pro-rata share.

And, to that point, I point out that every conference has small schools that may or may not justify their pro-rata share but receive it anyway.

I believe it is you who owe a justification of your opinion if you want your opinion to be considered credible.

(07-16-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in my above post....

How much is your school worth playing in the AAC?

As a so called "little brother" of Texas, we make more on our Tier 3 TV rights than the AAC schools make on their Tier 1/2 TV rights. Capitalism at its finest.

(07-16-2013 11:55 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in my above post....

How much is your school worth playing in the AAC?

As a so called "little brother" of Texas, we make more on our Tier 3 TV rights than the AAC schools make on their Tier 1/2 TV rights. Capitalism at its finest.

AAC schools are getting about $2 mil, so we are underpaid.... BIG TIME.... LOL However, replace TT with any of our two TX schools and TT would also get $2 mil a year in the AAC, which is basically my point about any school in the B12 other than TX and OU.

Did Michael Jackson pay too much for the rights to the Beatles songs? Did he sell them for too little?