(02-24-2014 07:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You got me!

A&M is in fact a rogue super villain and UT is pure and innocent as the driven snow and would NEVER act out of self interest in a manner that could do anything to harm it's beloved conference mates!

I'm glad you finally agree with me!

(02-24-2014 08:12 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 07:42 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 07:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You got me!

A&M is in fact a rogue super villain and UT is pure and innocent as the driven snow and would NEVER act out of self interest in a manner that could do anything to harm it's beloved conference mates!

Quite frankly I think A&M and UT both acted like brats with the whole conference realignment thing. The fact that both schools were willing to throw away such a historic rivalry is just proof of how prideful both institution's presidents/ADs are.

I don't see how UT "acted like brats." Aggy was offered a chance to partner with Texas for what eventually became the Longhorn Network, turned it down, and then decided to throw a tantrum about the LHN on their way out of the conference.

Refusing to get involved with LHN and leaving the Big 12 was the best decision ever so we could care less what others think about it.

(02-24-2014 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 05:10 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 01:26 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Mr. SEC

How does that differ from my account...it's just a summarization of the first link I mentioned. The rights were bought back at a cost of about $1M per school.

If that's different, then I've done a bad job stating it. If anything, Mr. SEC strongly states that the value of those rights is much greater in a conference network format than the individual monetization Big 12 style. That's his position at least.

All of it strongly suggests that the value of 1 BAD football game and a handful of BAD basketball games, and a bunch of non-revenue sports is worth a lot closer to $1-2M per school for all but probably 5-6 schools in the country. Yet some Big 12 people will still try to tell you that Iowa state is banking millions a year from those rights on Cyclone TV, or various other web streams that schools have.

They are worth something. Better to have than not have. I'm not turning my nose up at a million dollars or two. Every bit counts.

But the myth is that this 3rd tier arrangement of the Big 12 is putting an additional $5-10M in schools' coffers across the board, or that the ACC or any other conference is leaving $10M per school on the table by not reserving these garbage games. Or that it is anywhere near a significant enough sum for a school to jump from another power conference to the Big 12.

Throw in the word "average" behind the $1 million and you will see what JR and I are talking about. If, for example, you bought out the Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina deals for a combined $15 million, that would be an average of $1 million per school for the 14 SEC schools.

OU is getting $7 million in a recently signed deal. Do you really think Florida and Georgia would get significantly less when they are in much larger states and have larger alumni bases?

But that is not what the articles said. That is your assertion and I'm waiting for you to show some link that supports that.

The Sports Business AND Mr. SEC article clearly states that the schools will receive $1M per school less from their 3rd tier providers in return for the 3rd tier providers returning some rights. For the scenario to be true, that they only bought out a few schools for a huge amount, but are reporting them out as a per school average...that would be deliberate obfuscation. The articles clearly do NOT state your scenario.

Now, was UF's worth $2.1M and Ole Miss $.08M, etc? Maybe so.

But the published account says NOTHING about only having to buy out a couple schools' contracts, and the $1M+ per school being an average of only a few schools.

If you're going to claim that the Sports Business Daily and the SEC and the IMG, etc partners are all deliberately obfuscating the truth of what actually happened, and what you propose is the fact, link me up, and I will retract immediately. The Mr. SEC post did nothing to support your hypothesis.

adcorbett is correct that it's not exactly apples to apples, because the Big 12 guarantees the 3rd tier junk games, and the SEC only got them if ESPN didn't pick them up. So I think UF and Alabama didn't actually have a football game fall to those packages.

Therefore, the $1.1M value of the SEC rights is lower than the Big 12's because the Big 12 guarantees a football game. That's why I say $1-2M. The Big 12's is worth a little more for a couple schools like TX and OU that wouldn't have a game fall to them under the SEC paradigm. But for the rest of the Big 12, it's pretty much a distinction without a difference.

The Big 12 has that 3rd tier setup for one reason and one reason only, to facilitate the LHN. If there wasn't a LHN, the Big 12 conference would do what every other conference has done and have a network or sell all their programming. There's a reason why no other conference is remotely interested in that setup, and have moved AWAY from that setup.

For most schools, monetizing those games is more trouble than it's worth. Nobody liked doing PPV or made much money off it, and there's a reason why they all chose a different path. I'm sure Baylor or Iowa State or Oklahoma State would rather have those games on ESPNU or a FS1 than on ppv or some school-sponsored internet stream. The access/exposure is worth more than they'll make.

Read it carefully. There is what the SEC bought back, and what the networks were paid in a buyback. I think we might be dealing with two separate issues here. Someone else posted something that I agree with when they said that the PPV games were probably worth an average of about a million per school. What I can tell you for certain Lou is that nobody knows everything until the fiscal year 2014-15 is reported. And then they will only know part of the story. I say part because full payments for the SECN don't start until fiscal year 2016-17. Start up costs are front loaded in the first two years. That puts full disclosure past the deadline for ESPN and Big 10 negotiations to be completed, or for that matter FOX and Big 10 negotiations and this was primarily by design.
So in June of 2017 we will all know what the value was of the SECN and will have the fuller details of the deal.

And there is nothing about the article that is inconsistent with what I have said, only your interpretation. Because each school is paying in $1 million doesn't mean each school was worth $1 million. It merely means each school is equally sharing the cost of whatever the SEC bought out. The Pac 12 paid $15 million in the first year to buyout for 10 schools. You don't think SEC schools would be worth more than the average Pac 10 school? I would guess at least half the SEC schools would be worth more than the most valuable Pac 10 school.

Didn't find the article, but there was one that said part of the reason for the 2014 start date was that some of the agreements expired and so they didn't have to buy them out. I did find this, which while not clarifying things, does indicate the most valuable school was---Kentucky---because of basketball. Arkansas and Florida were the others at the top.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...field-too/

Bullet, my reply wasn't in response to you. I had no problem with your interpretation.

(02-24-2014 08:12 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 07:42 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 07:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You got me!

A&M is in fact a rogue super villain and UT is pure and innocent as the driven snow and would NEVER act out of self interest in a manner that could do anything to harm it's beloved conference mates!

Quite frankly I think A&M and UT both acted like brats with the whole conference realignment thing. The fact that both schools were willing to throw away such a historic rivalry is just proof of how prideful both institution's presidents/ADs are.

I don't see how UT "acted like brats." Aggy was offered a chance to partner with Texas for what eventually became the Longhorn Network, turned it down, and then decided to throw a tantrum about the LHN on their way out of the conference.

This isn't about hate. This is about the truth. Texas & OU turned down the bribe money from Kansas, K-State, Baylor and Iowa St.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...-12-future

Quote:Beebe confirmed that he still plans to get Texas A&M the $20 million it's demanding as part of a deal that Texas and Oklahoma dismissed. He did not sound concerned that the failure to do so would mean a significant discord between schools affiliated with the Big 12, citing an expressed strong desire to exist as a 10-team league.

(02-24-2014 08:21 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Refusing to get involved with LHN and leaving the Big 12 was the best decision ever so we could care less what others think about it.

Enjoy the hype while it lasts... once Strong starts winning, the recruiting advantage will shift back towards UT and Aggy will be forgotten.

Thanks for Yates and DSG, by the way.

Poor Tech!

Still whining and crying because the Big 12 said "Texas A&M, we'd like to offer you 20 million dollars a year, guaranteed! Texas Tech....yeah go stand in the corner with Iowa State!"

(02-24-2014 08:29 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 08:21 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Refusing to get involved with LHN and leaving the Big 12 was the best decision ever so we could care less what others think about it.

Enjoy the hype while it lasts... once Strong starts winning, the recruiting advantage will shift back towards UT and Aggy will be forgotten.

Thanks for Yates and DSG, by the way.

Shaking in my little maroon booties over Charlie Strong!

Quote:Beebe confirmed that he still plans to get Texas A&M the $20 million it's demanding as part of a deal that Texas and Oklahoma dismissed. He did not sound concerned that the failure to do so would mean a significant discord between schools affiliated with the Big 12, citing an expressed strong desire to exist as a 10-team league.

Reading comprehension--- Texas & OU turned down money to stay in a conference. a&m demanded money they hadn't earned to leave a conference. The Big 12 offered a&m nothing.

(02-24-2014 08:40 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Beebe confirmed that he still plans to get Texas A&M the $20 million it's demanding as part of a deal that Texas and Oklahoma dismissed. He did not sound concerned that the failure to do so would mean a significant discord between schools affiliated with the Big 12, citing an expressed strong desire to exist as a 10-team league.

Reading comprehension--- Texas & OU turned down money to stay in a conference. a&m demanded money they hadn't earned to leave a conference. The Big 12 offered a&m nothing.

Wrong as usual little buddy! From Big 12 sports:

Quote:Five schools that were facing uncertain conference futures - Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State and Baylor - made a good-faith offer to Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M. The five have agreed to use their shares of the money Colorado and Nebraska will owe for leaving the Big 12, if necessary, to ensure a certain level of revenue distribution. That money, which will be revenue withheld from the two schools, could wind up totaling $35 to $40 million.[/b]

However, based on revenue projections from future media rights, such compensation likely will be unnecessary. Contrary to some reports, this use of revenue of those five institutions does not affect the revenue distribution formula or the amounts that would be distributed to the other institutions, therefore negating the need for it to be offered. All liquidated damage fees withheld from Colorado and Nebraska will be evenly shared by the 10 remaining members.

Another myth put to rest!

(02-24-2014 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 05:10 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Throw in the word "average" behind the $1 million and you will see what JR and I are talking about. If, for example, you bought out the Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina deals for a combined $15 million, that would be an average of $1 million per school for the 14 SEC schools.

OU is getting $7 million in a recently signed deal. Do you really think Florida and Georgia would get significantly less when they are in much larger states and have larger alumni bases?

But that is not what the articles said. That is your assertion and I'm waiting for you to show some link that supports that.

The Sports Business AND Mr. SEC article clearly states that the schools will receive $1M per school less from their 3rd tier providers in return for the 3rd tier providers returning some rights. For the scenario to be true, that they only bought out a few schools for a huge amount, but are reporting them out as a per school average...that would be deliberate obfuscation. The articles clearly do NOT state your scenario.

Now, was UF's worth $2.1M and Ole Miss $.08M, etc? Maybe so.

But the published account says NOTHING about only having to buy out a couple schools' contracts, and the $1M+ per school being an average of only a few schools.

If you're going to claim that the Sports Business Daily and the SEC and the IMG, etc partners are all deliberately obfuscating the truth of what actually happened, and what you propose is the fact, link me up, and I will retract immediately. The Mr. SEC post did nothing to support your hypothesis.

adcorbett is correct that it's not exactly apples to apples, because the Big 12 guarantees the 3rd tier junk games, and the SEC only got them if ESPN didn't pick them up. So I think UF and Alabama didn't actually have a football game fall to those packages.

Therefore, the $1.1M value of the SEC rights is lower than the Big 12's because the Big 12 guarantees a football game. That's why I say $1-2M. The Big 12's is worth a little more for a couple schools like TX and OU that wouldn't have a game fall to them under the SEC paradigm. But for the rest of the Big 12, it's pretty much a distinction without a difference.

The Big 12 has that 3rd tier setup for one reason and one reason only, to facilitate the LHN. If there wasn't a LHN, the Big 12 conference would do what every other conference has done and have a network or sell all their programming. There's a reason why no other conference is remotely interested in that setup, and have moved AWAY from that setup.

For most schools, monetizing those games is more trouble than it's worth. Nobody liked doing PPV or made much money off it, and there's a reason why they all chose a different path. I'm sure Baylor or Iowa State or Oklahoma State would rather have those games on ESPNU or a FS1 than on ppv or some school-sponsored internet stream. The access/exposure is worth more than they'll make.

Read it carefully. There is what the SEC bought back, and what the networks were paid in a buyback. I think we might be dealing with two separate issues here. Someone else posted something that I agree with when they said that the PPV games were probably worth an average of about a million per school. What I can tell you for certain Lou is that nobody knows everything until the fiscal year 2014-15 is reported. And then they will only know part of the story. I say part because full payments for the SECN don't start until fiscal year 2016-17. Start up costs are front loaded in the first two years. That puts full disclosure past the deadline for ESPN and Big 10 negotiations to be completed, or for that matter FOX and Big 10 negotiations and this was primarily by design.
So in June of 2017 we will all know what the value was of the SECN and will have the fuller details of the deal.

And there is nothing about the article that is inconsistent with what I have said, only your interpretation. Because each school is paying in $1 million doesn't mean each school was worth $1 million. It merely means each school is equally sharing the cost of whatever the SEC bought out. The Pac 12 paid $15 million in the first year to buyout for 10 schools. You don't think SEC schools would be worth more than the average Pac 10 school? I would guess at least half the SEC schools would be worth more than the most valuable Pac 10 school.

Didn't find the article, but there was one that said part of the reason for the 2014 start date was that some of the agreements expired and so they didn't have to buy them out. I did find this, which while not clarifying things, does indicate the most valuable school was---Kentucky---because of basketball. Arkansas and Florida were the others at the top.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...field-too/

Bullet, my reply wasn't in response to you. I had no problem with your interpretation.

I wasn't clear. I was responding to him and backing up your comment, so I copied your post.

(02-24-2014 08:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 08:40 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Beebe confirmed that he still plans to get Texas A&M the $20 million it's demanding as part of a deal that Texas and Oklahoma dismissed. He did not sound concerned that the failure to do so would mean a significant discord between schools affiliated with the Big 12, citing an expressed strong desire to exist as a 10-team league.

Reading comprehension--- Texas & OU turned down money to stay in a conference. a&m demanded money they hadn't earned to leave a conference. The Big 12 offered a&m nothing.

Wrong as usual little buddy! From Big 12 sports:

Quote:Five schools that were facing uncertain conference futures - Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State and Baylor - made a good-faith offer to Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M. The five have agreed to use their shares of the money Colorado and Nebraska will owe for leaving the Big 12, if necessary, to ensure a certain level of revenue distribution. That money, which will be revenue withheld from the two schools, could wind up totaling $35 to $40 million.[/b]

However, based on revenue projections from future media rights, such compensation likely will be unnecessary. Contrary to some reports, this use of revenue of those five institutions does not affect the revenue distribution formula or the amounts that would be distributed to the other institutions, therefore negating the need for it to be offered. All liquidated damage fees withheld from Colorado and Nebraska will be evenly shared by the 10 remaining members.

Another myth put to rest!

There's no link, just your quote.

Here's the reality which you refuse to accept. Texas and OU said they didn't want money they hadn't earned. A&M got mad when they thought they might not get welfare. A&M was being a sleazy low life welfare queen and you just won't admit it.

(02-25-2014 12:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 08:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 08:40 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Beebe confirmed that he still plans to get Texas A&M the $20 million it's demanding as part of a deal that Texas and Oklahoma dismissed. He did not sound concerned that the failure to do so would mean a significant discord between schools affiliated with the Big 12, citing an expressed strong desire to exist as a 10-team league.

Reading comprehension--- Texas & OU turned down money to stay in a conference. a&m demanded money they hadn't earned to leave a conference. The Big 12 offered a&m nothing.

Wrong as usual little buddy! From Big 12 sports:

Quote:Five schools that were facing uncertain conference futures - Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State and Baylor - made a good-faith offer to Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M. The five have agreed to use their shares of the money Colorado and Nebraska will owe for leaving the Big 12, if necessary, to ensure a certain level of revenue distribution. That money, which will be revenue withheld from the two schools, could wind up totaling $35 to $40 million.[/b]

However, based on revenue projections from future media rights, such compensation likely will be unnecessary. Contrary to some reports, this use of revenue of those five institutions does not affect the revenue distribution formula or the amounts that would be distributed to the other institutions, therefore negating the need for it to be offered. All liquidated damage fees withheld from Colorado and Nebraska will be evenly shared by the 10 remaining members.

Another myth put to rest!

There's no link, just your quote.

Here's the reality which you refuse to accept. Texas and OU said they didn't want money they hadn't earned. A&M got mad when they thought they might not get welfare. A&M was being a sleazy low life welfare queen and you just won't admit it.

Here you go little friend! Straight from the conference website, ie an unbiased source!

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=204960432


Now, you can keep calling it welfare all you like but here is reality:

The Big 12 told A&M, OU and UT that it would guarantee each of them a minimum payout of 20 million dollars a year. That's not welfare. That's the Big 12 offering the schools it thought were worth more money...more money. They offered OSU and Tech more money than the others as well but not as much as the first 3. So basically, the Big 12 did for its more valuable properties what the PAC did for UCLA and USC.

But if A&M was truly a moocher...then WHY offer us more money? Why not say "too bad, you aren't worth it so no extra money for you!" I mean if we are as worthless as UT would have the world believe then what point is there trying to keep us with an offer of more money (bet this doesn't get a response!)

The Forgotten 5 offered to guarantee that money for the first year with their share of the CU/NU exit fee. But as that unbiased article from the conference itself points out, while nice, that offer was totally unnecessary given projected payouts.

Would it have been better PR for A&M to say "No thanks" to an offer that was unnecessary? Sure. But saying "we simply want what the Big 12 offered us" is not the same as saying "and make sure you take it directly from the helpless little guys" especially when their own projections said doing so would have been totally unnecessary.

Again, you keep trying to make this (in a thread about myths no less) about heroes and villains when there were neither in realignment.

UT looked out purely for itself like everybody else did, regardless of what their actions did to others. If it hadnt been for the ESPN bribe, your move to the PAC would have cost the forgotten 5 (possibly sans Mizzou) a lot more than 20 million dollars.

(02-25-2014 08:02 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Here you go little friend! Straight from the conference website, ie an unbiased source!

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=204960432

I don't want to get in the middle of this, as an outsider, but the conference website, who has a vested interest in getting that message out (increases perceived value of the conference) is not an unbiased source.

(02-23-2014 05:40 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 05:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Here's one for you to add to the list.

Texas is going to bail on the B12 when the GoR expires.

Texas's desire to leave the BigXII's half the reason we've had all the realignment we've had. Don't hold your breath on this one.

That isn't accurate at all.

CU- Left when Missouri's Governor publicly lusted for the B1G. Direct quote from AD at the time.

NU- Left when the CU/MU domino effect eventually had UT/OU looking at leaving although they didn't. Read the Omaha article. It's detailed on it and has perlman laying it all out there.

A&M- Left when they saw an opportunity to elevate their brand. Of the 4 Big 12 defectors they are the only one that could be rationalized to be due to UT and the LHN.

Mizzou- Started the mess in 2010 by publicly lifting it's skirt to the B1G. Left in 2011 when the SEC called right after OU was flirting with the PAC but ultimately made their decision after the other 8 schools had committed to remain.

TCU might indirectly be blamed on UT but that's only due to A&M's circumstance.

WVU- Left a sinking BE for a power league.

Pitt/Cuse/Louisville to ACC- Little to no UT impact and same as WVU wrt to leaving Go5 for P5.

Utah- After CU left the Big 12 and the others didn't they needed a 12th.

So your statement is pretty off base.

Granted, the conference has a certain self bias but it's still a lot less biased than the individual schools, especially in this case where it is clarifying the nature of the distribution.

(02-23-2014 07:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Texas got a special deal on the LHN from the other schools to keep the Big 12 together. Texas always had the right to do a network.

Texas did get a special deal, but it was unrelated to the network. Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma were promised a guaranteed $20 million by Kansas, K State, Missouri, and Iowa St even if it meant coming from their own monies to do so. Baylor may have been a part of it as well. I remember it was odd that certain teams had to guarantee the payment, but Ok St was not one of them. It was the ultimate "this will never work" setup.

The five schools that would not have been brought along (ISU, KU, KSU, MU, BU) offered their shares of the exit money to make the 3 with standalone market value (UT, OU, ATM) "whole" at 20mm in total league distributions (not just tv) which was the rumored payouts for the new leagues at the time... basically making the decision not about money.

UT and OU said no need, A&M publicly complained about it when it was going to come. A&M then "committed" (for a couple months despite 2011 reports that they had already decided to move at that point) and then bailed and then smears the Big 12 and UT as if it misled them on the payout deal and the LHN... riiiiiiight.

The decision for UT to remain in the Big 12 was NOT about the LHN breaking the bank. Yes UT wanted it's own network but the projections on it were 3mm/yr AFTER a very expensive rollout. ESPN's blockbuster offer on the LHN came later.

The figures that kept UT in the Big 12 was the league-wide deal NOT being devalued anywhere near the level that was feared. Once that was secure it was a 48 hours before the whole PAC deal died. The entire UT looking in 2010 issue was directly related to fears of market value after losing 2/3 of NU/CU/MU. Once that was settled the PAC deal didn't make enough sense for UT. The entire thing was a concern over potentially getting an AAC type of deal.

Exactly Sammy. They acted in enlightened self interest. If ESPN and the PAC made them a better deal, they would have taken it but as it happened, the Big 12 and ESPN made them the better offer

(02-25-2014 11:03 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly Sammy. They acted in enlightened self interest. If ESPN and the PAC made them a better deal, they would have taken it but as it happened, the Big 12 and ESPN made them the better offer

It wasn't even ESPN arguing for one side over the other. It was simply put that even without CU and NU you've got over 90% of the value. So any fear that the deal was going to fall way behind was mitigated.

Everyone acts in self interest.

Also Sammy, the best way to describe it is this:

Forget what the president said because this came from the fans. The LHN high school controversy pissed off our fan base and led to a mass revolt whose basic message to our admin was "we are tired of fighting UT on these sort of issues. Why are we doing this when we have a golden ticket to the SEC? Get on the phone to Slive and make this happen now!"

A lot if people don't appreciate the pressure to leave that was coming from the fans and big cigars.