"I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

If UConn and Cincy are not worth it to B12, is it safe to assume these two schools are not worth it to B1G or ACC? Ditto for USF and UCF?

Big 12 ADs: Zero Discussions on Expansion

Probably so as far as the ACC and UConn/Cincy.

Probably so for all P5 conferences regarding both USF and UCF.

UConn to the Big Ten may happen one day. It might be a number of years down the road, though.

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

If UConn and Cincy are not worth it to B12, is it safe to assume these two schools are not worth it to B1G or ACC? Ditto for USF and UCF?

Big 12 ADs: Zero Discussions on Expansion

The B10 loathes the existance of Cincinnati. If they had their way the school would be shut down by the state of Ohio and all of its assets given to Ohio State. That is not going to happen of course, but in the alternative the B10 will never invite Cincinnati to their conference. UConn on the other hand is a different story...

(06-12-2014 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Probably so as far as the ACC and UConn/Cincy.

Probably so for all P5 conferences regarding both USF and UCF.

UConn to the Big Ten may happen one day. It might be a number of years down the road, though.

UConn is not wanted by the B1G. There's no there there.

Catch-22. They had a discussion with the Daily Oklahoman about not having discussions on expansion.

The BTN is a different model than all other conference networks. The BTN gets money based on the number of cable households in the state. They could have got just as much money by adding NJ Tech and Maryland Eastern Shore. Maybe more because they would not have had to pay those two schools an equal share. Uconn helps the B1G because they do not have a school in Connecticut. Cincy does not help because the B1G/BTN is already in Ohio.

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

If UConn and Cincy are not worth it to B12, is it safe to assume these two schools are not worth it to B1G or ACC? Ditto for USF and UCF?

Big 12 ADs: Zero Discussions on Expansion

Sounds like a starting point for expansion negotiations.
Translation: "unlike last time, no one gets in for free, because we are now in a position of power."

The league already has a scaled revenue model. A lot of potential additions could increase the value to the existing members - with the right deal.

no expansion now, does not mean conf don't have continsey plans or different models
B-12 knowa right now that it lacks TV markets compared to other P5 conf & if it becomes problem
B-12 already has plan to fix it

(06-12-2014 11:41 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  no expansion now, does not mean conf don't have continsey plans or different models
B-12 knowa right now that it lacks TV markets compared to other P5 conf & if it becomes problem
B-12 already has plan to fix it

quoted for accuracy.

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

It all depends on:

1. If the conference title game is deregulated, and/or
2. If the larger P5 conferences think the Big 12 has an unfair advantage at 10 members (i.e. it's easier to win a 10-team league than a 14-team league)

If the title game is NOT deregulated, and 12 teams are required, then teams 11 & 12 don't have to be worth a full share each because the title game will bring in a lot of revenue.

And the other P5s could force the Big 12 to expand on competitive equity grounds. Pac 12-types have especially been vocal about this.

No team currently in the G5 adds enough money to get into any P5. The next conference realignment would have to involve some P5 to P5.

UConn, Cincy, and/or BYU aren't enough to move the needle for the Big 12, Big 10, or ACC.

(06-12-2014 10:35 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

If UConn and Cincy are not worth it to B12, is it safe to assume these two schools are not worth it to B1G or ACC? Ditto for USF and UCF?

Big 12 ADs: Zero Discussions on Expansion

Sounds like a starting point for expansion negotiations.
Translation: "unlike last time, no one gets in for free, because we are now in a position of power."

The league already has a scaled revenue model. A lot of potential additions could increase the value to the existing members - with the right deal.

Please explain.

(06-13-2014 01:37 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

It all depends on:

1. If the conference title game is deregulated, and/or
2. If the larger P5 conferences think the Big 12 has an unfair advantage at 10 members (i.e. it's easier to win a 10-team league than a 14-team league)

If the title game is NOT deregulated, and 12 teams are required, then teams 11 & 12 don't have to be worth a full share each because the title game will bring in a lot of revenue.

And the other P5s could force the Big 12 to expand on competitive equity grounds. Pac 12-types have especially been vocal about this.

I'm amazed anyone who says this (#2) doesn't seem to understand the ACC, BE, Pac 10 and Big 10 weren't told this over the 10-15 years they didn't have 12. And doesn't seem to understand one of the obvious answers to the SEC, Pac 12 and Big 10-"Ok, just send Nebraska back and one of Colorado, Missouri or Texas A&M." You don't think that's a lawsuit waiting to happen?

No one is going to force the Big 12 to add members because no one wants to set that precedent.

Since the B1G, ACC, and SEC stand at 14, wouldn't they make 14 the mandated number (Big 12 + 4 and PAC + 2)? IMO, they won't enforce something like this, but if they did I don't know why they'd say 12 is OK and not make it 14 like the majority of the P5.

(06-13-2014 01:37 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

It all depends on:

1. If the conference title game is deregulated, and/or
2. If the larger P5 conferences think the Big 12 has an unfair advantage at 10 members (i.e. it's easier to win a 10-team league than a 14-team league)

If the title game is NOT deregulated, and 12 teams are required, then teams 11 & 12 don't have to be worth a full share each because the title game will bring in a lot of revenue.

And the other P5s could force the Big 12 to expand on competitive equity grounds. Pac 12-types have especially been vocal about this.

basic math

the SEC CCG is 25 million payout (I believe)

Big 10 is 145 million for 6 years (just over 24 million per year)

the Big 12 paid out 23 million per team last year and if you average it with WVU and TCU it was 21 or so

so adding TWO teams to get an additional 24 million per year in revenues for a CCG means that you are still 24 million short of what it would take to BREAK EVEN much less not lose money on a CCG

because 22 X 10 = 220 million

220 + 24 / 12 = 20.3 million

then you have 40 million for The Sugar Bowl and 50 million for playoffs

so 220 + 90 / 10 = 31

then 220 + 24 + 90 / 12 = 27.83

so a net LOSS of 3.17 million per team by adding 2 teams and going to a CCG and that does not include NCAA distributions ect if the teams you add are not making the NCAAs in a strong fashion like the Big 12 has lately

so to BREAK EVEN if the Big 12 was to add two teams

12 X 31 = 372.......so you know there is the 90 million in Sugar and Playoffs so 372 - 90 = 282

you know the conference was at about 220 million for TV ect

so 282 - 220 = 62 million

so you need to find a way to get a CCG to pay 62 million or if you get 24 million for a CCG 62-24 = 38 million / 2 = 19 million

so you need 2 teams worth 19 million and a CCG worth 24 million to break even and two teams worth 19 million is basically pretty much what the big 12 teams are worth now without playoff and Sugar money coming in......so it is unlikely there are two teams worth 19 million each or that the Big 12 could find teams worth close to that which bring anything to the table and get more than 24 million for the CCG

(06-13-2014 02:17 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so you need 2 teams worth 19 million and a CCG worth 24 million to break even

Assuming your numbers are right . . .

And assuming the Big 12 TV money is 75% football, 25% basketball.

Then the Big 12 gets paid on average $2.3M for every conference football game and nonconference home game. ($150M/65 games). The actual number is higher because the $150M is Tier 1/Tier 2 rights for which less than 65 games are sold.

And the Big 12 gets paid on average $333K for ever conference basketball game and nonconference home game. ($50M/150 games). Again, $333K is conservative because the Big 12 sells less than 150 games in exchange for $50M.

Two new members provide the Big 12 with 13 more games inventory in football and 30 more games inventory in basketball.

13 * $2.3M = $29.9M
30 * $333K = $10M

Equals ~$39.9M.

In other words, just on extra inventory alone, the two new teams bring a lot of money to the table. Perhaps they aren't worth $2.3M and 333K per game when playing their new Big 12 foes. But they'll be close.

Realignment is done !!!! Let's play a decade with all the changes.

(06-13-2014 02:38 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 02:17 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so you need 2 teams worth 19 million and a CCG worth 24 million to break even

Assuming your numbers are right . . .

And assuming the Big 12 TV money is 75% football, 25% basketball.

Then the Big 12 gets paid on average $2.3M for every conference football game and nonconference home game. ($150M/65 games). The actual number is higher because the $150M is Tier 1/Tier 2 rights for which less than 65 games are sold.

And the Big 12 gets paid on average $333K for ever conference basketball game and nonconference home game. ($50M/150 games). Again, $333K is conservative because the Big 12 sells less than 150 games in exchange for $50M.

Two new members provide the Big 12 with 13 more games inventory in football and 30 more games inventory in basketball.

13 * $2.3M = $29.9M
30 * $333K = $10M

Equals ~$39.9M.

In other words, just on extra inventory alone, the two new teams bring a lot of money to the table. Perhaps they aren't worth $2.3M and 333K per game when playing their new Big 12 foes. But they'll be close.

1. the Big 12 has tier 1 and tier 2 deals worth 200 million on average annually not 150 million

2. my numbers are right because the recent payout to the Big 12 was announced ans is well known

3. the Big 10 CCG price is well known

4. where your analysis falls apart is the "content" aspect of the equation using ANY dollar amount

A. "content" is not of value of value if no one values it

B. when you have only 24 hours in a day and it takes about 4 hours on average to play a college football game and to mix in a little bit of talking heads talking before and after the game to "set the stage" that means if you played football 24 hours a day you would only be able to show 6 games per day on a single channel

even if you managed to cut it to 3 hours per game for everything or you interrupted games or came into games late that is still only 8 games a day per channel SHOWING GAMES 24 HOURS PER DAY

so if you show college football 24 hours a day for 3 days a week that is 24 games a week you could show

they are not going to show college football 3 days a week 24 hours a day......college football is not going to last with interrupted games and coming into games late

so if you show college football 12 hours a day and it takes 4 hours per game that is 3 games a day per channel you can show

if you do THAT 3 days a week that is 9 games you can show

if you are going to show 54 games a week you would need 6 channels showing games 12 hours per day 3 days a week

at some point and time you realize that the "content" you are so excited to get a hold of is only serving to lessen the number of viewers on the multiple channels that you own and you can't afford to pay the same price for "content" that you are going to show on ESPN The Ocho as you are paying for "content" that you are going to show on ABC or ESPN and all the more so when the games with huge viewership and massive numbers of loyal fans are the games you have already locked up for big huge crackalacking dolla dolla bills and it makes no sense to pay near the same money for "content" that does not have the viewership or value and that will be placed on competing channels that you already own and have enough content for

5. basketball is just along for the ride

(06-13-2014 02:58 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  

Realignment is done !!!! Let's play a decade with all the changes.

Not for the G5. You are just catching your breath.

(06-13-2014 02:17 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 01:37 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:20 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  "I don't think we can find a partner who's available right now to stay at the value we have (per school) or let alone increase what we have. That's the consensus we have (staying at 10)."

It all depends on:

1. If the conference title game is deregulated, and/or
2. If the larger P5 conferences think the Big 12 has an unfair advantage at 10 members (i.e. it's easier to win a 10-team league than a 14-team league)

If the title game is NOT deregulated, and 12 teams are required, then teams 11 & 12 don't have to be worth a full share each because the title game will bring in a lot of revenue.

And the other P5s could force the Big 12 to expand on competitive equity grounds. Pac 12-types have especially been vocal about this.

basic math

the SEC CCG is 25 million payout (I believe)

Big 10 is 145 million for 6 years (just over 24 million per year)

the Big 12 paid out 23 million per team last year and if you average it with WVU and TCU it was 21 or so

so adding TWO teams to get an additional 24 million per year in revenues for a CCG means that you are still 24 million short of what it would take to BREAK EVEN much less not lose money on a CCG

because 22 X 10 = 220 million

220 + 24 / 12 = 20.3 million

then you have 40 million for The Sugar Bowl and 50 million for playoffs

so 220 + 90 / 10 = 31

then 220 + 24 + 90 / 12 = 27.83

so a net LOSS of 3.17 million per team by adding 2 teams and going to a CCG and that does not include NCAA distributions ect if the teams you add are not making the NCAAs in a strong fashion like the Big 12 has lately

so to BREAK EVEN if the Big 12 was to add two teams

12 X 31 = 372.......so you know there is the 90 million in Sugar and Playoffs so 372 - 90 = 282

you know the conference was at about 220 million for TV ect

so 282 - 220 = 62 million

so you need to find a way to get a CCG to pay 62 million or if you get 24 million for a CCG 62-24 = 38 million / 2 = 19 million

so you need 2 teams worth 19 million and a CCG worth 24 million to break even and two teams worth 19 million is basically pretty much what the big 12 teams are worth now without playoff and Sugar money coming in......so it is unlikely there are two teams worth 19 million each or that the Big 12 could find teams worth close to that which bring anything to the table and get more than 24 million for the CCG

You are assuming any new addition would get an equal share immediately. That is probably a false assumption. Given the Big 12 already has a scaled revenue model, lets pretend they add Boise, BYU, Fresno State and SDSU to go to fourteen. Not one of those schools would get a full share for years or possibly ever unless they passed few a number of gates. The gap is getting so big even half a share would be worth it to a Fresno. What's entry into the CA market worth to the Big 12?

My guess is it would be easy to structure a deal with any non-BCS school that would revenue accretive for the existing schools. The gap in revenue is just so big adding a non P-5 school can be done for a relative pittance.