(06-24-2014 09:58 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  On Baylor I got the information from someone who would know and is seperate from the 3mm+ existing deal we had before.

OU is clearly seperate and well reported.

Tech was reported in the 3mm range as it was 5% of their budget that year (64mm) and a couple months later came out with TexasTech.tv, a subscription service for digital rights for both live and on demand broadcast.

I appreciate your input but proving it means some sort of article or something. Even OU's figure is not a breakdown of TV only.

It seems like a selling point such as this(tier 3 tv money), like the Big 12 fans try to use, should be broken down and publicized more easily than it is. It's like trying to find out and uncover money used to fund Al-Queda or something.

It shouldn't be too hard to have a chart 1-9 what each team makes on TV only in their tier 3 deals. Even Kansas's deal has internet stuff in it like this UK deal does. It should NOT be this difficult. Hell UofL has CardsTv like you said Texas Tech has. I have no idea how much it brings in though. I know I pay $9.95 a month for it.

If it is something to brag about, believe me, teams find a way to put it out or their media outlets do. Remember WVU's original $100 million deal before it was nullified?? It was broadcast everywhere by their outlets and Big 12 outlets alike but it included all the other things like the UK deal has in it too.

I appreciate the effort but "I heard from a guy who should know" is not the proof I imagined.

OU's deal, if you read the article, is selling things that are related to TV and weren't covered in the previous agreement. The advertising is related to having those games on TV.

And that WVU deal did include everything. But it was $9 million and signed at the same time NCSU, who didn't have TV rights, did a deal for $4.9 million. Now NCSU is #2 in North Carolina, but its a larger school in a state with 5.5 times the people WV has. One would think they would be of similar value or better for Tier III, which is primarily local. If WVU's TV value was only $1 million, that would mean they were 67% more valuable otherwise than NCSU on the radio shows, etc. That doesn't seem logical.

(06-24-2014 09:58 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  On Baylor I got the information from someone who would know and is seperate from the 3mm+ existing deal we had before.

OU is clearly seperate and well reported.

Tech was reported in the 3mm range as it was 5% of their budget that year (64mm) and a couple months later came out with TexasTech.tv, a subscription service for digital rights for both live and on demand broadcast.

I appreciate your input but proving it means some sort of article or something. Even OU's figure is not a breakdown of TV only.

It seems like a selling point such as this(tier 3 tv money), like the Big 12 fans try to use, should be broken down and publicized more easily than it is. It's like trying to find out and uncover money used to fund Al-Queda or something.

It shouldn't be too hard to have a chart 1-9 what each team makes on TV only in their tier 3 deals. Even Kansas's deal has internet stuff in it like this UK deal does. It should NOT be this difficult. Hell UofL has CardsTv like you said Texas Tech has. I have no idea how much it brings in though. I know I pay $9.95 a month for it.

If it is something to brag about, believe me, teams find a way to put it out or their media outlets do. Remember WVU's original $100 million deal before it was nullified?? It was broadcast everywhere by their outlets and Big 12 outlets alike but it included all the other things like the UK deal has in it too.

I appreciate the effort but "I heard from a guy who should know" is not the proof I imagined.

actually the OU article is very clear

OU had an agreement with Learfield for 7.5 million per year that ended in 2017

if OU and Learfield did nothing that agreement would have stayed right where it is

once OU had TV content to sell Learfield was able to take that and sell it to Fox Regionals for an income of 58 million over 10 years FOR OU and then because that was additional property that was available for Learfield to sell that was outside the scope of the existing 7.5 million dollar deal with OU that ended in 2017 and Learfield was going to get additional profits for having the ability to sell that new content they upped the existing deal with OU by 1-2 million dollars per year

so again it is VERY CLEAR that OU had an agreement with Learfield that they were already making 7.5 million dollars per year off of and that ended in 2017 and because TV content became available OU and Learfield were able to monetize that to both their benefit with the listed dollar amounts of 58 million over 10 years less some production cost for OU directly from Fox and an additional 1-2 million from Learfield on top of the deal they already had

it is laughable that anyone could read that and not understand what transpired or get a grasp on the fact that OU is getting a significant amount of money because they had 3rd tier TV content to sell on top of an EXISTING 7.5 million dollar Learfield deal

(06-24-2014 09:52 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .

so what that says for some of the slower members of the forum is that Fox Regionals will pay OU 5.8 million per year with some of that goings towards production cost and then Learfield will INCREASE an existing 7.5 million dollar deal by 1-2 million annually

so that is between 6.8 and 7.8 million in new revenues related to the sale of that TV content less some production cost for OU

so if OU did not have that content to sell they would be getting ZERO from the Fox Regionals and they would still be getting 7.5 million per year under an existing Learfield deal that would end in 2017

so again that is not down to the last dollar, but it is easily quantifiable and significant revenue for OU related specifically to the availability to sell third tier content and that was OUTSIDE the scope of their current 7.5 million dollar Learfield deal

so OU getting $58 million over 10 years for an average of $5.8 million a year for TV plus ,lets just say, 8.5 million for their normal tier 3 both total $14.3 million. The are the #2 property in the Big 12 and UK just signed a deal for $14 million WITH NO TV, NO LOST CONFERENCE MEMBERS, No SMALL CONFERENCE, ETC....and they are not the #2 property in the SEC??? It's clear to see that most money in multimedia deals don't come from TV. I guess the next thing we will see is "well if UK can get $14 million w/o TV, they should move to the Big 12 and get even more by being able to sell their TV rights".

DO you see where this is going? No matter how you try and spin it, individually, you don't have as much power to market your individual TV rights for 1 weak non-con home football games and 5 terrible non-con basketball games as well as your Olympic sports than everyone pulling together. You have the high end where you point to Texas and Oklahoma but it does nothing for the others. I understand that the league turned down Texas' overtures to start a network years ago but when you lose members like Nebraska, Texas A&M, Mizzou and Colorado, something else is going on besides not wanting to play in Texas' shadow.

(06-24-2014 10:36 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:52 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .

so what that says for some of the slower members of the forum is that Fox Regionals will pay OU 5.8 million per year with some of that goings towards production cost and then Learfield will INCREASE an existing 7.5 million dollar deal by 1-2 million annually

so that is between 6.8 and 7.8 million in new revenues related to the sale of that TV content less some production cost for OU

so if OU did not have that content to sell they would be getting ZERO from the Fox Regionals and they would still be getting 7.5 million per year under an existing Learfield deal that would end in 2017

so again that is not down to the last dollar, but it is easily quantifiable and significant revenue for OU related specifically to the availability to sell third tier content and that was OUTSIDE the scope of their current 7.5 million dollar Learfield deal

so OU getting $58 million over 10 years for an average of $5.8 million a year for TV plus ,lets just say, 8.5 million for their normal tier 3 both total $14.3 million. The are the #2 property in the Big 12 and UK just signed a deal for $14 million WITH NO TV, NO LOST CONFERENCE MEMBERS, No SMALL CONFERENCE, ETC....and they are not the #2 property in the SEC??? It's clear to see that most money in multimedia deals don't come from TV. I guess the next thing we will see is "well if UK can get $14 million w/o TV, they should move to the Big 12 and get even more by being able to sell their TV rights".

DO you see where this is going? No matter how you try and spin it, individually, you don't have as much power to market your individual TV rights for 1 weak non-con home football games and 5 terrible non-con basketball games as well as your Olympic sports than everyone pulling together. You have the high end where you point to Texas and Oklahoma but it does nothing for the others. I understand that the league turned down Texas' overtures to start a network years ago but when you lose members like Nebraska, Texas A&M, Mizzou and Colorado, something else is going on besides not wanting to play in Texas' shadow.

Kentucky along with Arkansas and Florida had the biggest buyouts for the SEC network (that doesn't mean those were the top 3 in value-they may have had longer terms-but it does indicate that UK has significant value). Kansas had the biggest Tier 3 deals in the Big 12 prior to the LHN and still is #3. Basketball clearly matters in Tier 3. The AD's claim that UK has the largest fan base is a stretch, but as far as most loyal, he has an argument.

And UK's deal is new. These deals keep going up. Texas was $9.4 million around 2007. Ohio St. was $11 million a couple of years ago. UK's deal also includes naming rights for their arena, which could be significant.

(06-24-2014 10:36 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:52 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .

so what that says for some of the slower members of the forum is that Fox Regionals will pay OU 5.8 million per year with some of that goings towards production cost and then Learfield will INCREASE an existing 7.5 million dollar deal by 1-2 million annually

so that is between 6.8 and 7.8 million in new revenues related to the sale of that TV content less some production cost for OU

so if OU did not have that content to sell they would be getting ZERO from the Fox Regionals and they would still be getting 7.5 million per year under an existing Learfield deal that would end in 2017

so again that is not down to the last dollar, but it is easily quantifiable and significant revenue for OU related specifically to the availability to sell third tier content and that was OUTSIDE the scope of their current 7.5 million dollar Learfield deal

so OU getting $58 million over 10 years for an average of $5.8 million a year for TV plus ,lets just say, 8.5 million for their normal tier 3 both total $14.3 million. The are the #2 property in the Big 12 and UK just signed a deal for $14 million WITH NO TV, NO LOST CONFERENCE MEMBERS, No SMALL CONFERENCE, ETC....and they are not the #2 property in the SEC??? It's clear to see that most money in multimedia deals don't come from TV. I guess the next thing we will see is "well if UK can get $14 million w/o TV, they should move to the Big 12 and get even more by being able to sell their TV rights".

DO you see where this is going? No matter how you try and spin it, individually, you don't have as much power to market your individual TV rights for 1 weak non-con home football games and 5 terrible non-con basketball games as well as your Olympic sports than everyone pulling together. You have the high end where you point to Texas and Oklahoma but it does nothing for the others. I understand that the league turned down Texas' overtures to start a network years ago but when you lose members like Nebraska, Texas A&M, Mizzou and Colorado, something else is going on besides not wanting to play in Texas' shadow.

yes we see where this is going

we see where someone is trying to take the case of different schools having different values in deals with IMG and Learfield and selling different units of property and confusing that with the fact that it is clear that OU and others in the Big 12 make money for selling third tier content individually

and we see that once someone can't refute that they try and go back to the total dollar amount argument which is not what is being discussed because those third tier deals are all different

what is being discussed is that the Big 12 members make money off of selling just the TV content they have allotted to them and when you compare TV MONEY you can't make a fair comparison without including the TV money that the big 12 schools get for selling their third tier content

and then those same people say "well prove it" and so when you provide an article that is very clear and concise and makes it clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense or reasoning ability that OU sold 3rd tier content for significant dollars those same people want to then go back and start saying well KU gets X for this and so the Big 12 is lying

when again there was never a discussion that some teams get more or less for IMG/Learfield deals that do not include TV content the discussion is about if the big 12 members actually get any quantifiable money for their 3rd tier money and when "ask to prove it" and easily understandable proof is provided it goes back to "but Kentucky gets this without TV content"

but of course that was never a point of contention or discussion the point of contention and discussion one more time for those that are "deef" is does the Big 12 get quantifiable dollars for 3rd tier content and the answer is undeniably yes and the dollar amounts vary and proof has been provided so there is really nothing else left to discuss

again how hard is it to understand really?

OU had a 7.5 million dollar deal with Learfield and it ended in 2017 and then OU got content to sell and it was sold to Fox Regionals for 58 million over 10 years less some production cost plus an additional 1-2 million per year on top of the existing Learfield deal

and yes we all know that Kentucky has a deal, but there is nothing to suggest that if Kentucky had 3rd tier content to sell that they could not get even more than their deal they just signed and their is AMPLE evidence to suggest they would......because UT has, OU has, KU has and members of the PAC 12 were getting money from their TV content and they had to BUY BACK their TV content in order to start a PAC 12 network and even after BUYING BACK that content they still have deals with IMG and Learfield for varying dollar amounts depending on the value of the school and the total property offered in the deal

so once again that is CLEAR proof that 3rd tier media rights have value and that value can be quantified apart form the remainder of a marketing agreement with IMG or Learfield and again yes yes we know Kentucky has a marketing deal with a company......but again there is everything to suggest that if Kentucky had additional TV and Basketball content to sell they could have obtained even more money than they just did and again there has been ample proof provided of that fact

so you are arguing something that is not pertinent and that shows you either do not have a firm grasp of what is being discussed or you are just incapable of understanding it or that you fail to accept reality when it stares you in the face

(06-24-2014 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  And that WVU deal did include everything. But it was $9 million and signed at the same time NCSU, who didn't have TV rights, did a deal for $4.9 million. Now NCSU is #2 in North Carolina, but its a larger school in a state with 5.5 times the people WV has. One would think they would be of similar value or better for Tier III, which is primarily local. If WVU's TV value was only $1 million, that would mean they were 67% more valuable otherwise than NCSU on the radio shows, etc. That doesn't seem logical.

WVU's $110 million deal was nullified so comparisons to NC State or any others is moot. Their new deal is $86 million over 12 years or around $7.2 million a year. Their previous deal paid them about $6 million a year. In their new $86 million dollar deal, Luck said: “Beyond the guaranteed money, we kept a couple of things that I would call lucrative items,” Luck revealed. “We keep the (advertising sponsorship) deal with United Bank and with WVU Health Care. That money comes straight to us.”

Luck estimates that while $86 million over 12 years averages out to just over $7 million a year — WVU was grossing about $6 million a year in Tier 3 revenues before this contract, the additional rights they kept this time that were included in the first deal give the Mountaineers about a $9 to $9.5 million gross per year.
The TV portion is hidden or overstated to push this Big 12 line of justifying the Longhorn Network. WVU is a flagship school, NC State is not. They are not equals.

I wonder why the Big 12 fans are so mislead and misinformed I found a blog from SBNation after WVU signed it's first deal.

Quote:the Big XII boasts the highest per-school revenue stream in college sports. And that's without factoring in Tier III rights for every school (a luxury that the B1G and Pac-12 currently don't enjoy).

http://www.smokingmusket.com/2013/1/24/3...t-virginia
They say that and then provide a link within the article from 2010 that show recently signed multimedia rights deals that include Big 10 and Pac 12 schools http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...Deals.aspx

(06-24-2014 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so you are arguing something that is not pertinent and that shows you either do not have a firm grasp of what is being discussed or you are just incapable of understanding it or that you fail to accept reality when it stares you in the face

There is value in dead flies my friend. Somewhere, someone would buy them.

As much as the ACC is ridiculed in Big 12 circles for giving up all their rights to one entity, you must recognize they have "some" value. The fact that a roadblock to obtaining a conference network would involve BUYING back the tier 3 content from Raycom proves it. Your Pac 12 reference is just you doubling down on something we all know to make it seem like you know what you are talking about.

There is value to those games but in MOST cases outside a few large, prestigious schools,they are no where near as lucrative as they are made out to be. People are in to the "big picture", totals, etc. For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!! That is my point. I'm not denying you make some money on those games but you would have to be really blinded to believe that the content available for that programming would be a windfall INDIVIDUALLY.

Like I said before, if that model is so good and all, finding info on the TV portion of those deals should be easier to obtain. You still have about 7 more schools to go!

(06-24-2014 11:51 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so you are arguing something that is not pertinent and that shows you either do not have a firm grasp of what is being discussed or you are just incapable of understanding it or that you fail to accept reality when it stares you in the face

There is value in dead flies my friend. Somewhere, someone would buy them.

As much as the ACC is ridiculed in Big 12 circles for giving up all their rights to one entity, you must recognize they have "some" value. The fact that a roadblock to obtaining a conference network would involve BUYING back the tier 3 content from Raycom proves it. Your Pac 12 reference is just you doubling down on something we all know to make it seem like you know what you are talking about.

There is value to those games but in MOST cases outside a few large, prestigious schools,they are no where near as lucrative as they are made out to be. People are in to the "big picture", totals, etc. For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!! That is my point. I'm not denying you make some money on those games but you would have to be really blinded to believe that the content available for that programming would be a windfall INDIVIDUALLY.

Like I said before, if that model is so good and all, finding info on the TV portion of those deals should be easier to obtain. You still have about 7 more schools to go!

now I think you are having a disagreement with yourself

yes exactly the fact that Raycom paid money proves that 3rd tier media rights have value.......just as "Big 12 fans" have stated all along

and the fact that the PAC 12 had to BUY BACK those rights proves it as well as was stated repeatedly by "Big 12 fans" (actually just people that believe in dealing in reality but hey if you need to brand then "Big 12 supporters" that is on you)

and you have shown deals from Kentucky that is a national basketball brand and Alabama that is a national football brand to show that "everyone" has deals that are as good as those for the Big 12 schools

since you are so keen on asking for "proof" do you mind showing us what Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, Boston College and VT are getting for their "just like the Big 12 deals"

or is this one of those discussions where once you have failed at showing that the Big 12 does not get quantifiable money for their 3rd tier rights you then go with the "well ignore UT and ignore OU, but let me show you all the deals from the top teams in the ACC while ignoring all the rest of the dead weight in the ACC and pretending that represents the entire ACC" discussions

because if you are going to ignore that Big 12 schools get quantifiable money for their 3rd tier media rights and you are going to try and use SEC SEC SEC teams media rights deals as an example of "everyone" from the point of view of an ACc Acc acc homer and then you are going to dismiss UT and their deal as "UT abusing the conference" and ignore the OU deals and the KU deals that are public and then toss out the top level deals from the ACc Acc acc well then shouldn't you at least be intellectually honest enough to "provide proof" that the lesser teams in the ACc Acc acc have deals "just like those in the Big 12" never mind that their deals are similar to the top deals in the ACc Acc acc so that you can show "conference unity and equality" as well which you seem to feel so strongly about

and again never mind that the discussion has always been that the teams in the Big 12 obtain quantifiable, real and sometimes substantial money from just third tier TV content and that has pretty much been established for anyone that can reason even slightly and now you want to go off on tangents that are really not comparable to that discussion overall and you want to of course skew your position by using the top teams from the (SEC SEC SEC) instead of the ACc Acc acc to start off that discussion and then you want to dismiss UT and now OU as well (and KU apparently as well)

and furthermore never mind that even if all Big 12 schools get nothing at all for their third tier rights they are still ahead of the ACc Acc acc in total conference distributions overall even selling two tiers of TV rights and the ACC selling all 3 and then subletting them to Raycom and others down the line

so again you can go off on any tangent you wish and try and use SEC SEC SEC team numbers and try and dismiss UT and OU and KU and concentrate on the other members of the Big 12, but the other members of the Big 12 still get more conference distributions than the members of the ACc Acc acc no matter the "position of strength" of that member in that conference

it is just that the Big 12 worked a better deal, retained some third tier content while having a better deal and their conference members are content to make more for first and second tier rights while having the freedom to try and monetize some 3rd tier rights individually

that was a choice that Big 12 members made and if the ACc Acc acc members prefer a model where all three tiers are sold for less money overall, there the conference gets less money for their Access Bowl slot and where the conference divides up the playoff and access bowl money between 40% more mouths while screaming "equality" hey that is the model that works for you

but in the Big 12 they are content with more TV and conference money, a bigger access bowl payout and splitting that larger access bowl payout and playoff money between 40% fewer teams while having the freedom to gain extra income from 3rd tier retained TV content......and if that seems "unequal" to some well there are those that accept "unequal, but more than others" more willingly than some accept "equal, but less than others"

it is all about individual decision and comfort levels

Dopeordogfood-

When you say:

Quote:For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!!

You ignore two things.

1- Non-tv tier 3 deals vary depending on the school. So how Kentucky does with this deal (which includes naming rights to facilities that to my knowledge none of the B12 deals do) is not an argument for or against us.

2- Comparisons for tv need to be made against tv. So rather than compare the t3 deals, take the minimum tv value of 2mm (although most are more than that) and tack it on to the league distribution for the Big 12 as the other leagues pay out their t3 tv as part of the league distributions. For some of the largest brands tack on 5-7 million if you want to estimate what they could get if they joined and uses OU as a fair benchmark. This is the simplest way to get a decent estimate on this. Everyone here on either side of the argument is essentially comparing it to part of the tv rights other p5 teams received as league revenue.

(06-24-2014 12:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 11:51 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so you are arguing something that is not pertinent and that shows you either do not have a firm grasp of what is being discussed or you are just incapable of understanding it or that you fail to accept reality when it stares you in the face

There is value in dead flies my friend. Somewhere, someone would buy them.

As much as the ACC is ridiculed in Big 12 circles for giving up all their rights to one entity, you must recognize they have "some" value. The fact that a roadblock to obtaining a conference network would involve BUYING back the tier 3 content from Raycom proves it. Your Pac 12 reference is just you doubling down on something we all know to make it seem like you know what you are talking about.

There is value to those games but in MOST cases outside a few large, prestigious schools,they are no where near as lucrative as they are made out to be. People are in to the "big picture", totals, etc. For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!! That is my point. I'm not denying you make some money on those games but you would have to be really blinded to believe that the content available for that programming would be a windfall INDIVIDUALLY.

Like I said before, if that model is so good and all, finding info on the TV portion of those deals should be easier to obtain. You still have about 7 more schools to go!

since you are so keen on asking for "proof" do you mind showing us what Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, Boston College and VT are getting for their "just like the Big 12 deals"

or is this one of those discussions where once you have failed at showing that the Big 12 does not get quantifiable money for their 3rd tier rights you then go with the "well ignore UT and ignore OU, but let me show you all the deals from the top teams in the ACC while ignoring all the rest of the dead weight in the ACC and pretending that represents the entire ACC" discussions

I think you are confused about something. This discussion ALWAYS comes up when someone outside of the Big 12 has some positive news concerning conference money distribution or media deals. The Big 12 fans tout superiority when it comes to their T3 model. The onus is on them to provide proof across the board how this affiliation benefits everyone who can sell a non-conference snoozer football game, 5 non-con bball games and some Olympic sports, not just their top performers. In order to make it look good, we start seeing IMG, Learfield, etc deal figures mixed in and the next thing you know, we are in a clusterf&^% argument because they can't separately show how much it pays ACROSS THE BOARD for those TV games. If it can't be found or has to be combined, just include everyone else's deals too or just acknowledge they have them too minus the TV. I've been following sports a long time and never have seen fans have pi$$ing matches about how much they get from the conference instead of what their teams accomplish on the field of play.

You have to understand, even though a few here might "get it", Big 12 fans went a couple of years of thinking they were the only ones. As late as January 2013 in the WVU article i shared earlier, the author said

Quote:the Big XII boasts the highest per-school revenue stream in college sports. And that's without factoring in Tier III rights for every school (a luxury that the B1G and Pac-12 currently don't enjoy).

. Excuse us if we relish in disproving that sentiment anytime we can.

I could care less what anyone in the ACC, AAC or the Big East makes except for Louisville. It doesn't help my team bragging about someone else. I would feel bad bragging about something everyone else in my conference gets(like it's share of the conference distribution). I have a wife and 2 kids. That is 4 mouths to feed. If I kick them out or they all leave me, I wouldn't feel right bragging about how much more money I have now since I have less mouths to feed. It was called the Big 12 for a reason, not the Big Ten.

(06-24-2014 12:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 11:51 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so you are arguing something that is not pertinent and that shows you either do not have a firm grasp of what is being discussed or you are just incapable of understanding it or that you fail to accept reality when it stares you in the face

There is value in dead flies my friend. Somewhere, someone would buy them.

As much as the ACC is ridiculed in Big 12 circles for giving up all their rights to one entity, you must recognize they have "some" value. The fact that a roadblock to obtaining a conference network would involve BUYING back the tier 3 content from Raycom proves it. Your Pac 12 reference is just you doubling down on something we all know to make it seem like you know what you are talking about.

There is value to those games but in MOST cases outside a few large, prestigious schools,they are no where near as lucrative as they are made out to be. People are in to the "big picture", totals, etc. For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!! That is my point. I'm not denying you make some money on those games but you would have to be really blinded to believe that the content available for that programming would be a windfall INDIVIDUALLY.

Like I said before, if that model is so good and all, finding info on the TV portion of those deals should be easier to obtain. You still have about 7 more schools to go!

now I think you are having a disagreement with yourself

yes exactly the fact that Raycom paid money proves that 3rd tier media rights have value.......just as "Big 12 fans" have stated all along

and the fact that the PAC 12 had to BUY BACK those rights proves it as well as was stated repeatedly by "Big 12 fans" (actually just people that believe in dealing in reality but hey if you need to brand then "Big 12 supporters" that is on you)

and you have shown deals from Kentucky that is a national basketball brand and Alabama that is a national football brand to show that "everyone" has deals that are as good as those for the Big 12 schools

since you are so keen on asking for "proof" do you mind showing us what Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, Boston College and VT are getting for their "just like the Big 12 deals"

or is this one of those discussions where once you have failed at showing that the Big 12 does not get quantifiable money for their 3rd tier rights you then go with the "well ignore UT and ignore OU, but let me show you all the deals from the top teams in the ACC while ignoring all the rest of the dead weight in the ACC and pretending that represents the entire ACC" discussions

because if you are going to ignore that Big 12 schools get quantifiable money for their 3rd tier media rights and you are going to try and use SEC SEC SEC teams media rights deals as an example of "everyone" from the point of view of an ACc Acc acc homer and then you are going to dismiss UT and their deal as "UT abusing the conference" and ignore the OU deals and the KU deals that are public and then toss out the top level deals from the ACc Acc acc well then shouldn't you at least be intellectually honest enough to "provide proof" that the lesser teams in the ACc Acc acc have deals "just like those in the Big 12" never mind that their deals are similar to the top deals in the ACc Acc acc so that you can show "conference unity and equality" as well which you seem to feel so strongly about

and again never mind that the discussion has always been that the teams in the Big 12 obtain quantifiable, real and sometimes substantial money from just third tier TV content and that has pretty much been established for anyone that can reason even slightly and now you want to go off on tangents that are really not comparable to that discussion overall and you want to of course skew your position by using the top teams from the (SEC SEC SEC) instead of the ACc Acc acc to start off that discussion and then you want to dismiss UT and now OU as well (and KU apparently as well)

and furthermore never mind that even if all Big 12 schools get nothing at all for their third tier rights they are still ahead of the ACc Acc acc in total conference distributions overall even selling two tiers of TV rights and the ACC selling all 3 and then subletting them to Raycom and others down the line

so again you can go off on any tangent you wish and try and use SEC SEC SEC team numbers and try and dismiss UT and OU and KU and concentrate on the other members of the Big 12, but the other members of the Big 12 still get more conference distributions than the members of the ACc Acc acc no matter the "position of strength" of that member in that conference

it is just that the Big 12 worked a better deal, retained some third tier content while having a better deal and their conference members are content to make more for first and second tier rights while having the freedom to try and monetize some 3rd tier rights individually

that was a choice that Big 12 members made and if the ACc Acc acc members prefer a model where all three tiers are sold for less money overall, there the conference gets less money for their Access Bowl slot and where the conference divides up the playoff and access bowl money between 40% more mouths while screaming "equality" hey that is the model that works for you

but in the Big 12 they are content with more TV and conference money, a bigger access bowl payout and splitting that larger access bowl payout and playoff money between 40% fewer teams while having the freedom to gain extra income from 3rd tier retained TV content......and if that seems "unequal" to some well there are those that accept "unequal, but more than others" more willingly than some accept "equal, but less than others"

it is all about individual decision and comfort levels

Why didn't the AAC follow this model? Surely the "group A" teams could have earned more money. I think the AAC and Big 12 have a lot of similarities regarding power teams and third tier content.

(06-24-2014 11:15 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  And that WVU deal did include everything. But it was $9 million and signed at the same time NCSU, who didn't have TV rights, did a deal for $4.9 million. Now NCSU is #2 in North Carolina, but its a larger school in a state with 5.5 times the people WV has. One would think they would be of similar value or better for Tier III, which is primarily local. If WVU's TV value was only $1 million, that would mean they were 67% more valuable otherwise than NCSU on the radio shows, etc. That doesn't seem logical.

WVU's $110 million deal was nullified so comparisons to NC State or any others is moot. Their new deal is $86 million over 12 years or around $7.2 million a year. Their previous deal paid them about $6 million a year. In their new $86 million dollar deal, Luck said: “Beyond the guaranteed money, we kept a couple of things that I would call lucrative items,” Luck revealed. “We keep the (advertising sponsorship) deal with United Bank and with WVU Health Care. That money comes straight to us.”

Luck estimates that while $86 million over 12 years averages out to just over $7 million a year — WVU was grossing about $6 million a year in Tier 3 revenues before this contract, the additional rights they kept this time that were included in the first deal give the Mountaineers about a $9 to $9.5 million gross per year.
The TV portion is hidden or overstated to push this Big 12 line of justifying the Longhorn Network. WVU is a flagship school, NC State is not. They are not equals.

I wonder why the Big 12 fans are so mislead and misinformed I found a blog from SBNation after WVU signed it's first deal.

Quote:the Big XII boasts the highest per-school revenue stream in college sports. And that's without factoring in Tier III rights for every school (a luxury that the B1G and Pac-12 currently don't enjoy).

http://www.smokingmusket.com/2013/1/24/3...t-virginia
They say that and then provide a link within the article from 2010 that show recently signed multimedia rights deals that include Big 10 and Pac 12 schools http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...Deals.aspx

The WVU deal was nullified by a lawsuit by one of the losers who held the previous rights. To satisfy that, they held some parts themselves instead of bidding it out and inviting more lawsuits. They will make more than $9 million when that is included-as demonstrated by what you re-printed but seemed to fail to comprehend. And the previous $9 million was a minimum.

(06-24-2014 01:29 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  I think you are confused about something. This discussion ALWAYS comes up when someone outside of the Big 12 has some positive news concerning conference money distribution or media deals. The Big 12 fans tout superiority when it comes to their T3 model. The onus is on them to provide proof across the board how this affiliation benefits everyone who can sell a non-conference snoozer football game, 5 non-con bball games and some Olympic sports, not just their top performers. In order to make it look good, we start seeing IMG, Learfield, etc deal figures mixed in and the next thing you know, we are in a clusterf&^% argument because they can't separately show how much it pays ACROSS THE BOARD for those TV games. If it can't be found or has to be combined, just include everyone else's deals too or just acknowledge they have them too minus the TV. I've been following sports a long time and never have seen fans have pi$$ing matches about how much they get from the conference instead of what their teams accomplish on the field of play.

You have to understand, even though a few here might "get it", Big 12 fans went a couple of years of thinking they were the only ones. As late as January 2013 in the WVU article i shared earlier, the author said

Quote:the Big XII boasts the highest per-school revenue stream in college sports. And that's without factoring in Tier III rights for every school (a luxury that the B1G and Pac-12 currently don't enjoy).

. Excuse us if we relish in disproving that sentiment anytime we can.

I could care less what anyone in the ACC, AAC or the Big East makes except for Louisville. It doesn't help my team bragging about someone else. I would feel bad bragging about something everyone else in my conference gets(like it's share of the conference distribution). I have a wife and 2 kids. That is 4 mouths to feed. If I kick them out or they all leave me, I wouldn't feel right bragging about how much more money I have now since I have less mouths to feed. It was called the Big 12 for a reason, not the Big Ten.

you are right the discussion does come up

here is how it started in this thread from page 1

(06-23-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  good summary. id also like to mention that schools make almost as much money in this category (T3) as the other two tiers combined. it is also important to note that just because a school doesn't have a mega contract with IMG or a company like IMG does not mean that they are not making huge $$$ on this stuff. michigan for example managed these revenue streams entirely in house prior to 2008.

every school retains these rights including the P5. the concept that these rights/mega T3 deals are exclusive to the b12 is a fabrication by b12/wvu/fsu fans trying to prop up that conference.

so no one that is a fan of the Big 12 initiated the discussion until one that is a fan of a different conference chimed in and made the false claim that Big 12 schools say that deals with IMG and Learfield are exclusive to the Big 12

when that is not what I have claimed and no one in this thread claimed

what I have always claimed and what others claim is that the Big 12 gets appreciable value for that 3rd tier content outside of or as a part of deals with Learfield or IMG and in the case of UT, KU, OU and others it is very easy to see the general value of that 3rd tier content

so once again no one that is a fan of the Big 12 entered this into the discussion until there was a need to point out an obvious lie and obfuscation of the truth

so trying to blame others for "jumping in" when they were simply correcting misconceptions stated by a fan of teams not in the Big 12 is a fallacy particularly in this thread

(06-24-2014 12:26 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Dopeordogfood-

When you say:

Quote:For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!!

You ignore two things.

2- Comparisons for tv need to be made against tv. So rather than compare the t3 deals, take the minimum tv value of 2mm (although most are more than that) and tack it on to the league distribution for the Big 12 as the other leagues pay out their t3 tv as part of the league distributions. For some of the largest brands tack on 5-7 million if you want to estimate what they could get if they joined and uses OU as a fair benchmark. This is the simplest way to get a decent estimate on this. Everyone here on either side of the argument is essentially comparing it to part of the tv rights other p5 teams received as league revenue.

So basically it comes down to bragging? The need to be 1st? After reading that article about why the Big 12 can't expand, it's seems everything about the Big 12 is being propped up and overpaid from the TV deal, the Longhorn Network and if anyone is paying TCU, Baylor, WVU, KSU, Tech, ISU and Ok ST anything close to or over $3 million a year for the content we speak of, they are crazy.

(06-24-2014 01:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Why didn't the AAC follow this model? Surely the "group A" teams could have earned more money. I think the AAC and Big 12 have a lot of similarities regarding power teams and third tier content.

ask the power brokers in the ACC and their media partners this question

I would imagine it is because the ACC had all tiers of their deal coming up at one time and those bidding on it said all or nothing while the Big 12 had an existing ESPN tier 1 deal and a Fox deal expiring and they were able to play that off between the two of them

(06-24-2014 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  The WVU deal was nullified by a lawsuit by one of the losers who held the previous rights. To satisfy that, they held some parts themselves instead of bidding it out and inviting more lawsuits. They will make more than $9 million when that is included-as demonstrated by what you re-printed but seemed to fail to comprehend. And the previous $9 million was a minimum.

You fail to realize TV isn't even a blip on the radar of that cluster%$# of a negotiation that took place that the Attorney General had to intervene. The portion they held back was pocketing advertisement from a bank and hospital. Your point you tried to make was about the increase WVU had vs NC State that was done at the same time.

(06-24-2014 01:43 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 12:26 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Dopeordogfood-

When you say:

Quote:For all that it took to get the Big 12 fans to the point into worrying about individual Tier 3 rights(Longhorn Network, defections of key members etc), the big picture is those "precious" Tier 3 TV properties ADDED to and combined with your regular multimedia rights deal are still in the neighborhood as everyone else's deals WITHOUT TV!!

You ignore two things.

2- Comparisons for tv need to be made against tv. So rather than compare the t3 deals, take the minimum tv value of 2mm (although most are more than that) and tack it on to the league distribution for the Big 12 as the other leagues pay out their t3 tv as part of the league distributions. For some of the largest brands tack on 5-7 million if you want to estimate what they could get if they joined and uses OU as a fair benchmark. This is the simplest way to get a decent estimate on this. Everyone here on either side of the argument is essentially comparing it to part of the tv rights other p5 teams received as league revenue.

So basically it comes down to bragging? The need to be 1st? After reading that article about why the Big 12 can't expand, it's seems everything about the Big 12 is being propped up and overpaid from the TV deal, the Longhorn Network and if anyone is paying TCU, Baylor, WVU, KSU, Tech, ISU and Ok ST anything close to or over $3 million a year for the content we speak of, they are crazy.

Neither I nor the majority of B12 posters here claim that the Big 12 is going to be the richest league when the B1G and SEC get bumped up in the future. However there ARE a lot of people omitting the value of the t3 tv rights and using that to imply that the B12 is weaker than it really is.

How much teams make from their league arrangement is relevant to realignment discussions so this relevant to the discussion on this board. Money or the current lack of it has been a huge factor in realignment and will confine to be. Getting a true apples to apples snapshot of how each league handles tv rights is in the center of the discussion.

Also the article you reference has its own issues to say the least and relies on assumptions that simply aren't accurate per public reporting on at least a couple of foundational issues of their argument.

(06-24-2014 01:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so once again no one that is a fan of the Big 12 entered this into the discussion until there was a need to point out an obvious lie and obfuscation of the truth

so trying to blame others for "jumping in" when they were simply correcting misconceptions stated by a fan of teams not in the Big 12 is a fallacy particularly in this thread

I think many are still haunted and scarred from the barrage of message board invitations sent around the various message boards of schools like FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc for almost 2 years inviting them to the land of milk and honey in the Big 12 because of tier 3 opportunities. You are just going to have to excuse people for seeing delight that schools without Big 12 affiliation getting multimedia deals equal to or greater than Big 12 deals that include tv. It's some sort of repressed aggression. LOL

Quote:Neither I nor the majority of B12 posters here claim that the Big 12 is going to be the richest league when the B1G and SEC get bumped up in the future. However there ARE a lot of people omitting the value of the t3 tv rights and using that to imply that the B12 is weaker than it really is.

No one is saying the Big 12 is "weaker". We just think, in the grand scheme of the things, the tier 3 TV portion is overstated and not as significant for teams not named Texas and Oklahoma.

Quote:How much teams make from their league arrangement is relevant to realignment discussions so this relevant to the discussion on this board. Money or the current lack of it has been a huge factor in realignment and will confine to be. Getting a true apples to apples snapshot of how each league handles tv rights is in the center of the discussion.

I really think only one team moved for money and that is Maryland. It wasn't about the money with others and Maryland wasn't the Big Ten's first choice.




.

(06-24-2014 02:00 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so once again no one that is a fan of the Big 12 entered this into the discussion until there was a need to point out an obvious lie and obfuscation of the truth

so trying to blame others for "jumping in" when they were simply correcting misconceptions stated by a fan of teams not in the Big 12 is a fallacy particularly in this thread

I think many are still haunted and scarred from the barrage of message board invitations sent around the various message boards of schools like FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc for almost 2 years inviting them to the land of milk and honey in the Big 12 because of tier 3 opportunities. You are just going to have to excuse people for seeing delight that schools without Big 12 affiliation getting multimedia deals equal to or greater than Big 12 deals that include tv. It's some sort of repressed aggression. LOL

the best part about it is now not only are SEC SEC SEC teams and their fans running around shouting SEC SEC SEC, but now that Alabama and Kentucky that are in the SEC SEC (2 out of 14 schools by the way) have gotten big media deals we can have the fans of the ACc Acc acc running around screaming SEC SEC SEC as well!!!

nothing makes a conference look better than touting the accomplishments of teams in other conferences (that eyed members of the ACc Acc acc and still might be) and or touting the accomplishments of teams in your conference that happened before they were a member