(06-24-2015 04:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  It still would have to be schools acceptable to ESPN and Fox. Would that include G5 schools? Boren does shoot off his mouth a lot, but I doubt he would make that comment if there was no G5 school acceptable to ESPN and Fox.

This.

Otherwise thats saying Tulsa and Rice are viable candidates that would bring the Big 12 as much money as getting FSU and Clemson would.

Im sure the networks will pay, but only if they approve the new members.

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

(06-24-2015 04:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  It still would have to be schools acceptable to ESPN and Fox. Would that include G5 schools? Boren does shoot off his mouth a lot, but I doubt he would make that comment if there was no G5 school acceptable to ESPN and Fox.

This.

Otherwise thats saying Tulsa and Rice are viable candidates that would bring the Big 12 as much money as getting FSU and Clemson would.

Im sure the networks will pay, but only if they approve the new members.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Quote:Group A (Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston and Temple)
Group B (the remaining members)

(06-24-2015 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  It still would have to be schools acceptable to ESPN and Fox. Would that include G5 schools? Boren does shoot off his mouth a lot, but I doubt he would make that comment if there was no G5 school acceptable to ESPN and Fox.

This.

Otherwise thats saying Tulsa and Rice are viable candidates that would bring the Big 12 as much money as getting FSU and Clemson would.

Im sure the networks will pay, but only if they approve the new members.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Quote:Group A (Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston and Temple)
Group B (the remaining members)

Temple?! Are you high?!

You can probably cross Houston off that list too.

Simply no way the 4 Texas schools vote yes for them.

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

I have said the same so many times. People want to believe what they want to believe despite the fact that if it was so cut and dry, the big 12 would already be at 12 and they would have had a championship game this past season.

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

I believe the reasons have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. The value of twelve teams and a championship game is greatwr, since we now see the application of the playoff formula. A big twlve team is squarely in the playoffs and competing for a nati champ, if there is a b12 championship game. In addition confereces are aware of the need of a network. The sec has shown what a revenue boon such a network can be. Lastly, the conference is missing out on chanpionship game revenue. This game may garner the same ratings as a playoff.

(06-24-2015 04:31 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  It still would have to be schools acceptable to ESPN and Fox. Would that include G5 schools? Boren does shoot off his mouth a lot, but I doubt he would make that comment if there was no G5 school acceptable to ESPN and Fox.

This.

Otherwise thats saying Tulsa and Rice are viable candidates that would bring the Big 12 as much money as getting FSU and Clemson would.

Im sure the networks will pay, but only if they approve the new members.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Quote:Group A (Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston and Temple)
Group B (the remaining members)

Temple?! Are you high?!

Not my idea - it was in the contract (well, at least the offer from NBC)

(06-24-2015 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:31 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  It still would have to be schools acceptable to ESPN and Fox. Would that include G5 schools? Boren does shoot off his mouth a lot, but I doubt he would make that comment if there was no G5 school acceptable to ESPN and Fox.

This.

Otherwise thats saying Tulsa and Rice are viable candidates that would bring the Big 12 as much money as getting FSU and Clemson would.

Im sure the networks will pay, but only if they approve the new members.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Quote:Group A (Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston and Temple)
Group B (the remaining members)

Temple?! Are you high?!

Not my idea - it was in the contract (well, at least the offer from NBC)

Well I doubt Temple gets the nod over... well pretty much anyone listed here earlier. Hell Marshall has a better chance and i never see them mentioned anywhere

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

Boren isn't saying they make more money. He's just saying they don't lose money on the TV contract. And they would lose some money as the CFP $ would be split 12 ways instead of 10. Other $ would balance out if they had a good overall program. So the net impact would be about $1 million negative unless they get pro rata extra $ AND extra $ for a ccg.

(06-24-2015 04:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

Boren isn't saying they make more money. He's just saying they don't lose money on the TV contract. And they would lose some money as the CFP $ would be split 12 ways instead of 10. Other $ would balance out if they had a good overall program. So the net impact would be about $1 million negative unless they get pro rata extra $ AND extra $ for a ccg.

OK. So this would be like offering someone a new job at a salary roughly equal to their current salary -- they might take it, but if they do it wouldn't be for the money.

(06-24-2015 04:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

Boren isn't saying they make more money. He's just saying they don't lose money on the TV contract. And they would lose some money as the CFP $ would be split 12 ways instead of 10. Other $ would balance out if they had a good overall program. So the net impact would be about $1 million negative unless they get pro rata extra $ AND extra $ for a ccg.

I think the bigger issue for some Big 12 schools is how the divisions would be split up. But keeping at 9 conferences games lessen any hurdles about playing in Texas.

(06-24-2015 03:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If that was the case, then it would have already happened. It's a nice talking point but, the reality of what they have actually done and NOT done says otherwise in regard to it being an open and shut case.

Big 12 has not had an aggressive Commish, they seem to have yes men in that position. Not a Delaney type.

(06-24-2015 04:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

Boren isn't saying they make more money. He's just saying they don't lose money on the TV contract. And they would lose some money as the CFP $ would be split 12 ways instead of 10. Other $ would balance out if they had a good overall program. So the net impact would be about $1 million negative unless they get pro rata extra $ AND extra $ for a ccg.

OK. So this would be like offering someone a new job at a salary roughly equal to their current salary -- they might take it, but if they do it wouldn't be for the money.

Yes, and they aren't that enthused about the prospects. It would be because they wanted to go to 12, not because they wanted these particular schools (assuming no P5 are available). They didn't want to give up the round robin for just anybody. They needed more.

That attitude won't necessarily change, but if what Boren is saying is correct, it changes the possibilities from snowball in hell to snowball in Dallas.

(06-24-2015 04:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  It still would have to be schools acceptable to ESPN and Fox. Would that include G5 schools? Boren does shoot off his mouth a lot, but I doubt he would make that comment if there was no G5 school acceptable to ESPN and Fox.

I agree, you need to get that cleared with your TV partners.

The big news is that Boren said that the main TV contract would grow 20% if two teams were added.

So the argument that the new teams needed to add $25M each to the pie just to break even is flat wrong. They need to add much less than that given the way the TV contract is apparently structured.

(06-24-2015 03:38 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  BYU - Definitely *if* it weren't for their Mormon rules getting in the way for many sports. I think BYU is in position to compromise. Joseph Smith wants to see BYU-B12 football. Says so on the golden plates.

CINCI - Talk of the town. Going out East in the realm of WV. Not a bad basketball program either.

MEMPHIS - Grown up some in football, although too early to tell. But joining the B12 would keep that train going. A GREAT Basketball addition.

EAST CAROLINA - That's near WV, too. G5 power that's defined itself as a good one. Has that directional Twang as NIU does, but they've made enough of a name for themselves to be taken seriously. Great attendance. They're known.

NIU - A known G5 power but low attendance/following within DeKalb. However, they're expanding their stadium and putting umph behind everything PLUS it's in the east direction with a Chicago-land TV audience that'll eat up advertising if B12 gets a channel or at least a "sub channel" via ESPN or FOX going.

Let me make this easy for you, F L O R I D A, it rolls right off the lips,many it with me FLORIDA. See wasn't that easy?

(06-24-2015 04:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You can probably cross Houston off that list too.

Simply no way the 4 Texas schools vote yes for them.

If the Big 12 raids the American and does NOT take Houston, we will raise holy hell in the Texas legislature.

First, we were left for dead in 1994. Then they weaken our new conference in 2015? Talk about predatory behavior.

The governor is on our side in this issue. He wants Houston in the Big 12.

(06-24-2015 04:39 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:31 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  This.

Otherwise thats saying Tulsa and Rice are viable candidates that would bring the Big 12 as much money as getting FSU and Clemson would.

Im sure the networks will pay, but only if they approve the new members.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Quote:Group A (Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston and Temple)
Group B (the remaining members)

Temple?! Are you high?!

Not my idea - it was in the contract (well, at least the offer from NBC)

Well I doubt Temple gets the nod over... well pretty much anyone listed here earlier. Hell Marshall has a better chance and i never see them mentioned anywhere

That was a timing thing. Those teams do NOT get more money, broadcasts, pub, preferential treatment... from the media partners. There are NOT deemed more valuable by media partners as some have tried to claim. There's a good article that explains that clause which is pretty typical in contracts from what I'm told. I'll try to find it. The atypical part here is that specific teams were named in the membership change clause. It was a result of the instability of the time as teams were not so silently looking for/contemplating opportunities with other conferences. NBC tried to CYA with mixes and matches of the most likely defections. Not trying to disparage those particular schools as they are great and might just be the next in line...just clarifying that those teams do not get extra perks from ESPN the way a Boise does.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-expansion


From the link:

Quote:“Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don’t bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten,” Bowlsby said. “The philosophy clearly is: ‘As members of the Big Ten we can grow them?’”

If the end goal is the Big 12 contract renewal in 10 years, then the Big 12 should give the expansion teams every possible chance to succeed. Time is of the essence.

I don't agree with the BYU "within the next three years" timeframe. To give the expansion teams every opportunity to deliver, it almost has to be next year.