(01-14-2016 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 08:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Ah but ESPN has the SECN. Oklahoma multiplies more content in the SEC than the Big 10 and would help swell the value of T2 & T3. T1 is just one game a week. T2 & T3 are another 4 - 6 games.

And remember this H1, Texas doesn't want to move. OU does. If ESPN wants to keep all three and secure the ACC then inspiring the SEC to take the Cowboys with the Sooners sets up a move of 3 schools to finish realignment in their two conferences. FOX owns 51% of the BTN. If the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC then Texas has to either move with them, or to the ACC to keep the RRR truly viable. OU won't give up Bedlam. The Big 10 won't take OSU. N.D. just might throw in with Texas in the ACC. Three schools and two conferences of 16. I could see ESPN quietly forcing this issue for those ends as easily as you could see it for the T1 rights of the Big 10. It's just they stand to make more off of the two conferences the own the largest % in.

I might add that a little high drama might make Chapel Hill warm up to the concept a bit too! We'll see if indeed ESPN is behind it.

I may be dense (quite likely) but how would ESPN force ND (with an NBC contract) to fully join the ACC??

Texas and N.D. are given a timeline for independent association with the ACC which ends with the N.D.'s contract with N.B.C. If indeed the football world has consolidated into 4 conferences at that time then both are made an offer that significantly boosts their, and the ACC's value, for full inclusion.

Why not just renew the NBC contract? ND stays and Texas goes independent in football and finds (or makes) a spot for their other sports?

I don't see a system that would exclude ND and Texas (two of the biggest money programs) from the playoffs. Maybe it happens, but I am not convinced, even with a P4.

Texas has built its value on regional rivalries. They are not leaving a Texas centered league and going to the ACC that is tobacco road run and basketball centered. If they think recruiting has been affected by A&M going to the SEC wait and see what an ACC football schedule would do to them. The only way they would do it is with several regional travel partners. Also, the Big 12 will be stronger revenue wise at least until the current GOR's is up.

The LOWER REVENUE Big 12 schools can probably earn 7.5M more in tv revenue that the ACC and I arrive at that by: $2M more tier 1 + avg. of 3M tier 3 + on average 2.5M more playoff money per team(last year when the ACC had the Orange Bowl they were only about 300K per team higher than the Big 12 and this year with the Big 12 having the Sugar bowl they will average 9.6M per team compared to the ACC 4.3M to average about 2.5M per year). Now the Big 12 can also add the CCG which would be another 2-2.5M per team, now I don't know if the ACC sold that in the tv tier 1 rights or not so I didn't include that but if it is its closer to 9.5M to 10M per team using the schools that have the lower tier 3 revenues or basically omitting Texas, OU & KU.

But your response doesn't address the issue of why ND would join the ACC for football.

(01-14-2016 04:31 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 08:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I may be dense (quite likely) but how would ESPN force ND (with an NBC contract) to fully join the ACC??

Texas and N.D. are given a timeline for independent association with the ACC which ends with the N.D.'s contract with N.B.C. If indeed the football world has consolidated into 4 conferences at that time then both are made an offer that significantly boosts their, and the ACC's value, for full inclusion.

Why not just renew the NBC contract? ND stays and Texas goes independent in football and finds (or makes) a spot for their other sports?

I don't see a system that would exclude ND and Texas (two of the biggest money programs) from the playoffs. Maybe it happens, but I am not convinced, even with a P4.

Texas has built its value on regional rivalries. They are not leaving a Texas centered league and going to the ACC that is tobacco road run and basketball centered. If they think recruiting has been affected by A&M going to the SEC wait and see what an ACC football schedule would do to them. The only way they would do it is with several regional travel partners. Also, the Big 12 will be stronger revenue wise at least until the current GOR's is up.

The LOWER REVENUE Big 12 schools can probably earn 7.5M more in tv revenue that the ACC and I arrive at that by: $2M more tier 1 + avg. of 3M tier 3 + on average 2.5M more playoff money per team(last year when the ACC had the Orange Bowl they were only about 300K per team higher than the Big 12 and this year with the Big 12 having the Sugar bowl they will average 9.6M per team compared to the ACC 4.3M to average about 2.5M per year). Now the Big 12 can also add the CCG which would be another 2-2.5M per team, now I don't know if the ACC sold that in the tv tier 1 rights or not so I didn't include that but if it is its closer to 9.5M to 10M per team using the schools that have the lower tier 3 revenues or basically omitting Texas, OU & KU.

But your response doesn't address the issue of why ND would join the ACC for football.

Terry, I feel like we've gone over this s million times. ND would join the ACC to access it's full member perks, which include incentives like inclusion on my Christmas card mailing list. Not only is a position on that list an exclusive status symbol, but you also get a great Christmas card out of it. I have one planned with Jom Delaney pulling his hair out. I'm going to photoshop a cute Santa hat on him and an adorable rudolf nose. Think about THAT!

(01-14-2016 02:59 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 01:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Texas has built its value on regional rivalries. They are not leaving a Texas centered league and going to the ACC that is tobacco road run and basketball centered. If they think recruiting has been affected by A&M going to the SEC wait and see what an ACC football schedule would do to them. The only way they would do it is with several regional travel partners. Also, the Big 12 will be stronger revenue wise at least until the current GOR's is up.

The LOWER REVENUE Big 12 schools can probably earn 7.5M more in tv revenue that the ACC and I arrive at that by: $2M more tier 1 + avg. of 3M tier 3 + on average 2.5M more playoff money per team(last year when the ACC had the Orange Bowl they were only about 300K per team higher than the Big 12 and this year with the Big 12 having the Sugar bowl they will average 9.6M per team compared to the ACC 4.3M to average about 2.5M per year). Now the Big 12 can also add the CCG which would be another 2-2.5M per team, now I don't know if the ACC sold that in the tv tier 1 rights or not so I didn't include that but if it is its closer to 9.5M to 10M per team using the schools that have the lower tier 3 revenues or basically omitting Texas, OU & KU.

Agreed. Texas has a sweet deal with the B12 and they are not going to leave it unless the B12 all of a sudden isn't as sweet. And as long as the B12 has Texas, OU, and KU it will remain a sweet deal.

But will OU remain? Boren's comments over the past couple of months are what is fueling the new discussion. Especially his remarks after getting one of the three things he says he wants, a conference championship game.

Cheers,
Neil

If a P4 happens then I believe a new conference built around Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & ND is a very real possibility.

As for Big 12 payouts being far superior to the ACC, I don't buy it. The Big 12, ACC & PAC are fairly close on average but yes, the ACC makes a little less. All three are well behind the SEC & B1G.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/the-5-m...?a=viewall

Lenville,
I don't know what you consider a lot but article you posted for 2014-2015 revenues proves my point. They have a 3.1M advantage for the Big 12.

This doesn't include:
1.) tier 3 money at 2M per team for the LOWER REVENUE schools its an average but a reasonable one.
2.)additional playoff money at 2.5M- In 2014 the ACC had the OB as a host at 27M and the Big 12 was missing the Sugar Bowl as host at 40M and the acc still only netted 7M per team and the Big 12 7.2M per team. This year subtract 27M from the ACC bowl revenue and add back in $4M for FSU in Peach and you have 75M/14= 5.4, the Big 12 adds to the 72M the 40M for hosting the Sugar & 6 for CFP participant gives 118M and then subtract the 2 N.Y day bowls last year for 8M total and the Big 12 should have 110M/10= 11M. If you average those years you get close to the 2.5M I estimated.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...e-payouts/
3.) 2M if the Big 12 adds CCG( CCG estimates to be worth 20-25M)

If you add the 3.1 to the additional 6.5M I outline above which the ACC cant do you get 9.6M on average for the lower Big 12 revenue schools not including Texas, OU, KS which are well above that amount and why I am not buying they would ever go to the ACC. I'm not saying thats earth shattering, but is it significant?

(01-14-2016 04:53 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:59 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 01:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Texas has built its value on regional rivalries. They are not leaving a Texas centered league and going to the ACC that is tobacco road run and basketball centered. If they think recruiting has been affected by A&M going to the SEC wait and see what an ACC football schedule would do to them. The only way they would do it is with several regional travel partners. Also, the Big 12 will be stronger revenue wise at least until the current GOR's is up.

The LOWER REVENUE Big 12 schools can probably earn 7.5M more in tv revenue that the ACC and I arrive at that by: $2M more tier 1 + avg. of 3M tier 3 + on average 2.5M more playoff money per team(last year when the ACC had the Orange Bowl they were only about 300K per team higher than the Big 12 and this year with the Big 12 having the Sugar bowl they will average 9.6M per team compared to the ACC 4.3M to average about 2.5M per year). Now the Big 12 can also add the CCG which would be another 2-2.5M per team, now I don't know if the ACC sold that in the tv tier 1 rights or not so I didn't include that but if it is its closer to 9.5M to 10M per team using the schools that have the lower tier 3 revenues or basically omitting Texas, OU & KU.

Agreed. Texas has a sweet deal with the B12 and they are not going to leave it unless the B12 all of a sudden isn't as sweet. And as long as the B12 has Texas, OU, and KU it will remain a sweet deal.

But will OU remain? Boren's comments over the past couple of months are what is fueling the new discussion. Especially his remarks after getting one of the three things he says he wants, a conference championship game.

Cheers,
Neil

If a P4 happens then I believe a new conference built around Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & ND is a very real possibility.

As for Big 12 payouts being far superior to the ACC, I don't buy it. The Big 12, ACC & PAC are fairly close on average but yes, the ACC makes a little less. All three are well behind the SEC & B1G.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/the-5-m...?a=viewall

Lenville,
I don't know what you consider a lot but article you posted for 2014-2015 revenues proves my point. They have a 3.1M advantage for the Big 12.

This doesn't include:
1.) tier 3 money at 2M per team for the LOWER REVENUE schools its an average but a reasonable one.
2.)additional playoff money at 2.5M- In 2014 the ACC had the OB as a host at 27M and the Big 12 was missing the Sugar Bowl as host at 40M and the acc still only netted 7M per team and the Big 12 7.2M per team. This year subtract 27M from the ACC bowl revenue and add back in $4M for FSU in Peach and you have 75M/14= 5.4, the Big 12 adds to the 72M the 40M for hosting the Sugar & 6 for CFP participant gives 118M and then subtract the 2 N.Y day bowls last year for 8M total and the Big 12 should have 110M/10= 11M. If you average those years you get close to the 2.5M I estimated.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...e-payouts/
3.) 2M if the Big 12 adds CCG( CCG estimates to be worth 20-25M)

If you add the 3.1 to the additional 6.5M I outline above which the ACC cant do you get 9.6M on average for the lower Big 12 revenue schools not including Texas, OU, KS which are well above that amount and why I am not buying they would ever go to the ACC. I'm not saying thats earth shattering, but is it significant?

I said on average. Your 9.6 seems fairly reasonable. I was referring to the 15-20 that some Big 12 fans like to state. It will be higher some years & much lower others. What are you including on tier 3? Radio, multimedia, etc? ACC schools still make nice pocket change on that.

The difference isn't enough to lure any ACC schools to the B12. The more members that the B12 has the smaller the difference becomes. B12 money still doesn't close the gap between FSU & the SEC enough to warrant the move. I don't believe that anyone has said that the ACC could lure Oklahoma, Kansas, etc away from the B12. Texas would only be a possibility because of the LHN. It finally made a $2 million profit, it would need to match that for the next 14 years to break even. IF ESPN decided to salvage it by rolling it into an ACCN while guaranteeing Texas the same amount, I could see them coming under the right circumstances. The B12 would have to be facing dissolution.

Here are some more ACC numbers.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...0-million/

"Louisville did not get a cut of the ACC pie just yet, and Notre Dame was cut just under $5 million as a partial conference member.

For the sake of comparisons, here is how the conference revenue share numbers stack up so far for the most recent year (Big Ten data is pending);

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)

4. $252 million – Big 12"

(01-14-2016 06:07 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:53 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:59 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 01:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Texas has built its value on regional rivalries. They are not leaving a Texas centered league and going to the ACC that is tobacco road run and basketball centered. If they think recruiting has been affected by A&M going to the SEC wait and see what an ACC football schedule would do to them. The only way they would do it is with several regional travel partners. Also, the Big 12 will be stronger revenue wise at least until the current GOR's is up.

The LOWER REVENUE Big 12 schools can probably earn 7.5M more in tv revenue that the ACC and I arrive at that by: $2M more tier 1 + avg. of 3M tier 3 + on average 2.5M more playoff money per team(last year when the ACC had the Orange Bowl they were only about 300K per team higher than the Big 12 and this year with the Big 12 having the Sugar bowl they will average 9.6M per team compared to the ACC 4.3M to average about 2.5M per year). Now the Big 12 can also add the CCG which would be another 2-2.5M per team, now I don't know if the ACC sold that in the tv tier 1 rights or not so I didn't include that but if it is its closer to 9.5M to 10M per team using the schools that have the lower tier 3 revenues or basically omitting Texas, OU & KU.

Agreed. Texas has a sweet deal with the B12 and they are not going to leave it unless the B12 all of a sudden isn't as sweet. And as long as the B12 has Texas, OU, and KU it will remain a sweet deal.

But will OU remain? Boren's comments over the past couple of months are what is fueling the new discussion. Especially his remarks after getting one of the three things he says he wants, a conference championship game.

Cheers,
Neil

If a P4 happens then I believe a new conference built around Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & ND is a very real possibility.

As for Big 12 payouts being far superior to the ACC, I don't buy it. The Big 12, ACC & PAC are fairly close on average but yes, the ACC makes a little less. All three are well behind the SEC & B1G.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/the-5-m...?a=viewall

Lenville,
I don't know what you consider a lot but article you posted for 2014-2015 revenues proves my point. They have a 3.1M advantage for the Big 12.

This doesn't include:
1.) tier 3 money at 2M per team for the LOWER REVENUE schools its an average but a reasonable one.
2.)additional playoff money at 2.5M- In 2014 the ACC had the OB as a host at 27M and the Big 12 was missing the Sugar Bowl as host at 40M and the acc still only netted 7M per team and the Big 12 7.2M per team. This year subtract 27M from the ACC bowl revenue and add back in $4M for FSU in Peach and you have 75M/14= 5.4, the Big 12 adds to the 72M the 40M for hosting the Sugar & 6 for CFP participant gives 118M and then subtract the 2 N.Y day bowls last year for 8M total and the Big 12 should have 110M/10= 11M. If you average those years you get close to the 2.5M I estimated.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...e-payouts/
3.) 2M if the Big 12 adds CCG( CCG estimates to be worth 20-25M)

If you add the 3.1 to the additional 6.5M I outline above which the ACC cant do you get 9.6M on average for the lower Big 12 revenue schools not including Texas, OU, KS which are well above that amount and why I am not buying they would ever go to the ACC. I'm not saying thats earth shattering, but is it significant?

I said on average. Your 9.6 seems fairly reasonable. I was referring to the 15-20 that some Big 12 fans like to state. It will be higher some years & much lower others. What are you including on tier 3? Radio, multimedia, etc? ACC schools still make nice pocket change on that.

The difference isn't enough to lure any ACC schools to the B12. The more members that the B12 has the smaller the difference becomes. B12 money still doesn't close the gap between FSU & the SEC enough to warrant the move. I don't believe that anyone has said that the ACC could lure Oklahoma, Kansas, etc away from the B12. Texas would only be a possibility because of the LHN. It finally made a $2 million profit, it would need to match that for the next 14 years to break even. IF ESPN decided to salvage it by rolling it into an ACCN while guaranteeing Texas the same amount, I could see them coming under the right circumstances. The B12 would have to be facing dissolution.

Here are some more ACC numbers.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...0-million/

"Louisville did not get a cut of the ACC pie just yet, and Notre Dame was cut just under $5 million as a partial conference member.

For the sake of comparisons, here is how the conference revenue share numbers stack up so far for the most recent year (Big Ten data is pending);

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)

4. $252 million – Big 12"

Lenville, Sorry if its hard to read. I put in tier 3 money at $2M and I realize some of the tier 3 deals were blending radio, advertising, etc with the tv and inflating the numbers that some Big 12 schools thought they were getting. I read an article somewhere that said all of the Big 12 schools cleared at least $2M on the tier 3 so I used that. Of course Texas is way over with the LHN and OU & KS are probably around 6M apiece as well instead of 2M. So if all the other numers are right OU & KS are probably about 15M more and Texas 25M more if the LHN was an avg of 15M.

I understand that will not at this present time get the FSU/Clemson/Va. Tech or Ga. Tech/Louisville/Miami contingent to leave probably unless he B1G & SEC strike first, we should get an idea if anyone wants to look with the B1G tv deal being negotiated and probably finalized this spring or summer. If the B1G can get the $45M they want from everything and the ACC schools $25M for everything would Virginia & Ga. Tech look at it? Who knows. Although, I do believe FSU, possibly Clemson and probably Louisville (because they value their bball like Kansas) could get the extra 15M OU & KS get over ACC revenue numbers due to the tier 3 money they could get.

I will also go on record stating I think individual school networks are a much less preferred model compared to conference networks but that is kind of what the Big 12 needed to do.

(01-14-2016 06:28 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 06:07 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:53 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:59 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 01:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Agreed. Texas has a sweet deal with the B12 and they are not going to leave it unless the B12 all of a sudden isn't as sweet. And as long as the B12 has Texas, OU, and KU it will remain a sweet deal.

But will OU remain? Boren's comments over the past couple of months are what is fueling the new discussion. Especially his remarks after getting one of the three things he says he wants, a conference championship game.

Cheers,
Neil

If a P4 happens then I believe a new conference built around Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & ND is a very real possibility.

As for Big 12 payouts being far superior to the ACC, I don't buy it. The Big 12, ACC & PAC are fairly close on average but yes, the ACC makes a little less. All three are well behind the SEC & B1G.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/the-5-m...?a=viewall

Lenville,
I don't know what you consider a lot but article you posted for 2014-2015 revenues proves my point. They have a 3.1M advantage for the Big 12.

This doesn't include:
1.) tier 3 money at 2M per team for the LOWER REVENUE schools its an average but a reasonable one.
2.)additional playoff money at 2.5M- In 2014 the ACC had the OB as a host at 27M and the Big 12 was missing the Sugar Bowl as host at 40M and the acc still only netted 7M per team and the Big 12 7.2M per team. This year subtract 27M from the ACC bowl revenue and add back in $4M for FSU in Peach and you have 75M/14= 5.4, the Big 12 adds to the 72M the 40M for hosting the Sugar & 6 for CFP participant gives 118M and then subtract the 2 N.Y day bowls last year for 8M total and the Big 12 should have 110M/10= 11M. If you average those years you get close to the 2.5M I estimated.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...e-payouts/
3.) 2M if the Big 12 adds CCG( CCG estimates to be worth 20-25M)

If you add the 3.1 to the additional 6.5M I outline above which the ACC cant do you get 9.6M on average for the lower Big 12 revenue schools not including Texas, OU, KS which are well above that amount and why I am not buying they would ever go to the ACC. I'm not saying thats earth shattering, but is it significant?

I said on average. Your 9.6 seems fairly reasonable. I was referring to the 15-20 that some Big 12 fans like to state. It will be higher some years & much lower others. What are you including on tier 3? Radio, multimedia, etc? ACC schools still make nice pocket change on that.

The difference isn't enough to lure any ACC schools to the B12. The more members that the B12 has the smaller the difference becomes. B12 money still doesn't close the gap between FSU & the SEC enough to warrant the move. I don't believe that anyone has said that the ACC could lure Oklahoma, Kansas, etc away from the B12. Texas would only be a possibility because of the LHN. It finally made a $2 million profit, it would need to match that for the next 14 years to break even. IF ESPN decided to salvage it by rolling it into an ACCN while guaranteeing Texas the same amount, I could see them coming under the right circumstances. The B12 would have to be facing dissolution.

Here are some more ACC numbers.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...0-million/

"Louisville did not get a cut of the ACC pie just yet, and Notre Dame was cut just under $5 million as a partial conference member.

For the sake of comparisons, here is how the conference revenue share numbers stack up so far for the most recent year (Big Ten data is pending);

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)

4. $252 million – Big 12"

Lenville, Sorry if its hard to read. I put in tier 3 money at $2M and I realize some of the tier 3 deals were blending radio, advertising, etc with the tv and inflating the numbers that some Big 12 schools thought they were getting. I read an article somewhere that said all of the Big 12 schools cleared at least $2M on the tier 3 so I used that. Of course Texas is way over with the LHN and OU & KS are probably around 6M apiece as well instead of 2M. So if all the other numers are right OU & KS are probably about 15M more and Texas 25M more if the LHN was an avg of 15M.

I understand that will not at this present time get the FSU/Clemson/Va. Tech or Ga. Tech/Louisville/Miami contingent to leave probably unless he B1G & SEC strike first, we should get an idea if anyone wants to look with the B1G tv deal being negotiated and probably finalized this spring or summer. If the B1G can get the $45M they want from everything and the ACC schools $25M for everything would Virginia & Ga. Tech look at it? Who knows. Although, I do believe FSU, possibly Clemson and probably Louisville (because they value their bball like Kansas) could get the extra 15M OU & KS get over ACC revenue numbers due to the tier 3 money they could get.

I will also go on record stating I think individual school networks are a much less preferred model compared to conference networks but that is kind of what the Big 12 needed to do.

The B1G contract negotiations will be interesting for sure. IF something is going to happen before the GOR's expires it should happen relatively soon.

(01-14-2016 04:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:31 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas and N.D. are given a timeline for independent association with the ACC which ends with the N.D.'s contract with N.B.C. If indeed the football world has consolidated into 4 conferences at that time then both are made an offer that significantly boosts their, and the ACC's value, for full inclusion.

Why not just renew the NBC contract? ND stays and Texas goes independent in football and finds (or makes) a spot for their other sports?

I don't see a system that would exclude ND and Texas (two of the biggest money programs) from the playoffs. Maybe it happens, but I am not convinced, even with a P4.

Texas has built its value on regional rivalries. They are not leaving a Texas centered league and going to the ACC that is tobacco road run and basketball centered. If they think recruiting has been affected by A&M going to the SEC wait and see what an ACC football schedule would do to them. The only way they would do it is with several regional travel partners. Also, the Big 12 will be stronger revenue wise at least until the current GOR's is up.

The LOWER REVENUE Big 12 schools can probably earn 7.5M more in tv revenue that the ACC and I arrive at that by: $2M more tier 1 + avg. of 3M tier 3 + on average 2.5M more playoff money per team(last year when the ACC had the Orange Bowl they were only about 300K per team higher than the Big 12 and this year with the Big 12 having the Sugar bowl they will average 9.6M per team compared to the ACC 4.3M to average about 2.5M per year). Now the Big 12 can also add the CCG which would be another 2-2.5M per team, now I don't know if the ACC sold that in the tv tier 1 rights or not so I didn't include that but if it is its closer to 9.5M to 10M per team using the schools that have the lower tier 3 revenues or basically omitting Texas, OU & KU.

But your response doesn't address the issue of why ND would join the ACC for football.

Terry, I feel like we've gone over this s million times. ND would join the ACC to access it's full member perks, which include incentives like inclusion on my Christmas card mailing list. Not only is a position on that list an exclusive status symbol, but you also get a great Christmas card out of it. I have one planned with Jom Delaney pulling his hair out. I'm going to photoshop a cute Santa hat on him and an adorable rudolf nose. Think about THAT!

Damn, I missed that attractive offer....

The B1G will sign a new contract soon and it will look like a massive increase, and everyone will attribute that to Jim Delaney's "brilliant" and "proactive" additions of Rutgers and Maryland.

In reality, it will be a very small increase that is primarily a result of OSU's continued investment in their program and Michigan's reinvestment in their program. And, RU and PSU moves were reactionary and defensive moves to keep PSU.

If you assume a starting amount of 100 (i.e. the ending current contract), the contract length is 15 years, inflation is 2%, population growth is 1%, and actual economic growth is between 0-3%, then the average value of the contract will be between 26% and 62% higher than the starting amount. Assuming that the same was true for the last contract, then the stated average (i.e. the reported number) will be Between 156% and 245% of the last contract, despite a real growth rate of 0-3% (after taking population growth into account). That an increase of between 1.5x and 2.5x, with the 1.5x number breaking even.

In short, the difference will look HUGE, despite business as usual. The argument isn't will the B1G get a massive paper increase. They will. The argument is whether they will get a big economic increase. That's TBD and very much in doubt, but if they do, it will be because ODU isn't dropping off and Michigan is waking up.

The Big 12's revenue advantage will only last through this contract. Big 12 mouthpieces like to trumpet the per team payout but like good snake oil salesman fail to mention that the TV contract they are under was structured for 12 teams but pays only 10. That's why the greedy bastards in The Big 12, which btw isn't big or 12, refuses to expand. If The Big 12 expands their payout falls below The ACC. But hey don't let the truth stand in the way of Big 12 trolling..

(01-14-2016 09:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big 12's revenue advantage will only last through this contract. Big 12 mouthpieces like to trumpet the per team payout but like good snake oil salesman fail to mention that the TV contract they are under was structured for 12 teams but pays only 10. That's why the greedy bastards in The Big 12, which btw isn't big or 12, refuses to expand. If The Big 12 expands their payout falls below The ACC. But hey don't let the truth stand in the way of Big 12 trolling..

We may find that out the next contract, but we also know the current contract would increase the tv revenues on a pro-rata basis if 2 teams were added, that has been clarified. So do we know for sure the next Big 12 tv contract will be lower? not necessarily.

(01-14-2016 10:05 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big 12's revenue advantage will only last through this contract. Big 12 mouthpieces like to trumpet the per team payout but like good snake oil salesman fail to mention that the TV contract they are under was structured for 12 teams but pays only 10. That's why the greedy bastards in The Big 12, which btw isn't big or 12, refuses to expand. If The Big 12 expands their payout falls below The ACC. But hey don't let the truth stand in the way of Big 12 trolling..

We may find that out the next contract, but we also know the current contract would increase the tv revenues on a pro-rata basis if 2 teams were added, that has been clarified. So do we know for sure the next Big 12 tv contract will be lower? not necessarily.

Is that exactly clear? Is it any 2 teams or 2 that Fox deems worthy? Would the B12 get the same for FSU & Clemson as they would for Cincinnati & Memphis or ECU & UCF?

(01-14-2016 10:05 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  We may find that out the next contract, but we also know the current contract would increase the tv revenues on a pro-rata basis if 2 teams were added, that has been clarified. So do we know for sure the next Big 12 tv contract will be lower? not necessarily.

A couple of issues:

1. Has this ever been reported anywhere in the media? Would like to read the explanation.

2. Do you really think the next contract is going to be higher when the market has clearly reached a high point and we are now clearly on the backside of the demand?

CJ