(02-14-2016 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That league should take UConn and Cincy and be done with it. I'm going to give the exact opposite advice as Horace Greeley once famously gave. Go East young man. That's where all the money and population is located and that's were the best TV time slots will be found.

I said it before and I will say it again: The Big 12 will NOT fix the WVU Island Problem with Cinci by creating another Island farther away with UConn

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

That is the "Market Trap" argument as I call it. If that was the case, Stony Brook would have moved up by now.

Rutgers was taken only because A: It met all of the B1G requirements(Especially Research $$$) and B: Alumni as you stated. NYC has a huge population of living Graduates there and they saw that. It had nothing to do with TV sets

Maryland was available, met all of the requirements and they were willing to front load the TV money for them to bail them out.

(02-14-2016 08:57 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The Big 12 should have taken Cincinnati and Louisville when it took West Virginia. That would have been their best move and solved a lot of their issues.

However, that ship has now sailed. This is just correcting a previous mistake, IMO. For some dumb arse reason they convinced themselves that they could somehow steal Florida State and Clemson from the ACC – which was never, ever going to happen once people got a good look at the actual numbers, not the fantasy numbers that were being thrown around left and right as part of a PR campaign to help quell the fears of a bunch of very nervous university administrators and fans.

In dicking around like they did, they lost out on Louisville, which would have been a perfect fit for that league and remains a very big loss. It would be absurd if the same thing happened with Cincinnati.

That league should take UConn and Cincy and be done with it. I'm going to give the exact opposite advice as Horace Greeley once famously gave. Go East young man. That's where all the money and population is located and that's were the best TV time slots will be found.

Or, if a conference network is in the offing, take those two schools plus UCF and USF and you suddenly have a pretty good looking league from a competitive, recruiting and TV footprint perspective.

From a recruiting perspective, You would have added Ohio and Florida to go along with Texas. I don't care what anyone says, that's pretty damn formidable and would help to improve the overall talent levels of all Big 12 programs.

If I were the Big 12's commissioner I would spend a lot of time trying to convince Texas to modify the Longhorn Network to be a Big 12 Network. It could still be dominated by the University of Texas content wise and Texas would still reap its fair share of financial benefits from it. However, that conference will remain wildly unstable until it either falls apart or it figures out a way to meaningfully expand its media footprint.

If they continue on the course they are currently on, Oklahoma (and likely others) is going to leave for someplace else. Personally, I would hate to see that. I think expansion has already hurt the sport in a lot of ways by robbing us of some of our cherished rivalries and I would hate to see that happen yet again. However, don't be fooled, the Sooners have options. Texas still has the most power here but Oklahoma is hardly powerless.

^^^
This.
This. This. This.

UC and UConn would give WVU a vestige of the old BE to build off of, two proven teams to create some new rivalries with, and new media footprint...not to mention enhancing the BB side immediately and giving football two programs with history of success. It would also bring back a UC-TCU series that was a nascent rivalry in the old CUSA days.

The B12 really did think Louisville would be there for the easy and cheap addition later on. Nobody foresaw the ACC swooping in and taking them...most people thought the ACC was on the verge of falling apart. That's not what happened. C'est la vie.

UC and UConn make perfect sense... So it's probably not happening.

Not quite perfect sense. Maybe the ACC should swoop in and snatch up UC and UConn while the Big XII dithers. That sure would frustrate the Big XII's stated desire to ameliorate WVa's "island" issues, and deny them two substantial markets and some attractive recruiting access. Yeah, there are other potential eastern prospects the Big XII might consider, but none that check as many boxes as UC and UConn.

"He who hesitates is lost."

(02-14-2016 11:58 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

That is the "Market Trap" argument as I call it. If that was the case, Stony Brook would have moved up by now.

Rutgers was taken only because A: It met all of the B1G requirements(Especially Research $$$) and B: Alumni as you stated. NYC has a huge population of living Graduates there and they saw that. It had nothing to do with TV sets

Maryland was available, met all of the requirements and they were willing to front load the TV money for them to bail them out.

To say it had nothing to do with TV sets and the Big Ten Network is too .

In addition, this is not my criteria. These are the words of Navigate Research, who recommended Rutgers to go along with Maryland for Big Ten expansion. The Big 12 has now hired this same company to gather metrics for their possible expansion.

(02-14-2016 12:15 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  There is nothing new here, or earth shattering, and there is definitely nothing about begging. You and your lame a@@ agenda is what is the most comical, but you always make me laugh, and not in a good way.

I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

(02-14-2016 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:57 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The Big 12 should have taken Cincinnati and Louisville when it took West Virginia. That would have been their best move and solved a lot of their issues.

However, that ship has now sailed. This is just correcting a previous mistake, IMO. For some dumb arse reason they convinced themselves that they could somehow steal Florida State and Clemson from the ACC – which was never, ever going to happen once people got a good look at the actual numbers, not the fantasy numbers that were being thrown around left and right as part of a PR campaign to help quell the fears of a bunch of very nervous university administrators and fans.

In dicking around like they did, they lost out on Louisville, which would have been a perfect fit for that league and remains a very big loss. It would be absurd if the same thing happened with Cincinnati.

That league should take UConn and Cincy and be done with it. I'm going to give the exact opposite advice as Horace Greeley once famously gave. Go East young man. That's where all the money and population is located and that's were the best TV time slots will be found.

Or, if a conference network is in the offing, take those two schools plus UCF and USF and you suddenly have a pretty good looking league from a competitive, recruiting and TV footprint perspective.

From a recruiting perspective, You would have added Ohio and Florida to go along with Texas. I don't care what anyone says, that's pretty damn formidable and would help to improve the overall talent levels of all Big 12 programs.

If I were the Big 12's commissioner I would spend a lot of time trying to convince Texas to modify the Longhorn Network to be a Big 12 Network. It could still be dominated by the University of Texas content wise and Texas would still reap its fair share of financial benefits from it. However, that conference will remain wildly unstable until it either falls apart or it figures out a way to meaningfully expand its media footprint.

If they continue on the course they are currently on, Oklahoma (and likely others) is going to leave for someplace else. Personally, I would hate to see that. I think expansion has already hurt the sport in a lot of ways by robbing us of some of our cherished rivalries and I would hate to see that happen yet again. However, don't be fooled, the Sooners have options. Texas still has the most power here but Oklahoma is hardly powerless.

^^^
This.
This. This. This.

UC and UConn would give WVU a vestige of the old BE to build off of, two proven teams to create some new rivalries with, and new media footprint...not to mention enhancing the BB side immediately and giving football two programs with history of success. It would also bring back a UC-TCU series that was a nascent rivalry in the old CUSA days.

The B12 really did think Louisville would be there for the easy and cheap addition later on. Nobody foresaw the ACC swooping in and taking them...most people thought the ACC was on the verge of falling apart. That's not what happened. C'est la vie.

UC and UConn make perfect sense... So it's probably not happening.

Not quite perfect sense. Maybe the ACC should swoop in and snatch up UC and UConn while the Big XII dithers. That sure would frustrate the Big XII's stated desire to ameliorate WVa's "island" issues, and deny them two substantial markets and some attractive recruiting access. Yeah, there are other potential eastern prospects the Big XII might consider, but none that check as many boxes as UC and UConn.

"He who hesitates is lost."

I don't think that the Southern ACC members want any further Northern expansion.

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:15 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  There is nothing new here, or earth shattering, and there is definitely nothing about begging. You and your lame a@@ agenda is what is the most comical, but you always make me laugh, and not in a good way.

I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

More importantly this is contrary to what boren said. He is the one that said the networks would accommodate two more teams. The only haircut was going to be in bowl revenue. I wonder if the haircut is for the next television contract.

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Matt Schonvisky
‏@MattSchonvisky
SOURCE: #UConn among schools recommended for #Big12 expansion following pulling of metrics by Chicago based firm, Navigate Research


Article from Navigate Reseach:

Why Do Conferences Expand?
Navigate Research - Wednesday, January 21, 2015
http://www.navigateresearch.com/navigate...ces-expand
Written by Dan Kozlak


"However, the vast majority of the change has been and will continue to be driven by financial gains. With a new wave of realignment poised to take place, what are some of the key areas that conferences look for in a school to consider that institution as a candidate for expansion? Let’s take a look at a basic process for building the case for a university as a candidate for expansion into a major conference:

1. University Size - More students equal more dollars, more alumni, and an overall larger fan base. Schools with large student populations are naturally attractive because they produce more alumni, which then become fans and ultimately consumers.

2. APR and Academic Success Measures - Conferences are still set in place to help manage institutions of higher learning, and keeping successful academics is certainly a part of that mission. Schools that can enhance the overall academic profile of a conference have an advantage.

3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

4. Alumni Presence - Conferences want to see an active alumni base, both in athletics and the university. Alumni are key for season tickets, donations, and more.

5. Recruiting - Many conferences sees schools as a favorable place to expand because of recruiting access. Think about USF going to the BIG EAST over a decade ago. That now seems to purely have been a recruiting play with the BIG EAST attempting to gain a footprint in Florida, a high school football recruiting stronghold.

While these metrics are surely not the only metrics that conferences look at when considering expansion, they are certainly a few of the most important."

But, almost everybody in the AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt and FCS cover almost all 5. UCF and USF have the advantage over the others for number 1. FAU and FIU are in the top 15 for a large student body enrollment as well.
East Carolina have the rabid fan support and they are getting donations for their football team. So, they should not be discounted out either because they are usually number 2 behind BYU for fans going to the games.

UConn on the other hand falls below in some of the 5 points which could disqualifies them. They could fit better in the ACC alongside with Duke and Wake Forest, but not in the Big 12. Even Memphis looks better than UConn right now with fan support, and a sugar daddy that would give money to get them into a P5 conference.

(02-14-2016 11:58 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

That is the "Market Trap" argument as I call it. If that was the case, Stony Brook would have moved up by now.

Rutgers was taken only because A: It met all of the B1G requirements(Especially Research $$$) and B: Alumni as you stated. NYC has a huge population of living Graduates there and they saw that. It had nothing to do with TV sets

Maryland was available, met all of the requirements and they were willing to front load the TV money for them to bail them out.

The only help that can be given to Stony Brook is to have them start up rivalry games with the big dogs in the P5 conferences like Penn State, Alabama, Oklahoma and so forth. Mostly with the Big 10 to draw fans in.

So predictable...

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:15 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  There is nothing new here, or earth shattering, and there is definitely nothing about begging. You and your lame a@@ agenda is what is the most comical, but you always make me laugh, and not in a good way.

I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

(02-14-2016 02:41 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  So predictable...

Listen, I am more of a D2 alum, and not a D1 supporter except for the Underdog teams that beats the pants off of P5 schools. I am just stating facts as an outside observer why UConn would be rejected for the Big 12. UConn fans need to accept the fact that they have a lousy football team, and very bad fan support showing up to the games and watch on tv. You still have a long ways to go to get there. UConn is like a MAC school in football, but a Big East school in basketball. Since the realignment is for football, that eliminates UConn on all matters.

(02-14-2016 02:07 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:57 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The Big 12 should have taken Cincinnati and Louisville when it took West Virginia. That would have been their best move and solved a lot of their issues.

However, that ship has now sailed. This is just correcting a previous mistake, IMO. For some dumb arse reason they convinced themselves that they could somehow steal Florida State and Clemson from the ACC – which was never, ever going to happen once people got a good look at the actual numbers, not the fantasy numbers that were being thrown around left and right as part of a PR campaign to help quell the fears of a bunch of very nervous university administrators and fans.

In dicking around like they did, they lost out on Louisville, which would have been a perfect fit for that league and remains a very big loss. It would be absurd if the same thing happened with Cincinnati.

That league should take UConn and Cincy and be done with it. I'm going to give the exact opposite advice as Horace Greeley once famously gave. Go East young man. That's where all the money and population is located and that's were the best TV time slots will be found.

Or, if a conference network is in the offing, take those two schools plus UCF and USF and you suddenly have a pretty good looking league from a competitive, recruiting and TV footprint perspective.

From a recruiting perspective, You would have added Ohio and Florida to go along with Texas. I don't care what anyone says, that's pretty damn formidable and would help to improve the overall talent levels of all Big 12 programs.

If I were the Big 12's commissioner I would spend a lot of time trying to convince Texas to modify the Longhorn Network to be a Big 12 Network. It could still be dominated by the University of Texas content wise and Texas would still reap its fair share of financial benefits from it. However, that conference will remain wildly unstable until it either falls apart or it figures out a way to meaningfully expand its media footprint.

If they continue on the course they are currently on, Oklahoma (and likely others) is going to leave for someplace else. Personally, I would hate to see that. I think expansion has already hurt the sport in a lot of ways by robbing us of some of our cherished rivalries and I would hate to see that happen yet again. However, don't be fooled, the Sooners have options. Texas still has the most power here but Oklahoma is hardly powerless.

^^^
This.
This. This. This.

UC and UConn would give WVU a vestige of the old BE to build off of, two proven teams to create some new rivalries with, and new media footprint...not to mention enhancing the BB side immediately and giving football two programs with history of success. It would also bring back a UC-TCU series that was a nascent rivalry in the old CUSA days.

The B12 really did think Louisville would be there for the easy and cheap addition later on. Nobody foresaw the ACC swooping in and taking them...most people thought the ACC was on the verge of falling apart. That's not what happened. C'est la vie.

UC and UConn make perfect sense... So it's probably not happening.

Not quite perfect sense. Maybe the ACC should swoop in and snatch up UC and UConn while the Big XII dithers. That sure would frustrate the Big XII's stated desire to ameliorate WVa's "island" issues, and deny them two substantial markets and some attractive recruiting access. Yeah, there are other potential eastern prospects the Big XII might consider, but none that check as many boxes as UC and UConn.

"He who hesitates is lost."

I don't think that the Southern ACC members want any further Northern expansion.

Nor do they, or we, want a reduction in TV & conference payouts. The ACC would need to bolster its football strength & branding should it expand again.

(02-14-2016 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:15 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  There is nothing new here, or earth shattering, and there is definitely nothing about begging. You and your lame a@@ agenda is what is the most comical, but you always make me laugh, and not in a good way.

I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

False. The Big 12 TV contract is for 12 teams and that includes bowl games. Adding more schools in the conference could bring in more bowl spots which could bring the money up some more.

(02-14-2016 02:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:41 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  So predictable...

Listen, I am more of a D2 alum, and not a D1 supporter except for the Underdog teams that beats the pants off of P5 schools. I am just stating facts as an outside observer why UConn would be rejected for the Big 12. UConn fans need to accept the fact that they have a lousy football team, and very bad fan support showing up to the games and watch on tv. You still have a long ways to go to get there. UConn is like a MAC school in football, but a Big East school in basketball. Since the realignment is for football, that eliminates UConn on all matters.

On cue.

(02-14-2016 02:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:15 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  There is nothing new here, or earth shattering, and there is definitely nothing about begging. You and your lame a@@ agenda is what is the most comical, but you always make me laugh, and not in a good way.

I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

False. The Big 12 TV contract is for 12 teams and that includes bowl games. Adding more schools in the conference could bring in more bowl spots which could bring the money up some more.

no the Big 12 TV contract is for 10 teams

the Fox tier 2 deal was signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and when A&M and MU left the Fox deal required 10 teams to remain in place so TCU and WVU were added

after TCU and WVU were added the tier 1 deal with ESPN was renegotiated several years early and extended to end at the same time as the Fox deal and at that time Fox also came back to the table and paid a bit more money to get some better choices of available games

so the Big 12 contracts were signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams and technically both TV deals were finalized when the Big 12 was 10 teams with the current membership in place

and lower level bowls are not money makers the vast majority of teams eat up 100% of the revenues and or do not sell their required ticket allotments and thus make no money on those games and some actually lose money so they are not a source of income for a conference or even an individual team and thus contribute nothing to conference distributions

(02-14-2016 03:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:15 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  There is nothing new here, or earth shattering, and there is definitely nothing about begging. You and your lame a@@ agenda is what is the most comical, but you always make me laugh, and not in a good way.

I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

False. The Big 12 TV contract is for 12 teams and that includes bowl games. Adding more schools in the conference could bring in more bowl spots which could bring the money up some more.

no the Big 12 TV contract is for 10 teams

the Fox tier 2 deal was signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and when A&M and MU left the Fox deal required 10 teams to remain in place so TCU and WVU were added

after TCU and WVU were added the tier 1 deal with ESPN was renegotiated several years early and extended to end at the same time as the Fox deal and at that time Fox also came back to the table and paid a bit more money to get some better choices of available games

so the Big 12 contracts were signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams and technically both TV deals were finalized when the Big 12 was 10 teams with the current membership in place

and lower level bowls are not money makers the vast majority of teams eat up 100% of the revenues and or do not sell their required ticket allotments and thus make no money on those games and some actually lose money so they are not a source of income for a conference or even an individual team and thus contribute nothing to conference distributions

Boren and Bowlsby admitted that their tv contract is for 12 teams. It was left open in case the Big 12 could expand to 12. Adding 2 more teams would not hurt the total payout for each school.

(02-14-2016 03:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

False. The Big 12 TV contract is for 12 teams and that includes bowl games. Adding more schools in the conference could bring in more bowl spots which could bring the money up some more.

no the Big 12 TV contract is for 10 teams

the Fox tier 2 deal was signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and when A&M and MU left the Fox deal required 10 teams to remain in place so TCU and WVU were added

after TCU and WVU were added the tier 1 deal with ESPN was renegotiated several years early and extended to end at the same time as the Fox deal and at that time Fox also came back to the table and paid a bit more money to get some better choices of available games

so the Big 12 contracts were signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams and technically both TV deals were finalized when the Big 12 was 10 teams with the current membership in place

and lower level bowls are not money makers the vast majority of teams eat up 100% of the revenues and or do not sell their required ticket allotments and thus make no money on those games and some actually lose money so they are not a source of income for a conference or even an individual team and thus contribute nothing to conference distributions

Boren and Bowlsby admitted that their tv contract is for 12 teams. It was left open in case the Big 12 could expand to 12. Adding 2 more teams would not hurt the total payout for each school.

yes it would because there is $9 to $13 million+ in conference distributions that do not come from the TV contract

the Big 12 is not going to get extra money added to the $50 million per year they get for being a P5 team from the playoffs

the Big 12 is not going to get extra money from the Sugar Bowl for the $40 million per year they get when the Sugar Bowl is not a playoff bowl (like this year)

Each conference that gets a team in the playoffs gets $6 million (like this year for the Big 12) and that amount stays the same with 10 teams or with 12 teams or with 14 teams

so in a year like the 2015 season when the Big 12 got $50 million in playoff money, $40 million in Sugar Bowl money and $6 million for getting a team in the playoffs the Big 12 will be handing out $9.6 million per member in just those revenues alone and TV does not make up for that if the Big 12 adds two teams

and that does not count NCAA distributions where the Big 12 has been getting 6 teams into the NCAAs for a number of years and doing well in womens BB and baseball also and teams added to the Big 12 would be bringing ZERO credits with them and the Big 12 may well get 7 teams in the mens NCAAs this year and 6 in the womens and that all adds up especially if the Big 12 can get more teams to advance this year which it looks like they are finally poised to do

adding two teams would eat into that revenue for a number of years and TV does not make up for that or for any of the above football/Sugar Bowl/playoff money

so this year the Big 12 is looking at probably $14 million in distributions that come from revenue other than TV revenues

(02-14-2016 03:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

False. The Big 12 TV contract is for 12 teams and that includes bowl games. Adding more schools in the conference could bring in more bowl spots which could bring the money up some more.

no the Big 12 TV contract is for 10 teams

the Fox tier 2 deal was signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and when A&M and MU left the Fox deal required 10 teams to remain in place so TCU and WVU were added

after TCU and WVU were added the tier 1 deal with ESPN was renegotiated several years early and extended to end at the same time as the Fox deal and at that time Fox also came back to the table and paid a bit more money to get some better choices of available games

so the Big 12 contracts were signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams and technically both TV deals were finalized when the Big 12 was 10 teams with the current membership in place

and lower level bowls are not money makers the vast majority of teams eat up 100% of the revenues and or do not sell their required ticket allotments and thus make no money on those games and some actually lose money so they are not a source of income for a conference or even an individual team and thus contribute nothing to conference distributions

Boren and Bowlsby admitted that their tv contract is for 12 teams. It was left open in case the Big 12 could expand to 12. Adding 2 more teams would not hurt the total payout for each school.

yes it would because there is $9 to $13 million+ in conference distributions that do not come from the TV contract

the Big 12 is not going to get extra money added to the $50 million per year they get for being a P5 team from the playoffs

the Big 12 is not going to get extra money from the Sugar Bowl for the $40 million per year they get when the Sugar Bowl is not a playoff bowl (like this year)

Each conference that gets a team in the playoffs gets $6 million (like this year for the Big 12) and that amount stays the same with 10 teams or with 12 teams or with 14 teams

so in a year like the 2015 season when the Big 12 got $50 million in playoff money, $40 million in Sugar Bowl money and $6 million for getting a team in the playoffs the Big 12 will be handing out $9.6 million per member in just those revenues alone and TV does not make up for that if the Big 12 adds two teams

and that does not count NCAA distributions where the Big 12 has been getting 6 teams into the NCAAs for a number of years and doing well in womens BB and baseball also and teams added to the Big 12 would be bringing ZERO credits with them and the Big 12 may well get 7 teams in the mens NCAAs this year and 6 in the womens and that all adds up especially if the Big 12 can get more teams to advance this year which it looks like they are finally poised to do

adding two teams would eat into that revenue for a number of years and TV does not make up for that or for any of the above football/Sugar Bowl/playoff money

so this year the Big 12 is looking at probably $14 million in distributions that come from revenue other than TV revenues

How many slots for Bowls the Big 12 gets? Adding more teams in last year would have given them slots in bowls that the Big 10 could not fill. ACC also did not get that many in either. Adding Houston, Memphis and Temple could have gotten them into extra big bowl games than they have gotten. Getting into the extra bowls could help out. If Houston was in the Big 12 last year? They would be right there still in the bowl game. That money they got playing FSU could have gone to the Big 12, and not to a G5 school or conference. It is best to take the best football products out of the G5, and create an even more gap between the P5 and G5. The Big 12 and the other conferences are playing dumb dumbs.

(02-15-2016 12:28 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boren and Bowlsby admitted that their tv contract is for 12 teams. It was left open in case the Big 12 could expand to 12. Adding 2 more teams would not hurt the total payout for each school.

They never said the deal was for 12 teams or any other number. They said the TV deal included provision for expansion so that the TV deal would be prorated to continue paying out the same amount to each school. It has nothing to do with 12....any more than it does with 10 or 14.

The cause for confusion is that the quote that people are going from specifically said that if the league expands to 11 or 12 members, the TV money per school would remain the same. 14 members was not addressed, so either way we would only be speculating.

It is perfectly plausible that the quote said 11 or 12 because 12 is the limit, and also perfectly plausible that the quote said 11 or 12 because the person talking has a two team expansion in mind and was not particularly interested in expanding to 14.