(05-10-2016 12:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:24 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .....it is laughable that anyone with an ounce of common sense ever thought this was about boren wanting what is best for the Big 12......

Sure he wants what is best for OU: building a strong and stable Big 12 conference. Feel free to laugh at me all you want. I am waiting to see what happens in June.

I am leaning that they vote to expand, name the schools, work out the financial details, decide the when and where for the CCGs. Then they negotiate the TV deal for the CCG. Big 12 Network stuff will take longer to work out, and the more it drags out the more likely Oklahoma and another look elsewhere.

Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

(05-10-2016 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:24 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .....it is laughable that anyone with an ounce of common sense ever thought this was about boren wanting what is best for the Big 12......

Sure he wants what is best for OU: building a strong and stable Big 12 conference. Feel free to laugh at me all you want. I am waiting to see what happens in June.

I am leaning that they vote to expand, name the schools, work out the financial details, decide the when and where for the CCGs. Then they negotiate the TV deal for the CCG. Big 12 Network stuff will take longer to work out, and the more it drags out the more likely Oklahoma and another look elsewhere.

Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

Yes. It has been reported the the Big 12 TV contract allows for adding 2 more and that the Big 12 gets an increase in revenue to pay for the 2 adds. The 2 new adds can also agree to take a % of what the current membership gets paid, for a particular time frame.....like 3 years or whatever. There will also be an additional revenue bump for a CCG.

(05-10-2016 12:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:24 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .....it is laughable that anyone with an ounce of common sense ever thought this was about boren wanting what is best for the Big 12......

Sure he wants what is best for OU: building a strong and stable Big 12 conference. Feel free to laugh at me all you want. I am waiting to see what happens in June.

Keep waiting

Keep hoping.

(05-10-2016 01:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:24 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .....it is laughable that anyone with an ounce of common sense ever thought this was about boren wanting what is best for the Big 12......

Sure he wants what is best for OU: building a strong and stable Big 12 conference. Feel free to laugh at me all you want. I am waiting to see what happens in June.

I am leaning that they vote to expand, name the schools, work out the financial details, decide the when and where for the CCGs. Then they negotiate the TV deal for the CCG. Big 12 Network stuff will take longer to work out, and the more it drags out the more likely Oklahoma and another look elsewhere.

Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

Yes. It has been reported the the Big 12 TV contract allows for adding 2 more and that the Big 12 gets an increase in revenue to pay for the 2 adds. The 2 new adds can also agree to take a % of what the current membership gets paid, for a particular time frame.....like 3 years or whatever. There will also be an additional revenue bump for a CCG.

Is that worth it to, say, Texas (or ultimately Oklahoma) to agree to expansion, particularly if an extended GOR is part of that deal?

(05-10-2016 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 01:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:24 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Sure he wants what is best for OU: building a strong and stable Big 12 conference. Feel free to laugh at me all you want. I am waiting to see what happens in June.

I am leaning that they vote to expand, name the schools, work out the financial details, decide the when and where for the CCGs. Then they negotiate the TV deal for the CCG. Big 12 Network stuff will take longer to work out, and the more it drags out the more likely Oklahoma and another look elsewhere.

Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

Yes. It has been reported the the Big 12 TV contract allows for adding 2 more and that the Big 12 gets an increase in revenue to pay for the 2 adds. The 2 new adds can also agree to take a % of what the current membership gets paid, for a particular time frame.....like 3 years or whatever. There will also be an additional revenue bump for a CCG.

Is that worth it to, say, Texas (or ultimately Oklahoma) to agree to expansion, particularly if an extended GOR is part of that deal?

I wouldn't be surprised if OU wanted to reduce the length of the current contract and GoR as part of any expansion agreement. The shorter the deal the lower the cost to break it if things don't go as planned/hoped with any G5 adds.

(05-10-2016 03:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 01:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I am leaning that they vote to expand, name the schools, work out the financial details, decide the when and where for the CCGs. Then they negotiate the TV deal for the CCG. Big 12 Network stuff will take longer to work out, and the more it drags out the more likely Oklahoma and another look elsewhere.

Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

Yes. It has been reported the the Big 12 TV contract allows for adding 2 more and that the Big 12 gets an increase in revenue to pay for the 2 adds. The 2 new adds can also agree to take a % of what the current membership gets paid, for a particular time frame.....like 3 years or whatever. There will also be an additional revenue bump for a CCG.

Is that worth it to, say, Texas (or ultimately Oklahoma) to agree to expansion, particularly if an extended GOR is part of that deal?

I wouldn't be surprised if OU wanted to reduce the length of the current contract and GoR as part of any expansion agreement. The shorter the deal the lower the cost to break it if things don't go as planned/hoped with any G5 adds.

IMO they should add schools but under no circumstance lengthen the contract. So this way they can leave in a few years.

(05-10-2016 03:23 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 03:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 01:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

Yes. It has been reported the the Big 12 TV contract allows for adding 2 more and that the Big 12 gets an increase in revenue to pay for the 2 adds. The 2 new adds can also agree to take a % of what the current membership gets paid, for a particular time frame.....like 3 years or whatever. There will also be an additional revenue bump for a CCG.

Is that worth it to, say, Texas (or ultimately Oklahoma) to agree to expansion, particularly if an extended GOR is part of that deal?

I wouldn't be surprised if OU wanted to reduce the length of the current contract and GoR as part of any expansion agreement. The shorter the deal the lower the cost to break it if things don't go as planned/hoped with any G5 adds.

IMO they should add schools but under no circumstance lengthen the contract. So this way they can leave in a few years.

I don't think Oklahoma/Kansas,Texas etc, nor the TV partners want to extend anything including GORs. The only schools that would want extensions are the ones considered not getting an invite to another P5 conference AKA the leftovers.

There is one thing adding two more members does to the Big 12 that nobody would ever discuss in public.

At 10 members, the Big 12 would need 8 votes to dissolve the conference. It has often been pointed out that this is the "magic number" of schools that would need to be assured of a landing spot in a power conference in the event of CR Armageddon.

If you add two G5 teams now, you can be pretty certain that they wouldn't vote to dissolve if they thought they would be left out. A dissolution vote would be nearly impossible. That leaves the more attractive schools to have to face the prospect of protracted litigation and financial penalties if UT and OU decide to bolt early. And those penalties would have to be shared with the newcomers. If four schools left (2 each to the B1G and SEC), the newbies would be in line to receive 25% of any exit fees and GoR settlements.

In effect, the current schools would likely have to insist on the equivalent of a "prenup" if the marriage to the newbies doesn't satisfy OU (who, for all we know, may not even want it to work out). That's just one more hurdle that needs to be jumped to overcome the natural inertia working against any conference alignment change.

(05-09-2016 12:33 PM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Here you go, boys. That's what the Oklahoma Board of Regents thinks.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...expansion/

Maybe the OU fans and alum stage a protest, and oust these guys from being part of the Regents? Why take TCU then? You be building them up as well. This guy thinks BYU have a small stadium like TCU. This guy does not know his football stadium. Liberty Bowl is not a small stadium. Neither is East Carolinia's. UCF have been expanding theirs.

(05-09-2016 07:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  OU BoR Chair backs down:

https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/...wsrc%5Etfw

Two press releases.

Board Chair says I have complete confidence in Boren to run this great university, and "I am confident the president will lead our university in the right direction on matters related to the Big 12."

Boren says "I remain committed to holistic reform that leads to possible expansion and creation of a Big 12 Network."

(05-10-2016 01:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:24 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  .....it is laughable that anyone with an ounce of common sense ever thought this was about boren wanting what is best for the Big 12......

Sure he wants what is best for OU: building a strong and stable Big 12 conference. Feel free to laugh at me all you want. I am waiting to see what happens in June.

I am leaning that they vote to expand, name the schools, work out the financial details, decide the when and where for the CCGs. Then they negotiate the TV deal for the CCG. Big 12 Network stuff will take longer to work out, and the more it drags out the more likely Oklahoma and another look elsewhere.

Without Texas giving up the LHN to launch a Big 12 Network, is the money there to justify Big 12 expansion with any G5 teams at all?

Yes. It has been reported the the Big 12 TV contract allows for adding 2 more and that the Big 12 gets an increase in revenue to pay for the 2 adds. The 2 new adds can also agree to take a % of what the current membership gets paid, for a particular time frame.....like 3 years or whatever. There will also be an additional revenue bump for a CCG.

Correct, but the current teams will experience a decrease in revenue received from the CFP and other bowl money.

(05-10-2016 04:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is one thing adding two more members does to the Big 12 that nobody would ever discuss in public.

At 10 members, the Big 12 would need 8 votes to dissolve the conference. It has often been pointed out that this is the "magic number" of schools that would need to be assured of a landing spot in a power conference in the event of CR Armageddon.

If you add two G5 teams now, you can be pretty certain that they wouldn't vote to dissolve if they thought they would be left out. A dissolution vote would be nearly impossible. That leaves the more attractive schools to have to face the prospect of protracted litigation and financial penalties if UT and OU decide to bolt early. And those penalties would have to be shared with the newcomers. If four schools left (2 each to the B1G and SEC), the newbies would be in line to receive 25% of any exit fees and GoR settlements.

In effect, the current schools would likely have to insist on the equivalent of a "prenup" if the marriage to the newbies doesn't satisfy OU (who, for all we know, may not even want it to work out). That's just one more hurdle that needs to be jumped to overcome the natural inertia working against any conference alignment change.

Not going to happen. Maybe 2-4 have the safe landing spot. Now you could try to alter that % as part of the expansion deal. Even if 4-6 thought they could exit, the remaining 4-6 would be swimming in exit fee money. The negotiated cost to exit the GOR would be huge per team, and the leftovers keep the NCAA tourney credits.

UC, UConn, USF got 100 Million in exit fees, they kept 60%. And the AAC got the largest dollar amount from the NCAA Tourney last year, over 29 Million because they kept the the old Big East tourney credits. Thank you Ville and UConn for your bball National Titles!