"This is where the BHV presentation is key. Expanding pro rate doesn’t make up for any perceived gap between the Big Ten and the SEC. Even if you pay the Big 12 $500 million more for the rest of the contract for two teams or a billion for four, like CBS reported, all that does is pay whoever you’re bringing in more, not the current teams. Memphis may jump from being paid $3 million to $23 million, but Oklahoma is still paid $23 million."

................................

While the Dennis Dodd's article about 1 billion sounds all nice and sexy, the devil is in the details that is outlined in the above quote.

http://big12fanatics.com/big-12-spring-meetings/

How exactly is expanding by two to four teams going to make more money for Oklahoma? I don't see it. If new expansion schools don't make money for the rest of the league, then the next TV deal is harmed.

What none of us will know is what schools would add money that the consultants provided for their data. If no school makes money for Texas and Oklahoma, then expansion is dead no matter what any random person says in the media. The media doesn't have the data.

The network stuff was shut down pretty uick and I suspect the value isn't there for expansion with G5 schools.

Back to my same old two points:

A) Again, that assumes the newcomers get an equal share. Any AAC team would still jump to the B12 for a much lower share, just to get out of the G5.

B) At worst, expansion + CCG is revenue neutral to the existing B12 members. So if all other things are equal, and adding members increases odds of making playoff .... why wouldn't you expand??

(06-04-2016 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Again, that assumes the newcomers get an equal share.

Any AAC team would still jump to the B12 for a much lower share, just to get out of the G5.

Yep, from a G5 perspective that is still winning the lottery. From the preservative of Texas and Oklahoma, no thanks.

I wished I could know what the data is for various schools.

Why no thanks?

You can't just say no, without giving a reason.

the reasons are very clear

the Big 12 just paid out $304 million or $30.4 million per team

if you add in a CCG (and ignore that the conference media contract escalates every year as stated in the press release as a reason for part of the increase in money over last year) and that CCG is worth $28 million per year well that means you have $32.2 million (plus the escalation) the next year

the TV contracts only call for covering the TV portion of that $32.2 million.....so there is no coverage for the CCG, there is no coverage for the $50 million in playoff money and there is no coverage for Sugar Bowl money 2 out of 3 years and there is no coverage for NCAA money which teams coming to the conference will bring NONE of because it will stay with their old conference

so you are looking at two new teams bringing about $20 million each in TV money or $40 million total

if the Big 12 brought in teams next year there would be 8 years with new teams

so in the first year if you give those new teams 10% of the MONEY THEY BRING ($4 million dollars) and you give the others the remaining $36 well then new members get $2 million each and existing members would get $35.8 or $3.6 million more than they would get

if the next year (2) you give them 20% they get $4 million each and the Big 12 members would get $35.4

next year (3) they get 40% so they get $8 million each and existing members get $34.6

next year (4) 60% so they new members get $12 million each and existing members get $33.8

the next year (5) 80% so new members get $16 million each and existing members get $33 each

year 6 they get 100% or $20 million each and existing members get $32.2 each

then in year 7 and year 8 those existing members start to make LESS than if they had not added teams

and to be clear my calculations do not include the escalation of the TV contract each year, but the new members would be getting a larger and larger % of that each year and also my calculations are not looking at the fact that Sugar Bowl money is only 2 out of 3 years

but the point is still the same you would have to basically add two teams that would agree to be total chumps and take a horrid extended buy in where they get NOTHING from the Sugar Bowl, CCG, NCAA credits (even years in) or money from a team making the playoffs and they would agree to taking terrible %s of the money they actually did "bring" under the TV contract for 75% of the remaining life of that TV contract

that is hardly adding teams that people are going to view as valuable and then the worst of all in years 7 and 8 unless those teams are willing to just keep being chumps the existing Big 12 members would start making LESS than if they had not added teams right at the same time that other conferences are making the TOP DOLLAR from their contracts so the Big 12 would be moving backwards compared to others AND they would have a couple of members that had been making a very small payout relative to the other 10 Big 12 members and relative to any other P5 teams in other conferences

and as boren specifically stated at that time you have the NEW TV contract coming up and who knows what those teams will be worth at that time especially wen they have joined a conference and taken terrible money for the first 75% of their time in the conference

now I know this is where dem coogs doh will come let everyone know what they would do even with $2 million more each year and Memphis will come tell us all how FedEx will make sure they are competitive and UNLV will come tell us how the Nevada Fertatas will make sure to out pay the Houston Fertatas but that is all just BS

and it still does not make up for the fact that existing members start to go backwards at the end of the contract as well and it ignores the fact that the Big 12 would be better off looking at much longer term results from any of the AVAILABLE teams and also seeing what MIGHT be available in the future......because as it is now ALL of the currently available teams have a very BRIEF and VERY sporadic history of any "success"

it is simply not worth it to the Big 12 right now to think that chumping a couple of teams for 6+ years so they existing members can get $2 million or so more per year is worth it when you are then stuck with those new members for the rest of the existence of the conference and even more so when the last couple of years even with a TERRIBLE deal for new members existing members would be moving backwards....much less what happens with a new deal

Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

BYU and Boise State already have their own special contracts that could be tact onto the Big 12. That would be more money into the Big 12. Plus, the Big 12 do need to expand with Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU and Boise State to bring their SoS up for the conference as a whole. Having Baylor playing weak FCS and G5 schools more than 3 times a year hurt the conference overall each year. That also was the issue why both Baylor and TCU got snubbed the first year. Oklahoma and Texas need to stop this and think for the long run. Adding these four could help boast their SoS to help put them into a much better playoff situation. Oklahoma dropped down last year to 4. Why? The SoS and the lost to Texas who lost to BYU.

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

Lol....Hodge Podge actually thinks people read all that silly drivel.

(06-04-2016 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

Lol....Hodge Podge actually thinks people read all that silly drivel.

I scroll down immediately after I see that it was Hodge who wrote it.

Dennis Dodd is bad at math.

However, there is some evidence the Big 12 will expand to 12.

1. The consultants recommended a 12 team/2 division/8 league game model with a title game as the best for playoffs
2. The Big 12 has decided to hold a title game
3. The Big 12 has decided to go to two divisions

Note, they did not have to do this last part. They could have stayed one division of 10 teams, played round robin, and guaranteed a 1 vs 2 matchup.

By going to divisions, they risk a title game mismatch. Which either means no SOS bump to the favorite, or a huge upset. No need to take divisional risk UNLESS they plan to go to 12.

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

I already beat that

you are just too stupid to pay attention because it defeats your idiotic position that G5 teams that no one cares about bring long term financial benefits t the Big 12 much less stability

making a couple of million more in the early years while chumping couple of teams into a terrible deal for 75% of the life of the current TV deal and then watching existing members shares fall off dramatically in the last 2 years of the deal is not how to build a long term stable conference unless one is a moron

that is how to kill a conference

any teams that would take the type of terrible deal the Big 12 would have to offer are a joke and not a team that has value and any conference that wants short term early slight gains only to see dramatic declines in later years is just stupid

(06-04-2016 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

Lol....Hodge Podge actually thinks people read all that silly drivel.

He actually hit the nail on the head and was 100% correct. I would also like to add that fleecing Fox and ESPN out of half a billion dollars won't bode well for future Big 12 contract negotiations.

(06-04-2016 10:38 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

Lol....Hodge Podge actually thinks people read all that silly drivel.

He actually hit the nail on the head and was 100% correct. I would also like to add that fleecing Fox and ESPN out of half a billion dollars won't bode well for future Big 12 contract negotiations.

FLEECING? It's in the contract. That's not the definition of "fleecing," lol.

Is the ACC fleecing ESPN out of money by enforcing the clause in the contract that forces ESPN to pay up $45M (or whatever) by a certain date if they haven't started an ACCN?

(06-04-2016 10:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 10:38 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  He actually hit the nail on the head and was 100% correct. I would also like to add that fleecing Fox and ESPN out of half a billion dollars won't bode well for future Big 12 contract negotiations.

FLEECING? It's in the contract. That's not the definition of "fleecing," lol.

Is the ACC fleecing ESPN out of money by enforcing the clause in the contract that forces ESPN to pay up $45M (or whatever) by a certain date if they haven't started an ACCN?

I think Fleecing is the right word. If the Big 12 takes 2 AAC schools your making ESPN/Fox pay $23 million a year for teams they're currently paying $2 million a year. To the tune of a 1/2 Billion dollars at a time when ESPN is downsizing. I would imagine ESPN/Fox would do every thing possible to prevent the Big 12 from expanding.

(06-04-2016 09:31 PM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

Lol....Hodge Podge actually thinks people read all that silly drivel.

I scroll down immediately after I see that it was Hodge who wrote it.

Basically what he said is that yes, short term it would be more $ but long term it would be less $. There isn't anything in there that makes up for splitting the CFP, bowl & NCAA $ more ways. Not to mention that it could hurt the following TV contract.

(06-04-2016 11:14 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 10:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 10:38 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  He actually hit the nail on the head and was 100% correct. I would also like to add that fleecing Fox and ESPN out of half a billion dollars won't bode well for future Big 12 contract negotiations.

FLEECING? It's in the contract. That's not the definition of "fleecing," lol.

Is the ACC fleecing ESPN out of money by enforcing the clause in the contract that forces ESPN to pay up $45M (or whatever) by a certain date if they haven't started an ACCN?

I think Fleecing is the right word. If the Big 12 takes 2 AAC schools your making ESPN/Fox pay $23 million a year for teams they're currently paying $2 million a year. To the tune of a 1/2 Billion dollars at a time when ESPN is downsizing. I would imagine ESPN/Fox would do every thing possible to prevent the Big 12 from expanding.

you also have to add in the fact that it is highly unlikely that ESPN will risk the legal ramifications of docking the AAC contract if two teams come from the AAC and thus they will keep paying the AAC the same money for 10 teams instead of 12 for the remainder of that contract

suddenly ESPN is paying another $3.6 million per year for those two new Big 12 teams if they both come from the AAC (because Fox is not on the hook to the AAC) for the reminder of that AAC contract and there is a chance that CBS might ask ESPN for a reduction in the cost of the AAC games that ESPN has contracted out to CBS based on the AAC losing a couple of their better teams

the easy way for ESPN and Fox to "pay a bit more" for the Big 12 not costing them huge dollars to add new teams is to allow the Big 12 to play fewer conference games and to over pay for the CCG

pay $30 million scaling to $40 for the CCG over the next 8 years and then reduce the number of conference games (preferably to 7)

with the scaling of the current TV contract and the scaling of a CCG in that amount the Big 12 would be getting close to $40 million in total payouts (all money not just TV) by the end of the contract and they would look very competitive

(06-04-2016 09:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Dennis Dodd is bad at math.

However, there is some evidence the Big 12 will expand to 12.

1. The consultants recommended a 12 team/2 division/8 league game model with a title game as the best for playoffs
2. The Big 12 has decided to hold a title game
3. The Big 12 has decided to go to two divisions

Note, they did not have to do this last part. They could have stayed one division of 10 teams, played round robin, and guaranteed a 1 vs 2 matchup.

By going to divisions, they risk a title game mismatch. Which either means no SOS bump to the favorite, or a huge upset. No need to take divisional risk UNLESS they plan to go to 12.

You have to have divisions to have a CCG. Eliminating the need for divisions was apart of the autonomy that the ACC wanted to pass but the B1G didn't want anyone to have the opportunity to arbitrarily pit their top 2 teams together in a CCG.

(06-04-2016 11:37 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 09:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Dennis Dodd is bad at math.

However, there is some evidence the Big 12 will expand to 12.

1. The consultants recommended a 12 team/2 division/8 league game model with a title game as the best for playoffs
2. The Big 12 has decided to hold a title game
3. The Big 12 has decided to go to two divisions

Note, they did not have to do this last part. They could have stayed one division of 10 teams, played round robin, and guaranteed a 1 vs 2 matchup.

By going to divisions, they risk a title game mismatch. Which either means no SOS bump to the favorite, or a huge upset. No need to take divisional risk UNLESS they plan to go to 12.

You have to have divisions to have a CCG. Eliminating the need for divisions was apart of the autonomy that the ACC wanted to pass but the B1G didn't want anyone to have the opportunity to arbitrarily pit their top 2 teams together in a CCG.

the rule as it applies to conferences with fewer than 12 teams is that a conference with fewer than 12 teams must EITHER play a full conference round robin and then match the two highest ranked teams in the CCG OR a conference can play in divisions, but the divisions must play a divisional round robin and then the CCG must be the winner of each division

so the Big 12 has a choice.....the SMART thing to do is play fewer conference games (by 2) in a divisional format

the less smart thing to do is play 8 conference games in divisions

the dumb thing to do is play a full conference round robin and match the two best teams

the totally stupid thing to do is play 9 conference games and have divisions and then be forced to have division winners in the CCG even if teams with better records are left out because they did not win the division

(06-04-2016 11:14 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 10:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 10:38 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  He actually hit the nail on the head and was 100% correct. I would also like to add that fleecing Fox and ESPN out of half a billion dollars won't bode well for future Big 12 contract negotiations.

FLEECING? It's in the contract. That's not the definition of "fleecing," lol.

Is the ACC fleecing ESPN out of money by enforcing the clause in the contract that forces ESPN to pay up $45M (or whatever) by a certain date if they haven't started an ACCN?

I think Fleecing is the right word. If the Big 12 takes 2 AAC schools your making ESPN/Fox pay $23 million a year for teams they're currently paying $2 million a year. To the tune of a 1/2 Billion dollars at a time when ESPN is downsizing. I would imagine ESPN/Fox would do every thing possible to prevent the Big 12 from expanding.

ESPN is paying more than that to show Boise State and BYU games. Boise State's contract that they have making as much as the Big 12's third tier rights. That is for the home games. How many games that ESPN will show if it is the Big 12 teams vs Boise State or BYU? More often than an Oklahoma Vs a Kansas team. Yes, there are dead weights in each conference. The dollars are there if the Big 12 adds better product on the field to show more games on tv.

(06-04-2016 10:03 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Watch how easy it is for me to defeat your 1000+ word rambling:

the new teams don't get a full share.


Done.

I already beat that

you are just too stupid to pay attention because it defeats your idiotic position that G5 teams that no one cares about bring long term financial benefits t the Big 12 much less stability

making a couple of million more in the early years while chumping couple of teams into a terrible deal for 75% of the life of the current TV deal and then watching existing members shares fall off dramatically in the last 2 years of the deal is not how to build a long term stable conference unless one is a moron

that is how to kill a conference

any teams that would take the type of terrible deal the Big 12 would have to offer are a joke and not a team that has value and any conference that wants short term early slight gains only to see dramatic declines in later years is just stupid

If the B12 added USF and UCF, in five years they would be 10x more valuable to the conference than crappy TCU and Baylor. They are huge schools with massive upsides. 100,000 students vs 25,000