(06-11-2016 08:15 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 12:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I rate this article as fiction. There is friction in the Big 12. Oklahoma is not happy, and neither are several schools as well. Oklahoma is looking out for the whole conference, while Texas is only looking out for themselves. Oklahoma wants to improve the conference, Texas is killing the conference.

But .... Boren has changed his tune pretty dramatically the last couple months, eh?

Publicly, yes.

Boren has never been shy about publicly stating his mind. He was outspoken about the need for expansion, a network, and something else (LOL).

Now he bows deferentially to Texas and the LHN. Wonder what slapped him in the mug to wake him up?

(06-11-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 08:15 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 12:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I rate this article as fiction. There is friction in the Big 12. Oklahoma is not happy, and neither are several schools as well. Oklahoma is looking out for the whole conference, while Texas is only looking out for themselves. Oklahoma wants to improve the conference, Texas is killing the conference.

But .... Boren has changed his tune pretty dramatically the last couple months, eh?

Publicly, yes.

Boren has never been shy about publicly stating his mind. He was outspoken about the need for expansion, a network, and something else (LOL).

Now he bows deferentially to Texas and the LHN. Wonder what slapped him in the mug to wake him up?

Maybe the BVH numbers convinced him a traditional network makes no sense, OU is making as much as the SEC at the moment, and he still got the CCG and expansion to be announced later, so he has nothing to complain about to the media now.

(06-11-2016 02:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Texas's contract with ESPN for their LHN runs through 2031. Texas isn't leaving the Big 12 before then.

OU doesn't want to leave the Big 12, or it wouldn't be going through these histrionics to make changes to the conference.

People forget that the SEC and B1G have given up all Tier 1/2/3 rights in their contracts.

The Big 12 retains Tier 3 rights at individual schools. The SEC distributed $32M last year, IIRC, and will likely go up to maybe $38M this fall (just guessing).

The Big 12 just distributed $30.4M. That means, at an average of $15M a year, Texas is making over $45M a year, and OU is making about $37M a year.

All other conferences would require Texas to give up its 3rd tier rights, except maybe the ACC, and if they do a network, then they won't allow it, either. And the AAC distribution substantially is below the Big 12.

Texas and Oklahoma have a MUCH better chance to make the CFP from the Big 12, than they do from the B1G or the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma aren't going anywhere before 2031, at least.

Just because the LHN doesn't end until 2031 doesn't mean that Texas won't change conferences in 2025. It's up to ESPN. If ESPN will still pay for the LHN if Texas goes to another conference then they probably will leave. It would make sense for ESPN to want Texas to move to the SEC or ACC because ESPN is all in with those conferences. If Texas were to move to the Pac 12, ESPN would only own 1/2 the content. The only thing you know for sure is that Texas is not going to the B1G if ESPN passes on the second package of B1G games.

OU doesn't want to leave? It seems to me, the whole reason OU raised a big stink about expansion and a Network, was so that it would fail and lay the groundwork to be able to say, we tried to save the conference but they wouldn't change, so now we have to leave. I fully expected OU to challenge the GoR if the B1G offered them a spot. However once the B1G signs this new TV contract with Fox, the B12 is safe from losing OU until 2025 as it wouldn't make any sense to sign a new deal then expand.

OU is not making $37 million a year. They still have to pay for the production and distribution of their tier 3 content. As the OU president said, they're only making a few million a year of tier 3 content. Texas.... sure, they're making $15 million a year average because ESPN is handling the production and distribution.

If ESPN wants Texas in the ACC or SEC, they'll go and keep their tier 3 rights for the LHN. ESPN will own both the SECN and ACCN, so they have the option of leaving enough of Texas's tier 3 rights with the LHN so that it remains financially viable.

I agree that Texas and Oklahoma have a better chance of making the CFP in the B12 but it's almost assured that they'll both leave the B12 in 2025 if not sooner.

(06-11-2016 04:02 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Texas's contract with ESPN for their LHN runs through 2031. Texas isn't leaving the Big 12 before then.

OU doesn't want to leave the Big 12, or it wouldn't be going through these histrionics to make changes to the conference.

People forget that the SEC and B1G have given up all Tier 1/2/3 rights in their contracts.

The Big 12 retains Tier 3 rights at individual schools. The SEC distributed $32M last year, IIRC, and will likely go up to maybe $38M this fall (just guessing).

The Big 12 just distributed $30.4M. That means, at an average of $15M a year, Texas is making over $45M a year, and OU is making about $37M a year.

All other conferences would require Texas to give up its 3rd tier rights, except maybe the ACC, and if they do a network, then they won't allow it, either. And the AAC distribution substantially is below the Big 12.

Texas and Oklahoma have a MUCH better chance to make the CFP from the Big 12, than they do from the B1G or the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma aren't going anywhere before 2031, at least.

Just because the LHN doesn't end until 2031 doesn't mean that Texas won't change conferences in 2025. It's up to ESPN. If ESPN will still pay for the LHN if Texas goes to another conference then they probably will leave. It would make sense for ESPN to want Texas to move to the SEC or ACC because ESPN is all in with those conferences. If Texas were to move to the Pac 12, ESPN would only own 1/2 the content. The only thing you know for sure is that Texas is not going to the B1G if ESPN passes on the second package of B1G games.

OU doesn't want to leave? It seems to me, the whole reason OU raised a big stink about expansion and a Network, was so that it would fail and lay the groundwork to be able to say, we tried to save the conference but they wouldn't change, so now we have to leave. I fully expected OU to challenge the GoR if the B1G offered them a spot. However once the B1G signs this new TV contract with Fox, the B12 is safe from losing OU until 2025 as it wouldn't make any sense to sign a new deal then expand.

OU is not making $37 million a year. They still have to pay for the production and distribution of their tier 3 content. As the OU president said, they're only making a few million a year of tier 3 content. Texas.... sure, they're making $15 million a year average because ESPN is handling the production and distribution.

If ESPN wants Texas in the ACC or SEC, they'll go and keep their tier 3 rights for the LHN. ESPN will own both the SECN and ACCN, so they have the option of leaving enough of Texas's tier 3 rights with the LHN so that it remains financially viable.

I agree that Texas and Oklahoma have a better chance of making the CFP in the B12 but it's almost assured that they'll both leave the B12 in 2025 if not sooner.

I believe you are mistaken about OU's 3rd tier money. Because I do not believe they have to pay for production and distribution. And I do not recall Boren down playing their income as you said.

Also, IMO Texas will not go to the SEC no matter what ESPN does. One reason is they will not follow little brother anywhere.

Another point. I don't buy the argument that OU is making a fuss about expansion to cover for changing conferences. They could leave without making excuses. If OSU tagging along is an issue, they can deal with that behind closed doors, or in the state legislature. The GoR will hold them there until 2025, at least, more than likely.

It's a lot more likely that Boren got a CCG and expansion, and are okay with not being able to create a network, due to a changing industry or whatever. It's not like they are being squeezed out of anything, at $37M a year.

(06-11-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 08:15 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 12:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I rate this article as fiction. There is friction in the Big 12. Oklahoma is not happy, and neither are several schools as well. Oklahoma is looking out for the whole conference, while Texas is only looking out for themselves. Oklahoma wants to improve the conference, Texas is killing the conference.

But .... Boren has changed his tune pretty dramatically the last couple months, eh?

Publicly, yes.

Boren has never been shy about publicly stating his mind. He was outspoken about the need for expansion, a network, and something else (LOL).

Now he bows deferentially to Texas and the LHN. Wonder what slapped him in the mug to wake him up?

it is called reality

when your network partners and anyone else step up and tell you they are not interested in a conference network with or without Texas and with or without any of the available teams you have to pretty much give up on that idea

especially when that idea would result in your program making LESS money overall as new teams eat into distributions and as the conference network pays out less than you are currently getting not including the money spent to buy back 6 years worth of your rights

With the new champ game, there is at least 32 mil reasons for B12 not to panic.

(06-13-2016 07:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  With the new champ game, there is at least 32 mil reasons for B12 not to panic.

And. 500 mil reasons to add 2 more schools and a billion reasons they could possibly add 4.

(06-11-2016 03:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 08:15 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 12:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I rate this article as fiction. There is friction in the Big 12. Oklahoma is not happy, and neither are several schools as well. Oklahoma is looking out for the whole conference, while Texas is only looking out for themselves. Oklahoma wants to improve the conference, Texas is killing the conference.

But .... Boren has changed his tune pretty dramatically the last couple months, eh?

Publicly, yes.

Boren has never been shy about publicly stating his mind. He was outspoken about the need for expansion, a network, and something else (LOL).

Now he bows deferentially to Texas and the LHN. Wonder what slapped him in the mug to wake him up?

Maybe the BVH numbers convinced him a traditional network makes no sense, OU is making as much as the SEC at the moment, and he still got the CCG and expansion to be announced later, so he has nothing to complain about to the media now.

But what's the point of expansion, especially with low-brand G5 schools, without a conference network? Yes, you can ease the new schools in over a 5-year period with less money and split that extra TV dough amongst yourselves, but then you are stuck with those low-brand schools and forever more they are taking an equal cut of all the money.

I really hope the Big 12 expands via adding USF, but i must admit if I was Big 12, I wouldn't expand with anyone from the G5.

(06-13-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 03:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 08:15 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But .... Boren has changed his tune pretty dramatically the last couple months, eh?

Publicly, yes.

Boren has never been shy about publicly stating his mind. He was outspoken about the need for expansion, a network, and something else (LOL).

Now he bows deferentially to Texas and the LHN. Wonder what slapped him in the mug to wake him up?

Maybe the BVH numbers convinced him a traditional network makes no sense, OU is making as much as the SEC at the moment, and he still got the CCG and expansion to be announced later, so he has nothing to complain about to the media now.

But what's the point of expansion, especially with low-brand G5 schools, without a conference network? Yes, you can ease the new schools in over a 5-year period with less money and split that extra TV dough amongst yourselves, but then you are stuck with those low-brand schools and forever more they are taking an equal cut of all the money.

I really hope the Big 12 expands via adding USF, but i must admit if I was Big 12, I wouldn't expand with anyone from the G5.

I think your argument is valid to an extent. It would obviously be better if the Big 12 could add other P5 schools, but they can't for now.

As for adding G5 schools, only 3 have been added since 1998. Utah, TCU and Louisville. I think all 3 have proven to be better than average P5 schools, especially the latter two.

I think the top level G5 candidates can be the same, especially with 8 years of P5 affiliation, and some level of higher revenue, even if not full shares.

IMO, UC, BYU, Memphis, UCF, Houston and USF, with let's say half shares of P5 money, would likely be better than half the current P5 schools.

Mathematically, going from 10 to 12 raises the possibility of lesser pieces of the pie, 8 years from now, but it doesn't seem to be hurting any of the other P5 conferences, 3 of whom have 14.

And yes, the SEC and B1G have money making networks, but the P12's is not successful yet, and the ACC doesn't have one. And right now, the top Big 12 schools make more than anybody in the P5.

I also think, 8 years from now, the B12 could go to unequal shares.

Finally, there is some talk of the P5 breaking away maybe 10 years from now, and banding together as one negotiating entity.

So to not add a G5 now really has no relation to what could happen ion 2025. I think any additions, by then, will more than carry their weight, certainly more than a lot of other current schools.

(06-11-2016 04:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 04:02 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Texas's contract with ESPN for their LHN runs through 2031. Texas isn't leaving the Big 12 before then.

OU doesn't want to leave the Big 12, or it wouldn't be going through these histrionics to make changes to the conference.

People forget that the SEC and B1G have given up all Tier 1/2/3 rights in their contracts.

The Big 12 retains Tier 3 rights at individual schools. The SEC distributed $32M last year, IIRC, and will likely go up to maybe $38M this fall (just guessing).

The Big 12 just distributed $30.4M. That means, at an average of $15M a year, Texas is making over $45M a year, and OU is making about $37M a year.

All other conferences would require Texas to give up its 3rd tier rights, except maybe the ACC, and if they do a network, then they won't allow it, either. And the AAC distribution substantially is below the Big 12.

Texas and Oklahoma have a MUCH better chance to make the CFP from the Big 12, than they do from the B1G or the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma aren't going anywhere before 2031, at least.

Just because the LHN doesn't end until 2031 doesn't mean that Texas won't change conferences in 2025. It's up to ESPN. If ESPN will still pay for the LHN if Texas goes to another conference then they probably will leave. It would make sense for ESPN to want Texas to move to the SEC or ACC because ESPN is all in with those conferences. If Texas were to move to the Pac 12, ESPN would only own 1/2 the content. The only thing you know for sure is that Texas is not going to the B1G if ESPN passes on the second package of B1G games.

OU doesn't want to leave? It seems to me, the whole reason OU raised a big stink about expansion and a Network, was so that it would fail and lay the groundwork to be able to say, we tried to save the conference but they wouldn't change, so now we have to leave. I fully expected OU to challenge the GoR if the B1G offered them a spot. However once the B1G signs this new TV contract with Fox, the B12 is safe from losing OU until 2025 as it wouldn't make any sense to sign a new deal then expand.

OU is not making $37 million a year. They still have to pay for the production and distribution of their tier 3 content. As the OU president said, they're only making a few million a year of tier 3 content. Texas.... sure, they're making $15 million a year average because ESPN is handling the production and distribution.

If ESPN wants Texas in the ACC or SEC, they'll go and keep their tier 3 rights for the LHN. ESPN will own both the SECN and ACCN, so they have the option of leaving enough of Texas's tier 3 rights with the LHN so that it remains financially viable.

I agree that Texas and Oklahoma have a better chance of making the CFP in the B12 but it's almost assured that they'll both leave the B12 in 2025 if not sooner.

I believe you are mistaken about OU's 3rd tier money. Because I do not believe they have to pay for production and distribution. And I do not recall Boren down playing their income as you said.

Also, IMO Texas will not go to the SEC no matter what ESPN does. One reason is they will not follow little brother anywhere.

When Boren wanted a network, he claimed OU was only making $2 million a year. Now that a network is out of the question, he says they are making $5 million a year.

The facts are that they are paid $5.8 million a year by Fox and they expected the increase in revenue to be over $7 million when they factored in additional advertising that would be generated for their IMG contract. They have some production expenses. Nobody has said how much they are. The Fox contract said $1.8 of the $5.8 was to reimburse for production expenses, but those are arbitrary allocations.. Nobody has said how much other schools pay for production expenses either. And it isn't clear how much of those are one time expenses and how much are continuing.

As usual Bullet, you provide the facts. Thanks for the clarification.

(06-13-2016 07:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  With the new champ game, there is at least 32 mil reasons for B12 not to panic.

And. 500 mil reasons to add 2 more schools and a billion reasons they could possibly add 4.

the goal is to make more money PER TEAM not to make gross revenues for the conference

I have done the math before, but the ADD medications for most people wear off before they can finish reading a few paragraphs

the reality is by year 4 or so of the remaining 8 years the Big 12 would start breaking even at best and in the last 4 years they would start losing money in bigger and bigger chunks and that would be with a HORRIBLE buy in by any new teams

and the $500 million and $1 billion figure includes the CCG and the Big 12 does not need to add teams to have a CCG and is in fact having a CCG without more teams so you cannot count that money as money for "new teams"

(06-13-2016 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 04:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 04:02 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 02:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Texas's contract with ESPN for their LHN runs through 2031. Texas isn't leaving the Big 12 before then.

OU doesn't want to leave the Big 12, or it wouldn't be going through these histrionics to make changes to the conference.

People forget that the SEC and B1G have given up all Tier 1/2/3 rights in their contracts.

The Big 12 retains Tier 3 rights at individual schools. The SEC distributed $32M last year, IIRC, and will likely go up to maybe $38M this fall (just guessing).

The Big 12 just distributed $30.4M. That means, at an average of $15M a year, Texas is making over $45M a year, and OU is making about $37M a year.

All other conferences would require Texas to give up its 3rd tier rights, except maybe the ACC, and if they do a network, then they won't allow it, either. And the AAC distribution substantially is below the Big 12.

Texas and Oklahoma have a MUCH better chance to make the CFP from the Big 12, than they do from the B1G or the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma aren't going anywhere before 2031, at least.

Just because the LHN doesn't end until 2031 doesn't mean that Texas won't change conferences in 2025. It's up to ESPN. If ESPN will still pay for the LHN if Texas goes to another conference then they probably will leave. It would make sense for ESPN to want Texas to move to the SEC or ACC because ESPN is all in with those conferences. If Texas were to move to the Pac 12, ESPN would only own 1/2 the content. The only thing you know for sure is that Texas is not going to the B1G if ESPN passes on the second package of B1G games.

OU doesn't want to leave? It seems to me, the whole reason OU raised a big stink about expansion and a Network, was so that it would fail and lay the groundwork to be able to say, we tried to save the conference but they wouldn't change, so now we have to leave. I fully expected OU to challenge the GoR if the B1G offered them a spot. However once the B1G signs this new TV contract with Fox, the B12 is safe from losing OU until 2025 as it wouldn't make any sense to sign a new deal then expand.

OU is not making $37 million a year. They still have to pay for the production and distribution of their tier 3 content. As the OU president said, they're only making a few million a year of tier 3 content. Texas.... sure, they're making $15 million a year average because ESPN is handling the production and distribution.

If ESPN wants Texas in the ACC or SEC, they'll go and keep their tier 3 rights for the LHN. ESPN will own both the SECN and ACCN, so they have the option of leaving enough of Texas's tier 3 rights with the LHN so that it remains financially viable.

I agree that Texas and Oklahoma have a better chance of making the CFP in the B12 but it's almost assured that they'll both leave the B12 in 2025 if not sooner.

I believe you are mistaken about OU's 3rd tier money. Because I do not believe they have to pay for production and distribution. And I do not recall Boren down playing their income as you said.

Also, IMO Texas will not go to the SEC no matter what ESPN does. One reason is they will not follow little brother anywhere.

When Boren wanted a network, he claimed OU was only making $2 million a year. Now that a network is out of the question, he says they are making $5 million a year.

The facts are that they are paid $5.8 million a year by Fox and they expected the increase in revenue to be over $7 million when they factored in additional advertising that would be generated for their IMG contract. They have some production expenses. Nobody has said how much they are. The Fox contract said $1.8 of the $5.8 was to reimburse for production expenses, but those are arbitrary allocations.. Nobody has said how much other schools pay for production expenses either. And it isn't clear how much of those are one time expenses and how much are continuing.

OU did get $2 million a year from IMG right off the bat for extending their existing agreement to match the length of the sooner sports network contract and I suppose one could argue that the $2 million was partially for extending the deal, but OU played it up in their presser like it was money that IMG was kicking back to OU based on "new easily found revenues not previously covered in the contract"

(06-11-2016 02:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 12:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I rate this article as fiction. There is friction in the Big 12. Oklahoma is not happy, and neither are several schools as well. Oklahoma is looking out for the whole conference, while Texas is only looking out for themselves. Oklahoma wants to improve the conference, Texas is killing the conference.

But .... Boren has changed his tune pretty dramatically the last couple months, eh?

I always giggle when people say things like that. A school is an organization not a singular thing. Oklahoma is not some ranger Joe that has feelings.

There are thousands of people that are quite happy with the Big 12. There are also thousands of people who would prefer to expand. The only people unhappy about them not expanding are G5 fans.

(06-13-2016 10:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Mathematically, going from 10 to 12 raises the possibility of lesser pieces of the pie, 8 years from now, but it doesn't seem to be hurting any of the other P5 conferences, 3 of whom have 14.

Yes, but two of those, the B1G and SEC, have nothing but major flagships as members. Adding Missouri and TAMU is a lot different from adding Memphis and USF. Those were P5 additions not G5.

And the ACC raided the Big East for the best of the non-flagships a few years ago.

That's the conundrum the Big 12 faces, the perception that when it comes to expansion candidates, not just the best ones but the good ones have already been picked clean, leaving the Big 12 with scraps.

(06-13-2016 06:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 10:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Mathematically, going from 10 to 12 raises the possibility of lesser pieces of the pie, 8 years from now, but it doesn't seem to be hurting any of the other P5 conferences, 3 of whom have 14.

Yes, but two of those, the B1G and SEC, have nothing but major flagships as members. Adding Missouri and TAMU is a lot different from adding Memphis and USF. Those were P5 additions not G5.

And the ACC raided the Big East for the best of the non-flagships a few years ago.

That's the conundrum the Big 12 faces, the perception that when it comes to expansion candidates, not just the best ones but the good ones have already been picked clean, leaving the Big 12 with scraps.

Some of the bad ones have been taken too.

(06-13-2016 07:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 10:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Mathematically, going from 10 to 12 raises the possibility of lesser pieces of the pie, 8 years from now, but it doesn't seem to be hurting any of the other P5 conferences, 3 of whom have 14.

Yes, but two of those, the B1G and SEC, have nothing but major flagships as members. Adding Missouri and TAMU is a lot different from adding Memphis and USF. Those were P5 additions not G5.

And the ACC raided the Big East for the best of the non-flagships a few years ago.

That's the conundrum the Big 12 faces, the perception that when it comes to expansion candidates, not just the best ones but the good ones have already been picked clean, leaving the Big 12 with scraps.

Some of the bad ones have been taken too.

More than a couple, lol.

(06-13-2016 07:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 10:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Mathematically, going from 10 to 12 raises the possibility of lesser pieces of the pie, 8 years from now, but it doesn't seem to be hurting any of the other P5 conferences, 3 of whom have 14.

Yes, but two of those, the B1G and SEC, have nothing but major flagships as members. Adding Missouri and TAMU is a lot different from adding Memphis and USF. Those were P5 additions not G5.

And the ACC raided the Big East for the best of the non-flagships a few years ago.

That's the conundrum the Big 12 faces, the perception that when it comes to expansion candidates, not just the best ones but the good ones have already been picked clean, leaving the Big 12 with scraps.

Some of the bad ones have been taken too.

While some P5's were dealt bad apples (even bad flagship apples) originally and still have them.

(06-13-2016 07:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  With the new champ game, there is at least 32 mil reasons for B12 not to panic.

And. 500 mil reasons to add 2 more schools and a billion reasons they could possibly add 4.

The 500mil, and 1bil #s assumed a conf network which is dead in the water. Those Numbers are not relevant now. and about 200 mil of the 500 was the champ game, and they will get that which ALL goes to current members, without adding.

(06-14-2016 06:41 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  With the new champ game, there is at least 32 mil reasons for B12 not to panic.

And. 500 mil reasons to add 2 more schools and a billion reasons they could possibly add 4.

The 500mil, and 1bil #s assumed a conf network which is dead in the water. Those Numbers are not relevant now. and about 200 mil of the 500 was the champ game, and they will get that which ALL goes to current members, without adding.

Your'e wrong about the network. The contract allows pro rata for additions, whether they have a Tier 3 network, or not. The TV contract is for Tiers 1 and 2.

As for the $500M, they just got a distribution for $30.4M per team. About $23.8M was the TV money. No champ game money yet. By the time 2 teams could start, at the earliest in 2017, there would be 8 years left on the contract.

23.8 x 2 teams x 8 years = $380.8M, except the contract is backloaded, so there is more money coming later in the contract, pushing it closer to the $500M.

That is without a network, and without a CCG. The CCG will add about $27M more a year x 8 years = That's $216M, so no, it was NOT included in Dodd's numbers, or it would have been over $600M, even at a flat $23.8M for the TV distribution.

Also, Dodd said that teams 13 and 14 would add ANOTHER $500M to the coffers, and that couldn't include the CCG twice.

And if expansion was dead, why didn't they kill it when they killed the network? Why bother talking about it any more? Oh, b/c Boren said after the meeting that expansion was alive and well. So did Bowlsby.