Just announced, will be discuss tomorrow in the meeting. Hopefully they'll decide to expand -- BYU and CSU are my current first choices unless P5 team decides to jump (not likely).

why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

(07-18-2016 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

At some point the buyout period ends and they start getting less money than they would have otherwise because they are splitting playoff and ccg money more ways. And the consultants will have to tell them whether they get less money when the TV contract renews because of the additions or whether the additions continue to bring in a pro rata increase.

My guess is that the consultants believe they will continue to bring in close to pro rata or they would have already voted to kill expansion talk.

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

because the math does not work even if you make the buy in all of the 8 years remaining on the Big 12 TV contracts

starting next year (the soonest the Big 12 could add teams) and for the 7 years after that (8 years total) the Big 12 is set to make ON AVERAGE between $36 and $36.5 million per year per team for that 8 year period

any new teams added will only bring on average $22.5 million each for those 8 years

so unless those new teams are willing to take $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years there is ZERO new money available for Big 12 teams

and you do not add strength to a conference by paying two teams $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years nor do you put yourself in a good position to negotiate new contracts at the end of that 8 year period when you have two teams that have taken $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years

there is no new money available for existing Big 12 members by adding more teams that is just a simple fact

(07-18-2016 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

At some point the buyout period ends and they start getting less money than they would have otherwise because they are splitting playoff and ccg money more ways. And the consultants will have to tell them whether they get less money when the TV contract renews because of the additions or whether the additions continue to bring in a pro rata increase.

This I agree with. And while I don't think the Big 12 will expand, and I am not even sure they should, one thing they have to consider is, even if long term it is a bit less per school, does it make it more likely the conference stays together long term? Does it make the conference more stable? I am not saying it does or doesn't, but that is a situation where simple line item accounting can't be the end all, be all. There are other environmental factors that must be considered.

(07-18-2016 10:38 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

At some point the buyout period ends and they start getting less money than they would have otherwise because they are splitting playoff and ccg money more ways. And the consultants will have to tell them whether they get less money when the TV contract renews because of the additions or whether the additions continue to bring in a pro rata increase.

This I agree with. And while I don't think the Big 12 will expand, and I am not even sure they should, one thing they have to consider is, even if long term it is a bit less per school, does it make it more likely the conference stays together long term? Does it make the conference more stable? I am not saying it does or doesn't, but that is a situation where simple line item accounting can't be the end all, be all. There are other environmental factors that must be considered.

Those are the $64 questions, and they are very hard to answer.

(07-18-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:38 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

At some point the buyout period ends and they start getting less money than they would have otherwise because they are splitting playoff and ccg money more ways. And the consultants will have to tell them whether they get less money when the TV contract renews because of the additions or whether the additions continue to bring in a pro rata increase.

This I agree with. And while I don't think the Big 12 will expand, and I am not even sure they should, one thing they have to consider is, even if long term it is a bit less per school, does it make it more likely the conference stays together long term? Does it make the conference more stable? I am not saying it does or doesn't, but that is a situation where simple line item accounting can't be the end all, be all. There are other environmental factors that must be considered.

Those are the $64 questions, and they are very hard to answer.

it is really not that hard to answer

there is nothing magical about 12 teams Vs 10 teams that makes a conference more stable especially when the two teams you are adding would be at the very lowest of most all metrics in the conference and in the P5

there is nothing stabilizing about existing members making less money especially if you believe the instability comes from the top teams wanting to leave to make more money elsewhere

there is nothing stabilizing about adding two teams that would take a terrible buy in or even a buy in that went all 8 years of the existing TV contracts

much less the fact there is no strength in having teams willing to do that when new TV contracts come up for negotiation

there is nothing stabilizing about adding teams that most in the conference have no real interest in adding all the more so when the perceived instability comes from the thought that the top teams want to leave to go to a conference where they would be with more top teams

the only perceived stability is the one where people pretend that the Big 12 could add two teams now, lose their top teams in the future and somehow still be a power conference with competitive TV contracts, a full share of NCAA football playoff money, a top bowl game/payout and things would continue on like before only with new teams

that of course is not going to happen if the top teams leave the Big 12 the Big 12 will no longer be a power conference no matter who they add now or how many they add now

so really it makes no sense for the current members including those that might be left behind in the Big 12 or those that might find themselves looking for a new conference and only finding a home in a G level conference to take less money for the next 8 years while pretending those new members do anything to help their future......all the more so in light of the fact that making less money and adding G5 teams is not appealing to the top teams long term

then there is the fact that if the Big 12 does lose top teams and does manage to stay intact with fewer existing members or more new members added down the road that is fewer teams to split exit fees and that is beneficial to those existing teams and it also gives those existing teams a chance to add programs in 8 years from now when the choices of teams and the known value of available teams could be much different than it is today

no need to lock yourself into something today that only increases the chance of top teams leaving the Big 12 while also limiting your future choices and locking yourself into something now with no benefits at all and only financial downsides

There's an old saying from the world of military black ops: those who talk don't know, and those who know don't talk.

I think anything is possible at this point with respect to Big 12 expansion so I'm just going to sit back and see what happens.

OP, it has been known for a long while now that it is on the agenda and it will be voted down.

(07-18-2016 12:08 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  OP, it has been known for a long while now that it is on the agenda and it will be voted down.

You certain on the later?

(07-18-2016 10:00 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Just announced, will be discuss tomorrow in the meeting. Hopefully they'll decide to expand -- BYU and CSU are my current first choices unless P5 team decides to jump (not likely).

Agreed on BYU and CSU, they move the needle way more locally than cinci, Memphis, Uconn or the UxF schools.

(07-18-2016 10:37 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

because the math does not work even if you make the buy in all of the 8 years remaining on the Big 12 TV contracts

starting next year (the soonest the Big 12 could add teams) and for the 7 years after that (8 years total) the Big 12 is set to make ON AVERAGE between $36 and $36.5 million per year per team for that 8 year period

any new teams added will only bring on average $22.5 million each for those 8 years

so unless those new teams are willing to take $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years there is ZERO new money available for Big 12 teams

and you do not add strength to a conference by paying two teams $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years nor do you put yourself in a good position to negotiate new contracts at the end of that 8 year period when you have two teams that have taken $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years

there is no new money available for existing Big 12 members by adding more teams that is just a simple fact

Your making too many assumptions. Let's say the Big12 offers a straight 10 million per year 8 year deal to the new schools. They get full share when the current deal expires. No G5 is going to refuse.

Is it best for the long term strength of the new entrants--no.its not. However, these schools do get the benefit of Big12 recruiting status, higher ticket sales, and more money for 3rd tier rights. Those G5 that only make 6 million in the AAC (less in the other G5s) would jump on the chance for a 10 million pay out and membership in a power conference. Schools like Cincy, UConn, Memphis, Houston, etc would do just fine in the Big12 despite the short term disadvantage. They have been performing with less resources so they would be able to handle such a transition.

(07-18-2016 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:37 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

because the math does not work even if you make the buy in all of the 8 years remaining on the Big 12 TV contracts

starting next year (the soonest the Big 12 could add teams) and for the 7 years after that (8 years total) the Big 12 is set to make ON AVERAGE between $36 and $36.5 million per year per team for that 8 year period

any new teams added will only bring on average $22.5 million each for those 8 years

so unless those new teams are willing to take $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years there is ZERO new money available for Big 12 teams

and you do not add strength to a conference by paying two teams $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years nor do you put yourself in a good position to negotiate new contracts at the end of that 8 year period when you have two teams that have taken $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years

there is no new money available for existing Big 12 members by adding more teams that is just a simple fact

Your making too many assumptions. Let's say the Big12 offers a straight 10 million per year 8 year deal to the new schools. They get full share when the current deal expires. No G5 is going to refuse.

Is it best for the long term strength of the new entrants--no.its not. However, these schools do get the benefit of Big12 recruiting status, higher ticket sales, and more money for 3rd tier rights. Those G5 that only make 6 million in the AAC (less in the other G5s) would jump on the chance for a 10 million pay out and membership in a power conference. Schools like Cincy, UConn, Memphis, Houston, etc would do just fine in the Big12 despite the short term disadvantage. They have been performing with less resources so they would be able to handle such a transition.

Totally agree. Hell, I bet we'd take $5mill per year to get in the B12

Ian Fitzsimmons ‏@Ianfitzespn 27m27 minutes ago
1st day back is Big 12 Media Days. Bob Bowlsby told me he'll advise the board to expand & is in favor of 2 divisions

Ian Fitzsimmons ‏@Ianfitzespn 25m25 minutes ago
Expand meaning Bowlsby said "I would agree w/ you that we are the most poachable of the Power 5 conferences so my advice would be to expand"

(07-18-2016 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:37 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  why would you want to take less money per team to expand that makes no sense

hopefully they will stay at 10 and decide to play fewer conference games and put an end to expansion for good

Who says they wil make less money? By simply elongating the buy in the existing Big12 teams can make sure they actually make more. It's not like any G5 is in a position to refuse the longer buy in.

because the math does not work even if you make the buy in all of the 8 years remaining on the Big 12 TV contracts

starting next year (the soonest the Big 12 could add teams) and for the 7 years after that (8 years total) the Big 12 is set to make ON AVERAGE between $36 and $36.5 million per year per team for that 8 year period

any new teams added will only bring on average $22.5 million each for those 8 years

so unless those new teams are willing to take $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years there is ZERO new money available for Big 12 teams

and you do not add strength to a conference by paying two teams $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years nor do you put yourself in a good position to negotiate new contracts at the end of that 8 year period when you have two teams that have taken $13.5+ million less per year over 8 years

there is no new money available for existing Big 12 members by adding more teams that is just a simple fact

Your making too many assumptions. Let's say the Big12 offers a straight 10 million per year 8 year deal to the new schools. They get full share when the current deal expires. No G5 is going to refuse.

Is it best for the long term strength of the new entrants--no.its not. However, these schools do get the benefit of Big12 recruiting status, higher ticket sales, and more money for 3rd tier rights. Those G5 that only make 6 million in the AAC (less in the other G5s) would jump on the chance for a 10 million pay out and membership in a power conference. Schools like Cincy, UConn, Memphis, Houston, etc would do just fine in the Big12 despite the short term disadvantage. They have been performing with less resources so they would be able to handle such a transition.

the purpose of the Big 12 is not to be a charity conference to G5 teams

it is not the purpose or the concern of the Big 12 to worry about what benefits they might offer to programs outside the Big 12

it is the purpose and the concern of the Big 12 to worry about what they can do for EXISTING MEMBERS of the Big 12 and to do what is best for EXISTING MEMBERS of the Big 12

there is no discussion that desperate G5 teams would take $10 million a year or $5 million a year to get in the Big 12

the discussion is about how that would benefit the Big 12 and it would not

taking desperate teams that are willing to take pretty much any low ball offer for any number of years is not a way to strengthen the Big 12 or to add long term stability to the Big 12

the Big 12 has specifically stated from the mouth of blabber mouth david boren that they are concerned about the value of any potential new member LONG TERM and well beyond the current TV contracts

no one with an ounce of common sense would see the Big 12 as more long term stable if they were to add desperate members that would take $10 million per year

they will see the Big 12 as a conference that added desperate losers so they could make a short term slight increase in money (with your proposal it would be about $2.8 million more per team per year) and then they will probably fall apart at the end of the 8 years because no media partner is going to step up and offer 12 teams more than $36+ million per year when they already know that at least two of those teams will take $26 million or more less than that and they will do so for nearly a decade because of their desperation to be in a P5 conference

that would be s sure fire way for probably half of the Big 12 to be looking at a situation where they are stuck with desperate bottom feeders and possibly the entire 10 existing members to be looking at having to deal with those 2 unwanted hanger on ers

Ian Fitzsimmons
‏@Ianfitzespn
Expand meaning Bowlsby said "I would agree w/ you that we are the most poachable of the Power 5 conferences so my advice would be to expand"

and with expansion expected to be voted down....start the clock!!!

ACC fans just went six to midnight.

(07-18-2016 01:28 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Ian Fitzsimmons
‏@Ianfitzespn
Expand meaning Bowlsby said "I would agree w/ you that we are the most poachable of the Power 5 conferences so my advice would be to expand"

and with expansion expected to be voted down....start the clock!!!

Ian Fitzsimmons (Ianfitzespn)
1st day back is Big 12 Media Days. Bob Bowlsby told me he'll advise the board to expand & is in favor of 2 divisions
10:50 AM - 18 Jul 2016

Ian Fitzsimmons (Ianfitzespn)
Expand meaning Bowlsby said "I would agree w/ you that we are the most poachable of the Power 5 conferences so my advice would be to expand"
10:54 AM - 18 Jul 2016

In a column released today by Dennis Dodd (so consider the source):

"Tuesday's presentation [by Baylor to the other 9 B12 Presidents about their scandal] clearly changes the focus which was expected to be the formal announcement that expansion talks were dead."