(07-18-2016 02:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  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."

The Baylor stuff is the main reason/focus of the meeting tomorrow. The only reason why the meeting is taking place tomorrow is due to the only time the rest of the summer that the school presidents can all meet.

I bet they touch on expansion near the end of the meeting. It's not an all day meeting and the tele conference is to be held around 2pm CT. So they will be short meetings and nothing about Baylor is going to be resolved in short meetings like that.

I bet Baylor does their presentation and a Q and A is done and then after that they do the other topics on the agenda.

In talking about how some Big 12 members feel "sullied" by Baylor's latest rape scandal, I was surprised to read that Bowlsby touched on the Darrell Johnson Baylor basketball academic fraud scandal in the mid-90s in his comments today, as well as the murder scandal in 2004.

If I had to guess, Baylor will be put on double secret probation:

"Don't embarrass us again between now and 2024 if you want to be a Big 12 member for the next TV contract. We can replace you in a heartbeat."

Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

(07-18-2016 01:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(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

Lol....we already have a good idea that the majority of the Big12 disagrees with you. The only question is does a super majority disagree with you.

(07-18-2016 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

Why is that interesting? For that matter, how is it a "leak"? Isn't it pretty widely recognized that Houston would like to get an invite to the Big 12?

(07-18-2016 04:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 01:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

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

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

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

Lol....we already have a good idea that the majority of the Big12 disagrees with you. The only question is does a super majority disagree with you.

All that matters in the end are those with the power of the vote. It is expected that expansion will be voted down tomorrow (aka tabled).

(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

Are you taking into account that that expanding to 12 keeps the TV contract the same amount per team? Boren's comments stated the TV contract provides that same payout per team up to 12 members. So if the G5 schools come in and take a 1/4 of that payout to start, all other members already would get more than they get currently.

(07-18-2016 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

That's the Big12 nightmare---a third power conference entering Texas. Could make Houston a more interesting B12 target. Might give Houston a bit more leverage to get a reasonable buy-in period as well.

(07-18-2016 04:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

Why is that interesting? For that matter, how is it a "leak"? Isn't it pretty widely recognized that Houston would like to get an invite to the Big 12?

The day before the Big 12 vote on expansion, a leak of a June meeting between the Pac 12 commissioner and UH . . .

is interesting timing.

(07-18-2016 04:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

That's the Big12 nightmare---a second power conference entering Houston when the Big 12 doesn't play games within 150 miles of Houston.

FIFY

(07-18-2016 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

A "leak" like this the night before a vote isn't interesting timing. It is bad timing. It shows Houston doesn't get in. If Houston was getting in, the leak would be about a pending offer the night before.

I make a living having to deal with complex sales processes and have a lot of experience with how this stuff goes.

(07-18-2016 04:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 04:12 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Interesting timing of this leak:

https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...5746851840

A "leak" like this the night before a vote isn't interesting timing. It is bad timing. It shows Houston doesn't get in. If Houston was getting in, the leak would be about a pending offer the night before.

I make a living having to deal with complex sales processes and have a lot of experience with how this stuff goes.

I tend to agree. I think it's a last ditch effort to get the Big 12 to think really hard and maybe even postpone their decision on the 12th team . . . assuming they decide to expand at all.

Expansion will more than likely be shot down and the Big 12 remains at 10. In a few years, OU will bolt

I can not imagine that an expansion vote does not initiate a GOR vote. Circumstances would change. An expansion would organically change the environment which the GoR was born.
It would be a whole new ballgame.
Now the Big 12 could renew the Gor, but I would think at the least that they would have the option.

(07-18-2016 04:20 PM)MWC Tex 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

Are you taking into account that that expanding to 12 keeps the TV contract the same amount per team? Boren's comments stated the TV contract provides that same payout per team up to 12 members. So if the G5 schools come in and take a 1/4 of that payout to start, all other members already would get more than they get currently.

it keeps the TV MONEY the same

but there is a great deal more other money besides the TV money that would not be covered with expansion

the Big 12 starting next year and for the 7 years after that until 2024-25 which is the remaining 8 years of the contract after this year are set to make on average $36 to $36.5 million per year per team

the TV portion of that is only $22.5 so there is $14 million per team per year that is not made up for with two new teams

that means that any new teams would have to agree to take AT LEAST $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years just for the existing teams in the Big 12 to break even

the 13 year Big 12 TV contracts AVERAGE $20 million per team per year over the 13 years of the deal and yet the Big 12 this year paid out $30.4 million per team and that is without a CCG

and the Big 12 pushed for the right to and has already decided to have a CCG with 10 teams and thus adding teams does not mean the new teams get to take credit for making it possible for the Big 12 to earn CCG money it means the Big 12 will make less money per team off the CCG than they could and would with only 10 teams

it is not until 2018-19 that the Big 12 reaches the middle year of their 13 year TV contract when it will pay the average of $20 million per year per team ad it will grow by about $1 million per year per team until 2024-25 when it will average $26 million per team in that final year

but again the Big 12 is already paying out a total distribution of $30.4 million now when the TV contracts are paying out about $17 million per team per year without a CCG

that is because of the $50 million in playoff money the $40 million in
Sugar Bowl money that comes 2 out of every 3 years and because of NCAA credits and new teams to the Big 12 will bring NONE of that with them and the TV contracts make up NONE of that nor do they add additional money for the CCG

and even if new teams start to earn NCAA credits it takes 6 years for those to fully mature and that will be 75% of the remaining Big 12 contract over by then and that is IF those new teams do well in the various NCAA playoffs

so TV money is not the whole of the Big 12 payout and the TV contracts only cover the TV money they cover nothing else and that is where the issue is

U think the B12 wished they had a Mulligan on taking UL?

(07-18-2016 05:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 04:20 PM)MWC Tex 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

Are you taking into account that that expanding to 12 keeps the TV contract the same amount per team? Boren's comments stated the TV contract provides that same payout per team up to 12 members. So if the G5 schools come in and take a 1/4 of that payout to start, all other members already would get more than they get currently.

it keeps the TV MONEY the same

but there is a great deal more other money besides the TV money that would not be covered with expansion

the Big 12 starting next year and for the 7 years after that until 2024-25 which is the remaining 8 years of the contract after this year are set to make on average $36 to $36.5 million per year per team

the TV portion of that is only $22.5 so there is $14 million per team per year that is not made up for with two new teams

that means that any new teams would have to agree to take AT LEAST $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years just for the existing teams in the Big 12 to break even

the 13 year Big 12 TV contracts AVERAGE $20 million per team per year over the 13 years of the deal and yet the Big 12 this year paid out $30.4 million per team and that is without a CCG

and the Big 12 pushed for the right to and has already decided to have a CCG with 10 teams and thus adding teams does not mean the new teams get to take credit for making it possible for the Big 12 to earn CCG money it means the Big 12 will make less money per team off the CCG than they could and would with only 10 teams

it is not until 2018-19 that the Big 12 reaches the middle year of their 13 year TV contract when it will pay the average of $20 million per year per team ad it will grow by about $1 million per year per team until 2024-25 when it will average $26 million per team in that final year

but again the Big 12 is already paying out a total distribution of $30.4 million now when the TV contracts are paying out about $17 million per team per year without a CCG

that is because of the $50 million in playoff money the $40 million in
Sugar Bowl money that comes 2 out of every 3 years and because of NCAA credits and new teams to the Big 12 will bring NONE of that with them and the TV contracts make up NONE of that nor do they add additional money for the CCG

and even if new teams start to earn NCAA credits it takes 6 years for those to fully mature and that will be 75% of the remaining Big 12 contract over by then and that is IF those new teams do well in the various NCAA playoffs

so TV money is not the whole of the Big 12 payout and the TV contracts only cover the TV money they cover nothing else and that is where the issue is

Again---they can pay the G5 schools anything they want. The concept that the "other" revenue will be divided equally is a complete red herring. The Big12 could say it's 10 million a year untimely the Current deal expires. At that point, the conference will do a new media deal, the CFP will be about to expire and the 2 newbies will have been P5 for nearly a decade (thus having a much higher value then than now). The Big12 payout would be just fine.

(07-18-2016 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 05:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 04:20 PM)MWC Tex 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

Are you taking into account that that expanding to 12 keeps the TV contract the same amount per team? Boren's comments stated the TV contract provides that same payout per team up to 12 members. So if the G5 schools come in and take a 1/4 of that payout to start, all other members already would get more than they get currently.

it keeps the TV MONEY the same

but there is a great deal more other money besides the TV money that would not be covered with expansion

the Big 12 starting next year and for the 7 years after that until 2024-25 which is the remaining 8 years of the contract after this year are set to make on average $36 to $36.5 million per year per team

the TV portion of that is only $22.5 so there is $14 million per team per year that is not made up for with two new teams

that means that any new teams would have to agree to take AT LEAST $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years just for the existing teams in the Big 12 to break even

the 13 year Big 12 TV contracts AVERAGE $20 million per team per year over the 13 years of the deal and yet the Big 12 this year paid out $30.4 million per team and that is without a CCG

and the Big 12 pushed for the right to and has already decided to have a CCG with 10 teams and thus adding teams does not mean the new teams get to take credit for making it possible for the Big 12 to earn CCG money it means the Big 12 will make less money per team off the CCG than they could and would with only 10 teams

it is not until 2018-19 that the Big 12 reaches the middle year of their 13 year TV contract when it will pay the average of $20 million per year per team ad it will grow by about $1 million per year per team until 2024-25 when it will average $26 million per team in that final year

but again the Big 12 is already paying out a total distribution of $30.4 million now when the TV contracts are paying out about $17 million per team per year without a CCG

that is because of the $50 million in playoff money the $40 million in
Sugar Bowl money that comes 2 out of every 3 years and because of NCAA credits and new teams to the Big 12 will bring NONE of that with them and the TV contracts make up NONE of that nor do they add additional money for the CCG

and even if new teams start to earn NCAA credits it takes 6 years for those to fully mature and that will be 75% of the remaining Big 12 contract over by then and that is IF those new teams do well in the various NCAA playoffs

so TV money is not the whole of the Big 12 payout and the TV contracts only cover the TV money they cover nothing else and that is where the issue is

Again---they can pay the G5 schools anything they want. The concept that the "other" revenue will be divided equally is a complete red herring. The Big12 could say it's 10 million a year untimely the Current deal expires. At that point, the inference will do a new media deal, the CFP will be about to expire and the 2 newbies will have been P5 corn really a decade (thus having a much higher value then than now). The Big12 payout would be just fine.

you do not add real strength or the perception of strength by adding teams that are so desperate they will take any deal offered to them

especially when those teams for the most part with the exception of BYU would still have some of the lowest budgets, highest academic subsidies, smallest fan support and smallest facilities in the conference and in the P5

the Big 12 is looking to strengthen THE BIG 12 not two G5 teams

and BYU has their own issues outside of the Sunday play and the bias against their religion some show and that is being in another time zone and on another island so even they have issues with being the #1 choice much less there are no other choices close to that as far as adding something TO the Big 12 which is the goal of the Big 12

and no Big 12 fan base has any interest in any of the available teams as well so no available teams bring any benefit TO THE BIG 12

it is not an issue for the Big 12 to address that some G5 teams want in the Big 12 that is an issue for those teams to worry about and if they do not help the Big 12 they are not needed in the Big 12

(07-18-2016 05:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 05:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 04:20 PM)MWC Tex 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

Are you taking into account that that expanding to 12 keeps the TV contract the same amount per team? Boren's comments stated the TV contract provides that same payout per team up to 12 members. So if the G5 schools come in and take a 1/4 of that payout to start, all other members already would get more than they get currently.

it keeps the TV MONEY the same

but there is a great deal more other money besides the TV money that would not be covered with expansion

the Big 12 starting next year and for the 7 years after that until 2024-25 which is the remaining 8 years of the contract after this year are set to make on average $36 to $36.5 million per year per team

the TV portion of that is only $22.5 so there is $14 million per team per year that is not made up for with two new teams

that means that any new teams would have to agree to take AT LEAST $13.5+ million less per year for 8 years just for the existing teams in the Big 12 to break even

the 13 year Big 12 TV contracts AVERAGE $20 million per team per year over the 13 years of the deal and yet the Big 12 this year paid out $30.4 million per team and that is without a CCG

and the Big 12 pushed for the right to and has already decided to have a CCG with 10 teams and thus adding teams does not mean the new teams get to take credit for making it possible for the Big 12 to earn CCG money it means the Big 12 will make less money per team off the CCG than they could and would with only 10 teams

it is not until 2018-19 that the Big 12 reaches the middle year of their 13 year TV contract when it will pay the average of $20 million per year per team ad it will grow by about $1 million per year per team until 2024-25 when it will average $26 million per team in that final year

but again the Big 12 is already paying out a total distribution of $30.4 million now when the TV contracts are paying out about $17 million per team per year without a CCG

that is because of the $50 million in playoff money the $40 million in
Sugar Bowl money that comes 2 out of every 3 years and because of NCAA credits and new teams to the Big 12 will bring NONE of that with them and the TV contracts make up NONE of that nor do they add additional money for the CCG

and even if new teams start to earn NCAA credits it takes 6 years for those to fully mature and that will be 75% of the remaining Big 12 contract over by then and that is IF those new teams do well in the various NCAA playoffs

so TV money is not the whole of the Big 12 payout and the TV contracts only cover the TV money they cover nothing else and that is where the issue is

Again---they can pay the G5 schools anything they want. The concept that the "other" revenue will be divided equally is a complete red herring. The Big12 could say it's 10 million a year untimely the Current deal expires. At that point, the inference will do a new media deal, the CFP will be about to expire and the 2 newbies will have been P5 corn really a decade (thus having a much higher value then than now). The Big12 payout would be just fine.

you do not add real strength or the perception of strength by adding teams that are so desperate they will take any deal offered to them

especially when those teams for the most part with the exception of BYU would still have some of the lowest budgets, highest academic subsidies, smallest fan support and smallest facilities in the conference and in the P5

the Big 12 is looking to strengthen THE BIG 12 not two G5 teams

and BYU has their own issues outside of the Sunday play and the bias against their religion some show and that is being in another time zone and on another island so even they have issues with being the #1 choice much less there are no other choices close to that as far as adding something TO the Big 12 which is the goal of the Big 12

and no Big 12 fan base has any interest in any of the available teams as well so no available teams bring any benefit TO THE BIG 12

it is not an issue for the Big 12 to address that some G5 teams want in the Big 12 that is an issue for those teams to worry about and if they do not help the Big 12 they are not needed in the Big 12

Shrug.....That's the same thinking that cost the Big12 Louisville. Those that cannot learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them.

(07-18-2016 05:45 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  U think the B12 wished they had a Mulligan on taking UL?

Some of us were screaming to take both UL and WV back then, even if one was delayed by a year or two.