(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