This just got interesting...

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...2-TV.aspx?

Everyone knew they'd be pissed

What are Louisville and Rutgers getting?

They were pulled from the same conference.

$80 Million to add four teams, but there is no way they renew those contracts at those levels, if for no other reason that being pissed off at Bowlsby and the league.

Interesting, but doesn't it bother any of you that TV is running this sport so completely?

(08-01-2016 09:04 AM)templefan1 Wrote:  This just got interesting...

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...2-TV.aspx?

Nothing they can do about that contract.

Do you really think the Big12 wants 2-4 more mouths to feed when that contract expires and won't be renewed?

(08-01-2016 09:12 AM)Artifice Wrote:  $80 Million to add four teams, but there is no way they renew those contracts at those levels, if for no other reason that being pissed off at Bowlsby and the league.

Interesting, but doesn't it bother any of you that TV is running this sport so completely?

Of course it does, but what choice is there, other than downgrading football, if you want to compete at the highest level?

(08-01-2016 09:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Nothing they can do about that contract.

Nonsense. There is always room for negotiation.

Not in the least shocked. Why on earth would ESPN want to pay premium prices for schools they already have under contract for peanuts? I completely get why the B12 would want to do it, but this never made sense for ESPN, who owns the AAC deal at an absolute steal. There's no need or desire for them to pay 10x more a year for the same content.

But wait, we already had an invitation. The governor already said we were in... FedEx won't sponsor the B12 title game now....

Ha!!

(08-01-2016 09:15 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Nothing they can do about that contract.

Nonsense. There is always room for negotiation.

Why would the Big 12 do that? They are in the right.

(08-01-2016 09:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not in the least shocked. Why on earth would ESPN want to pay premium prices for schools they already have under contract for peanuts? I completely get why the B12 would want to do it, but this never made sense for ESPN, who owns the AAC deal at an absolute steal. There's no need or desire for them to pay 10x more a year for the same content.

Except they agreed to do it in a now 4-year-old contract.

Big 12 expansion has been talked about for years.

This is no surprise to them, and they knew all along where the teams needed to come from, just like the B1G (Rutgers) and the ACC (Louisville)

(08-01-2016 09:17 AM)Sellular1 Wrote:  But wait, we already had an invitation. The governor already said we were in... FedEx won't sponsor the B12 title game now....

Ha!!

And if you thought USF was getting in, would you feel the same way?

But Bondjohns is right about them being pissed about paying 10x more for programs they already have under contract.

There's also the domino effect of paying AAC rates for backfill candidates, though that's not quite the impact.

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Big 12 expansion has been talked about for years.

This is no surprise to them, and they knew all along where the teams needed to come from, just like the B1G (Rutgers) and the ACC (Louisville)

Yep. It's not like ESPN and Fox just got wind of this, lol.

(08-01-2016 09:20 AM)Artifice Wrote:  But Bondjohns is right about them being pissed about paying 10x more for programs they already have under contract.

There's also the domino effect of paying AAC rates for backfill candidates, though that's not quite the impact.

Of course they are pissed. But they should be mad at whoever signed the contract for their side, lol.

(08-01-2016 09:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:17 AM)Sellular1 Wrote:  But wait, we already had an invitation. The governor already said we were in... FedEx won't sponsor the B12 title game now....

Ha!!

And if you thought USF was getting in, would you feel the same way?

No... Just had a temporary douche moment.

Texas and OU don't care as they wont be in the B12 in 8 years. The rest should care.

(08-01-2016 09:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:20 AM)Artifice Wrote:  But Bondjohns is right about them being pissed about paying 10x more for programs they already have under contract.

There's also the domino effect of paying AAC rates for backfill candidates, though that's not quite the impact.

Of course they are pissed. But they should be mad at whoever signed the contract for their side, lol.

What this is really revealing of is the slave wages they've been paying the AAC, considering the product they've been getting.