Fox pushing for expansion using G5 schools...

http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-co...teams.html

Its ESPN who would see 2 million dollar schools become 20 million dollar schools. For FOX, its just new Big12 inventory. So, yeah, this article sounds pretty believable to me.

I posted the other day that espn had to be careful how they mouth off for legal reasons. They cant publicly devalue the expansion by running them down then challenge a contract based on their worth. Espn helps set the market value. The big12 would own espn after a court battle.

So they use a puppet at sports budiness and cat food quartley to do the dirty work.

I guess they just assume everyone is stupid.

This already being discussed in another thread. I'll to paraphrase stever:

- ESPN only pays half of that $20M ... so schools at $2M go to $10M for ESPN
- BYU is getting $6M ... so $6M going to $10M for ESPN

So for BYU + 1 AAC, that's an increase of $8M + $4M = $12M. Not an increase of $18M * 2 = $36M. That's 1/3rd!


Therefore, I believe the compromise will be two school expansion with BYU (all sports) + Houston (per TX requirement), for now. If ESPN thinks that's a "burned bridge", then FOX and someone else can ride in and scoop up all that P5 content when the contract is up.

The writer of this piece has been unbelievably accurate in his predictions concerning Big 12 expansion. He is a UC grad but lives in Texas. Many believe he has an in at UT.
CJ

(08-02-2016 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  This already being discussed in another thread. I'll to paraphrase stever:

- ESPN only pays half of that $20M ... so schools at $2M go to $10M for ESPN
- BYU is getting $6M ... so $6M going to $10M for ESPN

So for BYU + 1 AAC, that's an increase of $8M + $4M = $12M. Not an increase of $18M * 2 = $36M. That's 1/3rd!


Therefore, I believe the compromise will be two school expansion with BYU (all sports) + Houston (per TX requirement), for now. If ESPN thinks that's a "burned bridge", then FOX and someone else can ride in and scoop up all that P5 content when the contract is up.

NBC would probably love for ESPN to low ball the Big12.

And it is entirely possible that ESPN believes Fox has the inside track on creating a Big XII network and doesn't want Big XII to have a network that competes with LHN, SEC, and the planned ACC networks but would be all in favor if ESPN were the one to run the network.

(08-02-2016 11:30 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The writer of this piece has been unbelievably accurate in his predictions concerning Big 12 expansion. He is a UC grad but lives in Texas. Many believe he has an in at UT.
CJ

I dont think he has missed at any step of the process. He has been in front of everyone.

(08-02-2016 10:32 AM)Topkat Wrote:  Fox pushing for expansion using G5 schools...

http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-co...teams.html

Got a spyware warning and my company wont allow me to open the link. Watch out folks!

(08-02-2016 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  This already being discussed in another thread. I'll to paraphrase stever:

- ESPN only pays half of that $20M ... so schools at $2M go to $10M for ESPN
- BYU is getting $6M ... so $6M going to $10M for ESPN

So for BYU + 1 AAC, that's an increase of $8M + $4M = $12M. Not an increase of $18M * 2 = $36M. That's 1/3rd!


Therefore, I believe the compromise will be two school expansion with BYU (all sports) + Houston (per TX requirement), for now. If ESPN thinks that's a "burned bridge", then FOX and someone else can ride in and scoop up all that P5 content when the contract is up.

FWIW, Stever's comments omitted the number of games involved, and radically changes the equation. or AAC teams ESPN currently is paying $2MM per year per team for roughly 7 home controlled games, as ESPN gets all AAC games. In the Big 12 they'd be paying half of the estimated annual price of $23.5 million per year ($11.75 million) for roughly 3 home controlled games (out of 7 games, school retains one for Tier 3, Fox gets half, ESPN gets half, ). So while the total outlay "only" goes up 588%, the price per game goes up about 1,374%, or nearly 14 times the cost per team ($285k per game to $3.92 million per game). Plus chances are the AAC contract would remain in this case, which means ESPN is STILL paying the original $2 million for said team, to the AAC, only it is now for a team they were paying probably $200k in C-USA.

For BYU the increase is less but still a lot. Currently ESPN gets roughly 6 BYU games for $6 million (BYU keeps one), for roughly $1 million per game. Now they would get roughly 3 BYU games for $11.75 million, at nearly $4 million per game, for an increase of 392% per game.

Either way, I can see their issue with that. Granted this is very simplistic because we did not include other sports, but essentially the same formulas apply. This is why ESPN is not very happy witht his arraignment.

(08-02-2016 11:43 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:32 AM)Topkat Wrote:  Fox pushing for expansion using G5 schools...

http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-co...teams.html

Got a spyware warning and my company wont allow me to open the link. Watch out folks!

Loaded clean for me. Good article.

Corbett,

OK, your analysis seems valid to me.

But the thing to remember is that you're only talking two teams. Even if you assume they'll just pay the AAC the same for the remainder of the contract, they're only taking that kind of hit on one AAC team plus a smaller hit on BYU.

In the grand scheme of total dollars over all their conference contracts, it isn't that much.


Plus who knows, those three AAC team games now might be worth more than double the value as "P5 games", than what would've been six "G5 games" (one or two of which maybe non-conf).

Yep, no problem with the link for me either.

I don't think the outcry was about taking BYU plus one team from the AAC. I think the outcry was for a four team expansion. That then becomes an (11.75MMx 3 + 5.75MM) expenditure of an extra $41MM per year in new money for existing teams, for roughly 9 years ($369 million), for a good chunk of content they believe they already have. Even if they save some money off of what they were paying the AAC, that is still a lot of new money, for a lot of similar content.

Made worse by the supposed plans of only giving the new teams about half of that, and pocketing the rest. I don't want to have the same thread topic going on in two threads, but I think this post below from Quo sort of sums up where ESPN is coming from.

(08-02-2016 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But on the other, I do not think that adds up to adding four more teams, and maybe not any expansion at all. Because while the Big 12 does covet the pro-rata money that they are entitled to should they expand, they also clearly do not covet any of the available expansion candidates. They don't really want any current G5 schools. In that critical sense, they are in agreement with the networks, who also do not see value in us. The Big 12 views all of us as diluting the product, long term, big picture. They wouldn't have expanded had they not gotten scared to death by the ACCN and the perceived big money it will bring in, leaving the Big 12 behind.

So it is likely worth something to them to not have to take them (us). That's why I think a deal will be cut with the networks whereby the networks pay the Big 12 not to expand. And that figure will be less than what expansion would bring in. It will be enough to salve the Big 12's revenue concerns, but save the networks significantly from what pro-rate payments would cost.

There is still a chance expansion will occur, but if it does, it will be two not four. Which really kills everyone except BYU and Cincy.

(08-02-2016 11:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Corbett,

OK, your analysis seems valid to me.

But the thing to remember is that you're only talking two teams. Even if you assume they'll just pay the AAC the same for the remainder of the contract, they're only taking that kind of hit on one AAC team plus a smaller hit on BYU.

In the grand scheme of total dollars over all their conference contracts, it isn't that much.


Plus who knows, those three AAC team games now might be worth more than double the value as "P5 games", than what would've been six "G5 games" (one or two of which maybe non-conf).

Plus, the AAC contract expires after the 2019 season and the BYU contract expires after the 2018 season (though ESPN has an option for 2019). So, it would only be a problem for 2 or 3 years.

If BYU is football only, it wouldn't be out of the question that ESPN actually *keeps* the BYU deal in place through 2019. Hawaii and Navy have separate football only deals separate from the rest of the conference. Or, it could be a compromise to appease FOX and ESPN and part of BYU's phase-in agreement.

In that case, there could be negotiation room for ESPN/FOX and the Big 12 to delay implementation of the pro rata clause until the 2020 football season - which means there would only be 5 years left on the current Big 12 deal. THAT could be attractive to ESPN and FOX....and BYU would still see a decent revenue boost in the interim because of increased ticket sales, sponsorships, and donations.

(08-02-2016 12:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I don't think the outcry was about taking BYU plus one team from the AAC. I think the outcry was for a four team expansion. That then becomes an (11.75MMx 3 + 5.75MM) expenditure of an extra $41MM per year in new money for existing teams, for roughly 9 years ($369 million), for a good chunk of content they believe they already have. Even if they save some money off of what they were paying the AAC, that is still a lot of new money, for a lot of similar content.

Made worse by the supposed plans of only giving the new teams about half of that, and pocketing the rest. I don't want to have the same thread topic going on in two threads, but I think this post below from Quo sort of sums up where ESPN is coming from.

(08-02-2016 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But on the other, I do not think that adds up to adding four more teams, and maybe not any expansion at all. Because while the Big 12 does covet the pro-rata money that they are entitled to should they expand, they also clearly do not covet any of the available expansion candidates. They don't really want any current G5 schools. In that critical sense, they are in agreement with the networks, who also do not see value in us. The Big 12 views all of us as diluting the product, long term, big picture. They wouldn't have expanded had they not gotten scared to death by the ACCN and the perceived big money it will bring in, leaving the Big 12 behind.

So it is likely worth something to them to not have to take them (us). That's why I think a deal will be cut with the networks whereby the networks pay the Big 12 not to expand. And that figure will be less than what expansion would bring in. It will be enough to salve the Big 12's revenue concerns, but save the networks significantly from what pro-rate payments would cost.

There is still a chance expansion will occur, but if it does, it will be two not four. Which really kills everyone except BYU and Cincy.

Well it only costs ESPN for half of that and for Fox they get new teams/content. So Fox now gets MORE content for FS1 since they were only getting games for a 10 team league. Thats good for them. I think ESPN is pissed and Fox is fine with it.

(08-02-2016 12:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I don't think the outcry was about taking BYU plus one team from the AAC. I think the outcry was for a four team expansion. That then becomes an (11.75MMx 3 + 5.75MM) expenditure of an extra $41MM per year in new money for existing teams, for roughly 9 years ($369 million), for a good chunk of content they believe they already have. Even if they save some money off of what they were paying the AAC, that is still a lot of new money, for a lot of similar content.

Made worse by the supposed plans of only giving the new teams about half of that, and pocketing the rest. I don't want to have the same thread topic going on in two threads, but I think this post below from Quo sort of sums up where ESPN is coming from.

(08-02-2016 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But on the other, I do not think that adds up to adding four more teams, and maybe not any expansion at all. Because while the Big 12 does covet the pro-rata money that they are entitled to should they expand, they also clearly do not covet any of the available expansion candidates. They don't really want any current G5 schools. In that critical sense, they are in agreement with the networks, who also do not see value in us. The Big 12 views all of us as diluting the product, long term, big picture. They wouldn't have expanded had they not gotten scared to death by the ACCN and the perceived big money it will bring in, leaving the Big 12 behind.

So it is likely worth something to them to not have to take them (us). That's why I think a deal will be cut with the networks whereby the networks pay the Big 12 not to expand. And that figure will be less than what expansion would bring in. It will be enough to salve the Big 12's revenue concerns, but save the networks significantly from what pro-rate payments would cost.

There is still a chance expansion will occur, but if it does, it will be two not four. Which really kills everyone except BYU and Cincy.

Given the ESPN "pushback" along with Boren's comments about expanding "a little", it looks like 2 teams to me. There really isn't a strong #4 in the picture. Everyone has a "lock" in Houston, BYU or Cincy. One of them won't make it.

(08-02-2016 12:09 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Well it only costs ESPN for half of that and for Fox they get new teams/content.

That IS half! The above includes only their share. They pay half the sum, and get half the content - I did mention, if they feel it is a net loss per game, than that is not as bad as paying for all and getting all, but per game, they are paying nearly 14 times as much for a current AAC team, if they move to the Big 12. Now the content would be somewhat more valuable in most cases due to the opponent, but is it 14 times more valuable? Even worse at least one of those games is likely to be the same OOC opponent they would have played in the AAC, which means it is likely only two of the three games they get, are improved content.

(08-02-2016 11:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ...
Plus who knows, those three AAC team games now might be worth more than double the value as "P5 games", than what would've been six "G5 games" (one or two of which maybe non-conf).

An AAC will not necessarily have 7 home games ... some may have 6 in some years, depending on how H/A contracts, away buy games and home buy games in OOC games line up.

It will clearly be more value per school once they are branded P5 games. But the article is persuasive that the benefit to Fox of more Eastern TZ teams is greater than the benefit to ESPN. UC + BYU-FB-only would be the move that gives Fox a liitle. more Eastern inventory to go with their new Big Ten content, while reducing the cost to ESPN. But between Texas politics and LGBT activists, that might not be possible, which would leave UC + Houston as the 2nd lowest cost alternative to ESPN.

Plus a 12 team Big12 has a divisional prroblem iif the Kansas's are not in a division with 2 Texas schools.

(08-02-2016 11:43 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:32 AM)Topkat Wrote:  Fox pushing for expansion using G5 schools...

http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-co...teams.html

Got a spyware warning and my company wont allow me to open the link. Watch out folks!

Hmmm... not sure why. I have virus and malware detection and got no warning. I dunno, could be a false positive (or maybe mine just plain missed it.)

In any event, there was no intent posting the link other than the story.