(08-04-2016 06:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see Boise even being in the hunt, and they certainly are not competitive against UofH.

Why do you think they were debating FB only? They entertained ideas of Boise and BYU both FB only. Together. But with Houston in, Boise gets bumped, and BYU becomes all sports. I think that's where we stand, but who knows with this bunch? All I've ever been confident about are UM and UC.

(08-04-2016 06:44 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

I suspect Frank O Tank has a school in mind for the BYU punch to the nuts. No not BYU, but a BYU like punch to the nuts.
Cheers!

My guess is if Houston gets in, that bumps out Boise as FB only, and moves BYU to all sports, along with UH, UC, UM. I already assumed that with my original guess, after the shots fired by the Texas gov and others.

Before that, I thought it was UC, UM and BYU and Boise, both FB only. But apparently there is some opposition to FB only, anyway, so that's helping Houston, too. JMO.

LOL

Here's the deal. Either the Big 12 expands with Houston. Or the Big 12 doesn't expand at all.

This is why THIRTEEN MONTHS AGO, Boren's mouthpiece Sittler tweeted Houston was the #1 candidate should the Big 12 expand.

UT has been behind Houston from the beginning.

So, all of you Big 12 hopefuls better pray that Houston gets an invite.

Because you don't get one unless we get one first.

I think that's likely true, assuming Texas is really going to bat for you. But that wasn't the plan before the gov butted in, so I wouldn't be 100% confident until it's done.

I think that's going to happen, and Frank the Tank referenced it today when he said some team who thought they were going to the Big 12 probably won't now. I think that team is Boise FB only.

(08-04-2016 07:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

Fox wants to expand though. I'm going to keep posting this. Fox needs more content for FS1, even with the B1G coming in 2017 they want more. Forget want, they NEED more. More games means they have more options to add more games every weekend.

Multiple games on Fox OTA and multiple games on FS1 every Saturday. Thats what they need to truly go head to head with ESPN.

we really do not know if Fox wants to expand or not we have a bunch of losers that are suppose to be journalist saying things like that so they can have something to make up a story about, but we really do not know if there is any truth to it at all

and really for that matter we do not know if the Big 12 really even wants to expand at all or if they really just want more money

when the idiot boren was all excited about expansion it was because he was stupid enough to think that the Big 12 was getting a network, but once that was shot down and the Big 12 agreed to a CCG without expansion he was content as things were

and more so does Fox want to expand with the teams that the Big 12 MIGHT want to expand with.....if the Big 12 really "wants" two teams that Fox has no interest in because they are already in an area that Fox has a lot of teams then the benefit to Fox is diminished

if there is disagreement between ESPN and Fox on teams they could be talking about Fox paying more of the cost so that the Big 12 adds the teams Fox prefers because perhaps adding those teams might come much more at the expense of ESPN

or perhaps ESPN will pay a bit more of Fox is ok with adding teams that come with a much lower "expense" to ESPN like a team or teams out of the MWC instead of the ACC

but is any of that OK with the Big 12

which gets us back to the stupidity of all of this especially having it all out so publicly

there are no great options, no good options, no options that everyone will really like and a lot of garbage that comes with most of the options and that garbage keeps getting piled higher and stinking more as politicians get involved and as it is "reported" that those footing the bills are not happy

which makes it a lot easier to sit down, pay a bit more money and everyone moves on with getting mostly what they want

ESPN and Fox paying a lot less money than they could have paid for teams they might not really have wanted, the Big 12 getting paid more and perhaps Fox wishing they had gotten a particular team and a few Big 12 wall flowers wishing they could hang their future on some G5 schools performing better than they plan on their program doing and ESPN upset they had to pay a bit more

but that is a hell of a lot better than cramming 2-4 teams in the Big 12 that most members and their fan bases care nothing about, the consequences of the long term cost of that, putting up with the two tier payments that would have to last for 8 years, your media partners really feeling taken advantage of and then 8 years from now you probably are more likely to lose top programs anyway

why not take more money, concentrate on building your program in the Big 12 instead of hoping some G5ers getting less than a half share "save you in a P5 conference" and move on

Journalists or not, logic dictates Fox wants more content. These schools for the most part are G5 in name only. Cincy was one of the three best FB schools in a BCS conference, BYU is a P5 level program with a large dedicated fanbase and Houston adds a top ten TV market that Fox isn't in oh and they are a really good FB program that can keep it's really good coach if they get a Big XII invite. The writers talking down these candidates are fools who thought TCU and Utah couldn't hack it in the P5 either.

We do know that the Big XII wants to expand. We do know that Fox needs more content for both Fox OTA and FS1. We do know that the Big XII schools want more money. We do know that ESPN can't say "You're not allowed to expand.".

(08-04-2016 07:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:44 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

I suspect Frank O Tank has a school in mind for the BYU punch to the nuts. No not BYU, but a BYU like punch to the nuts.
Cheers!

My guess is if Houston gets in, that bumps out Boise as FB only, and moves BYU to all sports, along with UH, UC, UM. I already assumed that with my original guess, after the shots fired by the Texas gov and others.

Before that, I thought it was UC, UM and BYU and Boise, both FB only. But apparently there is some opposition to FB only, anyway, so that's helping Houston, too. JMO.

LOL

Here's the deal. Either the Big 12 expands with Houston. Or the Big 12 doesn't expand at all.

This is why THIRTEEN MONTHS AGO, Boren's mouthpiece Sittler tweeted Houston was the #1 candidate should the Big 12 expand.

UT has been behind Houston from the beginning.

So, all of you Big 12 hopefuls better pray that Houston gets an invite.

Because you don't get one unless we get one first.

I think that's likely true, assuming Texas is really going to bat for you. But that wasn't the plan before the gov butted in, so I wouldn't be 100% confident until it's done.

I think that's going to happen, and Frank the Tank referenced it today when he said some team who thought they were going to the Big 12 probably won't now. I think that team is Boise FB only.

Nah, Boise was never seriously considered. More than likely that team is UConn. Personally I think CSU, U_F schools and ECU were higher on the list than Boise.

(08-04-2016 07:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:44 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

I suspect Frank O Tank has a school in mind for the BYU punch to the nuts. No not BYU, but a BYU like punch to the nuts.
Cheers!

My guess is if Houston gets in, that bumps out Boise as FB only, and moves BYU to all sports, along with UH, UC, UM. I already assumed that with my original guess, after the shots fired by the Texas gov and others.

Before that, I thought it was UC, UM and BYU and Boise, both FB only. But apparently there is some opposition to FB only, anyway, so that's helping Houston, too. JMO.

LOL

Here's the deal. Either the Big 12 expands with Houston. Or the Big 12 doesn't expand at all.

This is why THIRTEEN MONTHS AGO, Boren's mouthpiece Sittler tweeted Houston was the #1 candidate should the Big 12 expand.

UT has been behind Houston from the beginning.

So, all of you Big 12 hopefuls better pray that Houston gets an invite.

Because you don't get one unless we get one first.

I think that's likely true, assuming Texas is really going to bat for you. But that wasn't the plan before the gov butted in, so I wouldn't be 100% confident until it's done.

I think that's going to happen, and Frank the Tank referenced it today when he said some team who thought they were going to the Big 12 probably won't now. I think that team is Boise FB only.

1. nobody gives a rats ass what dem coogs doh think or want

if UT or Texas Tech did not want them in the Big 12 before then nothing has changed now even with tweets they are not going to be pressured into adding a team they have no interest in because of politics or some BS that UT can already do without any needed approval from anyone

2. the Big 12 was never seriously considering football only and the only reason anyone even thinks that is because the Big 12 commissioner is an idiot that does not know when to shut up and that will answer any stupid question you ask him with a "possibility"

3. Boise is not and never was a serious contender, football only, womens hockey only, Olympic sports only or as an academic and research partner end of story

4. this is about the Big 12 getting something they want or at least trying to it is not about a bunch of horse trading so everyone gets a little of what they want and a lot of what they wish they had nothing to do with and politics getting involved only makes it more likely that the Big 12 says "lets just take more money if it is available and stay at 10"

5. there is going to be no GOR extension without a known media contract and there is about a ZERO chance that a media contract extension is offered that would make OU and UT 100% sure they were earning the same as other conferences in the future

without that expansion means nothing to the "stability" of the Big 12 especially with teams no one wants and expansion would probably make it MORE LIKELY UT and OU would leave in the future

so the options are pretend that expansion helps even though it will make it more likely the Big 12 falls apart or take more money if you can and work with 10 teams and better your program for the future

(08-04-2016 08:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

Fox wants to expand though. I'm going to keep posting this. Fox needs more content for FS1, even with the B1G coming in 2017 they want more. Forget want, they NEED more. More games means they have more options to add more games every weekend.

Multiple games on Fox OTA and multiple games on FS1 every Saturday. Thats what they need to truly go head to head with ESPN.

we really do not know if Fox wants to expand or not we have a bunch of losers that are suppose to be journalist saying things like that so they can have something to make up a story about, but we really do not know if there is any truth to it at all

and really for that matter we do not know if the Big 12 really even wants to expand at all or if they really just want more money

when the idiot boren was all excited about expansion it was because he was stupid enough to think that the Big 12 was getting a network, but once that was shot down and the Big 12 agreed to a CCG without expansion he was content as things were

and more so does Fox want to expand with the teams that the Big 12 MIGHT want to expand with.....if the Big 12 really "wants" two teams that Fox has no interest in because they are already in an area that Fox has a lot of teams then the benefit to Fox is diminished

if there is disagreement between ESPN and Fox on teams they could be talking about Fox paying more of the cost so that the Big 12 adds the teams Fox prefers because perhaps adding those teams might come much more at the expense of ESPN

or perhaps ESPN will pay a bit more of Fox is ok with adding teams that come with a much lower "expense" to ESPN like a team or teams out of the MWC instead of the ACC

but is any of that OK with the Big 12

which gets us back to the stupidity of all of this especially having it all out so publicly

there are no great options, no good options, no options that everyone will really like and a lot of garbage that comes with most of the options and that garbage keeps getting piled higher and stinking more as politicians get involved and as it is "reported" that those footing the bills are not happy

which makes it a lot easier to sit down, pay a bit more money and everyone moves on with getting mostly what they want

ESPN and Fox paying a lot less money than they could have paid for teams they might not really have wanted, the Big 12 getting paid more and perhaps Fox wishing they had gotten a particular team and a few Big 12 wall flowers wishing they could hang their future on some G5 schools performing better than they plan on their program doing and ESPN upset they had to pay a bit more

but that is a hell of a lot better than cramming 2-4 teams in the Big 12 that most members and their fan bases care nothing about, the consequences of the long term cost of that, putting up with the two tier payments that would have to last for 8 years, your media partners really feeling taken advantage of and then 8 years from now you probably are more likely to lose top programs anyway

why not take more money, concentrate on building your program in the Big 12 instead of hoping some G5ers getting less than a half share "save you in a P5 conference" and move on

Journalists or not, logic dictates Fox wants more content. These schools for the most part are G5 in name only. Cincy was one of the three best FB schools in a BCS conference, BYU is a P5 level program with a large dedicated fanbase and Houston adds a top ten TV market that Fox isn't in oh and they are a really good FB program that can keep it's really good coach if they get a Big XII invite. The writers talking down these candidates are fools who thought TCU and Utah couldn't hack it in the P5 either.

We do know that the Big XII wants to expand. We do know that Fox needs more content for both Fox OTA and FS1. We do know that the Big XII schools want more money. We do know that ESPN can't say "You're not allowed to expand.".

if we listen to these same "journalist" then we know that a couple of weeks ago the Big 12 was not going to expand and we are suppose to believe this is all a reaction to the ACC

and if we listen to these same "journalist" we would also know that "consultants" and at least ESPN have said that none of these teams are worth the money

if Fox wants "content" they can go pick up some of the CUSA deal from BEiN or anyone else and put "content" (that no one cares about) on any channel they wish

if Fox wants "content" they can wait a couple of years and pay 4 trinkets, 6 shiny objects and 3 glass beads to the AAC which would out bid ESPN by two shiny objects and 1 glass bead and maybe toss in a "look in" that consist of some chances at the grab claw with an XBOX or an IPhone as one of the prizes

I mean come on right now ESPN is paying the AAC $180 million for 6 years for an ENTIRE CONFERENCE Fox can wait that out for 3 years and get an entire conference for 8 years for about what it would cost Fox to get 4 teams in the Big 12 for 8 years if they doubled what ESPN is paying now

and that is pretty much all "east coast doh" and dem coogs doh

(08-04-2016 08:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 08:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

Fox wants to expand though. I'm going to keep posting this. Fox needs more content for FS1, even with the B1G coming in 2017 they want more. Forget want, they NEED more. More games means they have more options to add more games every weekend.

Multiple games on Fox OTA and multiple games on FS1 every Saturday. Thats what they need to truly go head to head with ESPN.

we really do not know if Fox wants to expand or not we have a bunch of losers that are suppose to be journalist saying things like that so they can have something to make up a story about, but we really do not know if there is any truth to it at all

and really for that matter we do not know if the Big 12 really even wants to expand at all or if they really just want more money

when the idiot boren was all excited about expansion it was because he was stupid enough to think that the Big 12 was getting a network, but once that was shot down and the Big 12 agreed to a CCG without expansion he was content as things were

and more so does Fox want to expand with the teams that the Big 12 MIGHT want to expand with.....if the Big 12 really "wants" two teams that Fox has no interest in because they are already in an area that Fox has a lot of teams then the benefit to Fox is diminished

if there is disagreement between ESPN and Fox on teams they could be talking about Fox paying more of the cost so that the Big 12 adds the teams Fox prefers because perhaps adding those teams might come much more at the expense of ESPN

or perhaps ESPN will pay a bit more of Fox is ok with adding teams that come with a much lower "expense" to ESPN like a team or teams out of the MWC instead of the ACC

but is any of that OK with the Big 12

which gets us back to the stupidity of all of this especially having it all out so publicly

there are no great options, no good options, no options that everyone will really like and a lot of garbage that comes with most of the options and that garbage keeps getting piled higher and stinking more as politicians get involved and as it is "reported" that those footing the bills are not happy

which makes it a lot easier to sit down, pay a bit more money and everyone moves on with getting mostly what they want

ESPN and Fox paying a lot less money than they could have paid for teams they might not really have wanted, the Big 12 getting paid more and perhaps Fox wishing they had gotten a particular team and a few Big 12 wall flowers wishing they could hang their future on some G5 schools performing better than they plan on their program doing and ESPN upset they had to pay a bit more

but that is a hell of a lot better than cramming 2-4 teams in the Big 12 that most members and their fan bases care nothing about, the consequences of the long term cost of that, putting up with the two tier payments that would have to last for 8 years, your media partners really feeling taken advantage of and then 8 years from now you probably are more likely to lose top programs anyway

why not take more money, concentrate on building your program in the Big 12 instead of hoping some G5ers getting less than a half share "save you in a P5 conference" and move on

Journalists or not, logic dictates Fox wants more content. These schools for the most part are G5 in name only. Cincy was one of the three best FB schools in a BCS conference, BYU is a P5 level program with a large dedicated fanbase and Houston adds a top ten TV market that Fox isn't in oh and they are a really good FB program that can keep it's really good coach if they get a Big XII invite. The writers talking down these candidates are fools who thought TCU and Utah couldn't hack it in the P5 either.

We do know that the Big XII wants to expand. We do know that Fox needs more content for both Fox OTA and FS1. We do know that the Big XII schools want more money. We do know that ESPN can't say "You're not allowed to expand.".

if we listen to these same "journalist" then we know that a couple of weeks ago the Big 12 was not going to expand and we are suppose to believe this is all a reaction to the ACC

and if we listen to these same "journalist" we would also know that "consultants" and at least ESPN have said that none of these teams are worth the money

if Fox wants "content" they can go pick up some of the CUSA deal from BEiN or anyone else and put "content" (that no one cares about) on any channel they wish

if Fox wants "content" they can wait a couple of years and pay 4 trinkets, 6 shiny objects and 3 glass beads to the AAC which would out bid ESPN by two shiny objects and 1 glass bead and maybe toss in a "look in" that consist of some chances at the grab claw with an XBOX or an IPhone as one of the prizes

I mean come on right now ESPN is paying the AAC $180 million for 6 years for an ENTIRE CONFERENCE Fox can wait that out for 3 years and get an entire conference for 8 years for about what it would cost Fox to get 4 teams in the Big 12 for 8 years if they doubled what ESPN is paying now

and that is pretty much all "east coast doh" and dem coogs doh

I think it's justice if ESPN ends up paying $80 mil a year more to the Big 12 because four AAC schools joined.... 4 AAC schools, from a conference that ESPIN pays 2 MIL TOTAL for the entire ball of wax....hahaha!!! Karma is a bi!ch ESPIN!!
Cheers!

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

To what degree though is B12 expansion inevitable?

ESPN made this deal knowing that the B12 would eventually expand.

With who?

Not ACC members.

I tend to think ESPN is unhappy with the selections, not the actual expansion.

(08-04-2016 09:08 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

To what degree though is B12 expansion inevitable?

ESPN made this deal knowing that the B12 would eventually expand.

With who?

Not ACC members.

I tend to think ESPN is unhappy with the selections, not the actual expansion.

Maybe Espin figured it would be that the big 12 would expand with schools they don't have tier 1 rights to? Maybe MWC schools like SDSU and Air Force? (CBS-SN) Who knows? Maybe they thought the big 12 would break apart before this ever became a problem for them? Seems like they were a little caught off gaurd by this though doesn't it?
Cheers!

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

That would be really risky for ESPN/Fox after that leak. Basically it would be saying they are intervening to stop the other schools from moving. Whether they have any legal liability, politically it is very dangerous. They really don't want legislators pushing the feds to take anti-trust action.

(08-04-2016 09:08 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

To what degree though is B12 expansion inevitable?

ESPN made this deal knowing that the B12 would eventually expand.

With who?

Not ACC members.

I tend to think ESPN is unhappy with the selections, not the actual expansion.

the more different parties get involved to make their "demands" the less likely it is

if ESPN is trying to push the Big 12 to take teams that the Big 12 really does not want what is the "cost" of that

does ESPN bribe them to do so......does ESPN bribe them to not take anyone (please please please let that be the case)

if the Big 12 is taking teams they do not want to make ESPN happy what does that mean down the road when 2024-25 comes especially if those teams are the teams that OU and Texas were the least interested in

if other Big 12 teams know that ESPN is pushing teams that OU and Texas are the least interested in then how excited are they about expansion

this is again why the Big 12 never should have let it all get to this point

and this is again why some that feel as though "tweets" in support of their program pretty much puts them "in control" have a strong chance of finding out that those "tweets" made it a lot less desirable for the Big 12 to expand at all

most seem to feel that the outcome will somehow end up where everyone gets the least of what they want

they feel as though a conference that was not all that strongly in favor of expansion to start will end up "taking sides" and letting some teams pick one team to add and the other side will do the same and then they will have to see what ESPN and Fox say and then maybe ESPN and Fox say "well no this side can pick from these schools and the other side can pick from these schools" and then ESPN and Fox pay a lot of money they really did not want to pay anyway (or at least ESPN does not want to pay if we believe that Fox just wants "content")

then of course you have the wonderful "stabilizing" effect of a conference that was not all that big on expansion with 2-4 new members making a ton less money for most likely all 8 years and media partners that are not that excited about some of those schools in that conference and everyone is waiting until 2024-25 so they can all decide what they want to do at that time.....sounds like the suck especially when you can probably just take some additional money and not expand and make more money with fewer members that others are not interested in and no half share members to drag along and pretty much an easier decision in the future because of less teams to contend with

and really if Fox wanted "content" wouldn't it have made more sense to take the rest of the Big 10 rights when those were available and end up controlling pretty much all of that conference instead of passing on that "content" and then somehow falling ass backwards into the Big 12 might all the sudden decide to expand and then Fox has to scramble to make it happen when ESPN prefers it doesn't and Fox has to push for the teams they want probably against ESPN and possibly against some Big 12 members as well

(08-04-2016 07:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

Fox wants them to expand though because it increases their content. More Big XII teams means more Big XII games that they get to air. It seems only ESPN is upset about this.

Just saying the same thing in response to multiple comments doesn’t make it more likely to become true, you know.

But it is true, because they do in fact need more content. Ignoring that doesn't make it untrue.

Not sure if it is true now that they have half the Big 10. They have half of 3 conferences, probably an average of 7 games per week. They aren't going to use Fox for 3 games on Saturday. They haven't put much football on FS2 because it has such poor coverage.

Isn't that the point? They want to build up CFB content on FOX/FS1/FS2 to near the level that ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 has now.

(08-04-2016 09:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

Fox wants them to expand though because it increases their content. More Big XII teams means more Big XII games that they get to air. It seems only ESPN is upset about this.

Just saying the same thing in response to multiple comments doesn’t make it more likely to become true, you know.

But it is true, because they do in fact need more content. Ignoring that doesn't make it untrue.

Not sure if it is true now that they have half the Big 10. They have half of 3 conferences, probably an average of 7 games per week. They aren't going to use Fox for 3 games on Saturday. They haven't put much football on FS2 because it has such poor coverage.

Then why does ESPN have so many properties? It's about options. We have no idea if Fox OTA will air FB all day. Why wouldn't they if they have the properties? They gonna show I Love Lucy reruns instead? Just like NFL all day on sundays they will do CFB all day on saturday.

They could easily have every sat look something like this.

Noon Ok St @ WVU Fox
Noon Indiana @ Rutgers FS1
330 Iowa @ PSU Fox
330 BYU @ TCU FS1
330 Oregon St @ Washington FX
800 Ohio St @ Wisconsin Fox
730 Tech @ Houston FS1
1100 UCLA @ Utah FS1

Might be FX to start with, which of course isn't unreasonable in the slightest, but eventually they want that to be FS2.

(08-04-2016 09:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

Fox wants them to expand though because it increases their content. More Big XII teams means more Big XII games that they get to air. It seems only ESPN is upset about this.

Just saying the same thing in response to multiple comments doesn’t make it more likely to become true, you know.

But it is true, because they do in fact need more content. Ignoring that doesn't make it untrue.

Not sure if it is true now that they have half the Big 10. They have half of 3 conferences, probably an average of 7 games per week. They aren't going to use Fox for 3 games on Saturday. They haven't put much football on FS2 because it has such poor coverage.

Oh and they don't have half of the B1G, they have half of what was available. It seems the BTN will carry 1-2 games a week as well in FB. So the more Big XII content the better for them.

(08-04-2016 07:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ...

when the idiot boren was all excited about expansion it was because he was stupid enough to think that the Big 12 was getting a network, but once that was shot down and the Big 12 agreed to a CCG without expansion he was content as things were

...

there are no great options, no good options, no options that everyone will really like and a lot of garbage that comes with most of the options and that garbage keeps getting piled higher and stinking more as politicians get involved and as it is "reported" that those footing the bills are not happy

1. With additional teams, the Big 12 can still get a network without Texas being on board. It probably won't be through ESPN, but it still makes more sense to compile 3rd tier assets and be able to charge more for them than they currently make. However, you have to have enough content to bundle.

2. There is a program that would step in with the 3rd highest football attendance and the 2nd highest basketball attendance, with the levels being relatively consistent over 30 years. What you are saying is that any team currently in the Big 12 beside Texas and Oklahoma is deadweight.

The TV networks "footing the bill" may simply be playing for negotiating leverage, as they contractually agreed to the expansion condition and a glace at the network footprint of the current Big 12 gives a good indication why they would want more teams.

Chuck Carlton ‏@ChuckCarltonDMN 9m9 minutes ago
As you can probably imagine, a lot of discussions behind the scenes. Industry source very skeptical any announcement before season begins.

(08-03-2016 09:38 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly. Fox is the one who wants expansion and 14 teams. ESPN is the one who doesn't want to pay the bill for all this.

Makes sense. ESPN is hemoragging subscribers while FS1 is trying to play catch up.