(08-10-2016 12:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't buy this. First, why the interchangeability of USF/UCF? They are two different schools. No way are school presidents like "uh, yeah, either one of those is fine ahead of that other school."

And in NO way is WVU and TCU a bloc with equal share as Oklahoma (with ISU and KU? Are you kidding me?! Those three could probably all go to the PAC or B1G) and Texas.

Geez, this is getting horrific. The need is 8/10, right? How do you get that with four groups? Shouldn't it be five?

Yeah, there are 2 groups, OU and friends, UT and friends. No way OSU isn't w OU and that TCU isn't w UT.

(08-10-2016 12:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  This last thing that guy posted on UC 247 makes more sense. He does better when sticking to TV negotiations, rather than trying to figure out specific candidates, b/c he is in the TV industry, supposedly.

"Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

"The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

"First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

"ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

"Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front."

Yeah, but he doesn't understand the contract. There are already procedures including an amount increase for each addition in place for their current contract. I'm sure since they already have that in place that they also address the addition of a CCG. This guy is just trying to sound smart and sound like he's "In the biz". Just like how everyone on the internet tries to pretend to be a lawyer.

Anyone actually involved with this is not on ANY message boards talking about it. Those people sign NDA's (Non Disclosure Agreements) and would be BEYOND stupid to talk about any negotiations.

I agree with you. But some of it makes sense from an industry standpoint. I have no doubt that he is short on actual schools or details.

But the general consensus on that board is they (UC) are in, the Big 12 will add 4, and they should still announce by the end of the month.

I tend to agree with that.

While some of this may be speculation, it sounds pretty plausible. I disagree that just because some things, including the payout per expansion school, are in the existing contract, that there is no need for negotiation. According to reports on Sports Business Journal, ESPN and Fox are balking at paying for four additions, and suggesting that they would dispute/litigate the payment obligation. Other reports suggest that this is simply designed to be a raw money grab by the B12 by exploiting the pro rate payout provision. Indeed, threatening to expand by 4-6 schools may just be a negotiating ploy, in which case the B12 should be open to listening how ESPN and Fox might provide an increased payout without having to expand by as many schools as possible.

My guess is that ESPN and Fox would offer higher rights fees without expansion for a contract extension, including an extension of the grant of rights. They will also likely ask for Friday night games. The B12 could put the burden of hosting most those on the new members. ESPN and Fox will also offer input on their preferred expansion choices. Finally, ESPN and Fox will need to work out between themselves how to divide the additional inventory among themselves. ESPN may want more games on LHN. They will also need to figure out how to share the CCG. In other words, there is a whole bunch of stuff to negotiate.

(08-10-2016 12:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You think Texas is going to allow the conf to expand with Cincy and one of the Florida schools, with Houston not getting an invite??

Please.


(note: I'm assuming at this point it's going to be two, not four ... which seems like a reasonable assumption)

Prior to the last month the assumption was that Texas, no matter what Houston's qualifications were, would NEVER want another school in Texas. Now Texas is going to go to the mattresses for Houston?

(08-10-2016 01:16 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Not too far fetched but what if ESPN is really torqued about Fox upping the Ante with the Big 12 over adding 4 AAC schools and puts in a call to the ACC making room for Cincinnati, thus removing one of the Top Big 12 choices and reducing Big 12 interest outside of Houston, BYU ? That way if ESPN keeps a share of the Big 12, the cost is reduced on paying a lot more for 4 schools They currently contract with and only pay more for Cincinnati and Houston divided in 2 different conferences.

That makes no sense though for anyone involved. ESPN would still be paying out more money for AAC teams, it doesn't guarantee that the Big XII doesn't take four teams and the ACC now has 15 full members. ESPN owns all the ACC TV rights but it doesn't own the conference.

(08-10-2016 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  This last thing that guy posted on UC 247 makes more sense. He does better when sticking to TV negotiations, rather than trying to figure out specific candidates, b/c he is in the TV industry, supposedly.

"Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

"The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

"First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

"ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

"Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front."

Why would Texas, who could pick up the phone and choose their conference, want to extend the GOR?

(08-10-2016 01:20 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  This last thing that guy posted on UC 247 makes more sense. He does better when sticking to TV negotiations, rather than trying to figure out specific candidates, b/c he is in the TV industry, supposedly.

"Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

"The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

"First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

"ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

"Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front."

Yeah, but he doesn't understand the contract. There are already procedures including an amount increase for each addition in place for their current contract. I'm sure since they already have that in place that they also address the addition of a CCG. This guy is just trying to sound smart and sound like he's "In the biz". Just like how everyone on the internet tries to pretend to be a lawyer.

Anyone actually involved with this is not on ANY message boards talking about it. Those people sign NDA's (Non Disclosure Agreements) and would be BEYOND stupid to talk about any negotiations.

I agree with you. But some of it makes sense from an industry standpoint. I have no doubt that he is short on actual schools or details.

But the general consensus on that board is they (UC) are in, the Big 12 will add 4, and they should still announce by the end of the month.

I tend to agree with that.

While some of this may be speculation, it sounds pretty plausible. I disagree that just because some things, including the payout per expansion school, are in the existing contract, that there is no need for negotiation. According to reports on Sports Business Journal, ESPN and Fox are balking at paying for four additions, and suggesting that they would dispute/litigate the payment obligation. Other reports suggest that this is simply designed to be a raw money grab by the B12 by exploiting the pro rate payout provision. Indeed, threatening to expand by 4-6 schools may just be a negotiating ploy, in which case the B12 should be open to listening how ESPN and Fox might provide an increased payout without having to expand by as many schools as possible.

My guess is that ESPN and Fox would offer higher rights fees without expansion for a contract extension, including an extension of the grant of rights. They will also likely ask for Friday night games. The B12 could put the burden of hosting most those on the new members. ESPN and Fox will also offer input on their preferred expansion choices. Finally, ESPN and Fox will need to work out between themselves how to divide the additional inventory among themselves. ESPN may want more games on LHN. They will also need to figure out how to share the CCG. In other words, there is a whole bunch of stuff to negotiate.

And reports after the sports business journal came out was that it was ESPN speaking on Fox's behalf and that they (Fox) have been instead working with the Big XII on expansion for 2 whole years. People keep forgetting that Fox has all the incentive in the world for wanting the conference to expand.

ESPN can't change the contract to include Friday night games. They can ask for that in the NEXT contract but they have zero leverage here. This isn't an open negotiation nor is it a look in. The Big XII is exercising their rights in the contract to expand. ESPN has little to no say in the matter. They can publicly complain to the sports business journal but they can't actually change the agreement without the Big XII's blessing. Which I can assure you isn't coming.

The LHN is a different contract than the Big XII media rights. If they could change that they would have done so a long time ago when it became clear it was a financial disaster for them.

Most of this post is nothing but speculation not based on the reality of the situation.

(08-10-2016 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  This last thing that guy posted on UC 247 makes more sense. He does better when sticking to TV negotiations, rather than trying to figure out specific candidates, b/c he is in the TV industry, supposedly.

"Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

"The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

"First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

"ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

"Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front."

Expansion without a new GOR doesn't do much. Whether or not a new GOR gets signed is the key thing to all of this. That we just have to wait and find out.

If they signed a new GOR to align it with the LHN, then it is just 6 years out from the end of the current GOR. So not that big of a deal, but at least it would give the league some stability for a while and during that time they could try and poach the Pac 12 and if they were successful at that then the Pac 12 would (that didn't go to the Big 12) would just merge with the B1G and creat a coast-to-coast conference.

(08-10-2016 01:28 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  Why would Texas, who could pick up the phone and choose their conference, want to extend the GOR?

Only plausible reason is that they don't want Oklahoma to jump before they jump.

However, I certainly agree with you - it doesn't sound likely. Yet more message board fodder.

(08-10-2016 01:28 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  Why would Texas, who could pick up the phone and choose their conference, want to extend the GOR?

The LHN is a great deal for them and would be a sticking point that would make leaving to join any conference except the ACC difficult. The suggestion that they would be interested in extending the GOR until the termination of the LHN deal is plausible.

(08-10-2016 01:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  First he cites MHver3, next he cites another message board, has he cited the Dude yet?

Dude, I mock Mhver3, the dude and Flugy boy constantly. It was a mocking thread. lol.

As far as this moose guy on that Cincy website, he has had some good info that has checked out over the last several months.

He was the first guy that mentioned the summer meeting.

This guy may work at a network or something like that, but he isn't involved in this.

(08-10-2016 01:05 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I've seen less convoluted Dungeons & Dragons games. Jeez, what the heck am I reading here?

Great post!

This seems way, way too convoluted for me. I don't see how anything of value is gained by such a process.

I am in a job where we "vote" for alternatives, and we always have more alternatives than open spots. We use a very complicated process (j/K)

We simply list the alternatives, and after analyzing each option, each voting member ranks the options from 1 to however many options there are. We add those up, then draw a line across the number of options we can afford. How easy would it be for the Big 12 teams to rank each team, then add them up, draw a line at two or four (or however many teams they want to add), then use that as a starting point on determining teams? I'm sure there are also other easy ways of narrowing down the field.

Wait, this is the big 12, so maybe they are using the "voting block" process.

This is the right practice. Agree on the (i) relevant criteria, (ii) the weighting of such criteria and (iii) the objective source of data for the criteria. Then you work your options through the agreed approach and reach a dis-passioned decision.

I doubt this is how B12 is operating, but you certainly don't just create relatively arbitrary groups based on feelings and then set about voting.

(08-10-2016 01:28 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  This last thing that guy posted on UC 247 makes more sense. He does better when sticking to TV negotiations, rather than trying to figure out specific candidates, b/c he is in the TV industry, supposedly.

"Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

"The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

"First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

"ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

"Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front."

Why would Texas, who could pick up the phone and choose their conference, want to extend the GOR?

So the Texas ego can maintain control. That would be the only reason. We will have to wait and find out if a new GOR will get signed or now. If not, expansion doesn't do much besides a money grab and then OU and UT take the next exit out of town when the GOR expires.

If Texas goes to another conference they will lose that control/power.

Pretty much shows UT and Tech are the only ones supporting UH and only because they care about protecting controversial pet projects and avoiding bad press... not because they actually want UH

(08-10-2016 01:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Pretty much shows UT and Tech are the only ones supporting UH and only because they care about protecting controversial pet projects and avoiding bad press... not because they actually want UH

This

At this level we are talking shades of self interest.

This again is not news. It is a message board post from a named but unknown source. For this kind of stuff (G5 realignment) which is so important to so many on this board please refrain from starting threads based on unknown sources.

This thread is closed.