(08-31-2016 03:05 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:49 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:23 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox. And make no mistake, adding schools is only motivated by putting more $$ in the pockets of the current B12 members - especially OU (the current big lose under current arrangement). Further when ESPN/Fox declined to provide a network agreement for the B12 on top of ESPN having already provided UT the LHN contract, and then to have the ACC announce an ACC network with ESPN, it essentially eliminated any "partner" relationship between the B12 & ESPN beyond the current contract. The B12 has no reason to consult & ESPN/Fox have no leverage to dictate anything regarding the addition of schools. UT & OU have no motivation to extend GOR, especially OU, who is currently the big loser in the B12. So IMO, it will play out that the B12, in order to increase revenues to keep up with the other power conferences, will add 4 schools if that brings the biggest payout. And those schools will be selected based upon the lowest risk & cost to the current B12 members over the remaining years of the current TV agreements.

OU has no claim to being a "loser" in the Big 12 financially

OU has stated they were the first team to even THINK OF an independent network and they worked for well over 5 years prior to 2012 to get the sooner sports network up and running

at the time they announced it they stated they did not do it in response to any other university or network they did it because it was "the best of all possible worlds for OU, OU fans and OU athletics"

OU was every bit if not more responsible for the Big 12 not having a conference network just like A&M and Nebraska were as well

the only difference is OU claimed to be the first to even THINK OF an independent network and Nebraska has stated they were further along than Texas is starting their own network.....but Texas simply made theirs pay much better than OU

if OU is upset with the LHN now or is OU wishes there was a conference network now well they should have worked for that from 2006 or 2007 instead of working towards the sooner sports network and doing what was best for "OU, OU fans and OU athletics" instead of doing what they thought would be best for the Big 12

What did or didn't happen in 2004-2005 doesn't matter today. The reality today is that UT has the LHN, the SEC & B1G are paying substantially more than the B12 & now the ACC is getting a network contract - all of these things make OU the loser. How OU got to that position is nothing more than - should have, could have , would have - but didn't.....OU is still the current big loser in this equation today given their unrealized potential to increase revenues.

but the hand picked consultants for david boren and the Big 12 have informed boren and the Big 12 that a conference network is a no go with or without expansion

and even if the Big 12 did get a conference network there is little to no guarantee that it would pay enough money to cover the buy out for the remaining 6 years of the sooner sports network and pay enough money to turn a profit to OU over and above what the sooner sports network currently pays them which was reported to be up to $7 million per year

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ahoma.aspx

there is the link they get $5.8 million per year from Fox and then their deal with Learfield was changed to include the TV rights and in exchange for that new easy income Learfield kicked some of that back to OU to the tune of $1 to $2 million per year

so OU would have to buy out of that deal with both Fox and Learfield and then OU would need to get revenue from any conference network that covers that buyout and that covers the money they are making now and then you would think they would want to make a bit more than break even for the trouble

so you are looking at needing to make $10+ million a year if you assume that Learfield and Fox would take $1 million each per year to end the deal and then the $7 million OU gets now and then $1 million more

even if you think that Fox and Learfield would take $250,000 each per year to end the deal because it does not turn a big profit for each that is still $500,000 and then if you believe the lies of boren that the sooner sports network really does not pay OU a lot.......boren lies a lot and has trouble remembering what he bragged about in the past and he is a politician so he has trouble with money and accounting anyway and hence the lying and telling you what you want to hear now the past statements be damned

you are still looking at $500,000 to Learfield and Fox per year and $3 or $4 million to cover what boren says the sooner sports network might generate now and then $1 million for the trouble so you are looking at $5+ million per year that a conference network would need to generate and that is coming close to what the SEC SEC SEC network makes

then there is the fact that ESPN cannot ATTEMPT to cram more content onto cable MSOs until their contract negotiations in 2019 which is part of why the ACc Acc acc network will not be attempted until then

so how does OU cover that between now and then....they don't

and three years from now is a long ways away in terms of cable subscribers when ESPN has lost 10 million subscribers since 2013 and when ESPN lost 1.5 million subscribers from Feb to May of this year alone

so there is no certainty that the Big 12 would come close to earning even what some lower tier teams are earning from their deals much less what OU or KU makes and even more so if they offer to make UT whole in the LHN

You're looking in the wrong place & using a wrong analysis - and BTW I'm not arguing with your analysis other than to say it's not the issue that makes OU the loser. It is not what OU now gets vs what it may or may not have received if other decisions had been made in the past in the B12. It is what OU is missing out on by not be a member of the SEC or the B1G the loser - and can't get under the B12 because they cannot leverage the conference for a better network contract. So the alternative for OU & the B12 is to maximize the existing TV contract by adding members until the contract is up for renewal & GoR has run its course.

the problems with your solution of "OU going elsewhere after the GOR and media contracts are up" and "maximizing revenues in the current contract" is those are not realistic solutions

when new members bring in on average $14 million less per year per member than current Big 12 members are set to make for all 8 years that would be left on the contract with new members it is extremely difficult for current members to not lose money by adding new members unless you are going to pay them less for most of or for all of the 8 years or for at least 6 years

and even then if you give them a full share in the final 2 years or so your conference distribution per member will decline dramatically and when you try and point out that current members took that revenue in earlier years no one is going to listen they are just going to point out that you are paying less and less money per member

and even taking money in the early years you have to take so much of that you would be giving new members next to nothing

then there is the fact that ISU and others have stated there is not going to be expansion without a further commitment to membership in the Big 12 by all the current members

they are smart enough to not be interested in a short term VERY SMALL IF AT ALL "money grab" by adding new members they might want nothing to do with in 9 years from now and with OU hitting the door in 9 years from now

they realize that there is very very little if any "new money" to be made by adding new members and if you try and make "new money" for existing members it just prolongs the time that new teams will have difficulty being financially competitive and at the end of the contract even if you give them a full share for a year or two it comes with the "optics" of overall declining revenues per team especially existing members

and that is not a good place to be....stuck with members that were added simply to take money from, declining per team distributions and your best programs hitting the door

the easiest and really the most simple and probably the only realistic way to make NEW MONEY for existing members is to get paid to not expand and then ride out the next 9 years and see what happens then

you are not going to get most members of the conference to hamstring themselves with new members if it is very apparent that OU is looking to hit the door especially when the finances of those new additions simply do not work out well current members and making them work well for current members just makes it harder on new members

New members will bring a pro rata share of revenue to the conference. That means current per school TV revenue x 4 to be distributed unequally to the new members but also to the current members. 9 years is a life time in college FB conferences & what is the alternative? Say no & take less? For sure ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, UK, TCU, BU, & WVU would love to extend GOR & maintain the status quo but they don't get to make those decisions for UT & OU. This group also has to be concerned about life after OU & UT. Better to get 9 yrs to develop the next TCUs of the college FB world & the added revenue while available than coast on the value of UT & OU and have them leave with no added value in place.

(08-31-2016 03:48 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  New members will bring a pro rata share of revenue to the conference. That means current per school TV revenue x 4 to be distributed unequally to the new members but also to the current members. 9 years is a life time in college FB conferences & what is the alternative? Say no & take less? For sure ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, UK, TCU, BU, & WVU would love to extend GOR & maintain the status quo but they don't get to make those decisions for UT & OU. This group also has to be concerned about life after OU & UT. Better to get 9 yrs to develop the next TCUs of the college FB world & the added revenue while available than coast on the value of UT & OU and have them leave with no added value in place.

a "pro rata" share is still on average $14 million dollars less per new member per year than what current members are set to get from the Big 12

the "pro rata" only covers TV money it does not cover Sugar Bowl money, new CCG money, NCAA football playoff money and other money the Big 12 makes outside of their TV contracts and that money is substantial

for every year you give new members a full share you have to go back to an earlier year and take that amount of money away from those new members

for every year you are taking money away from new members you are prolonging the time it takes them to become financially competitive

if the "goal" of teams that are not UT and OU is to add new members, take lots of money from them in the early years so they are making barely above what they make in their current conference and then at the same time hope those programs become "good" so they can make the conference "good" after UT and OU leave while those other current members just continue to suck well that is the dumbest plan on earth

especially when you would be looking at declining conference payouts for the final years if you were giving new members a full share and when you have just watched new members come into the conference and "become the next TCU" while your program still sucks

that is pretty much a plan on how to guarantee that UT and OU leave the conference and that you end up in a conference called the Big 12 that looks like the AAC or the MWC at "best' and that gets paid like them or at worst you actually end up in the MWC or the AAC

what type of a terrible university president or AD looks to add new members to the conference to make the conference stronger if the most financially appealing members leave while also not realizing that for new members to be good your program has to also continue to pretty much suck

even worse when you would be dividing any exit fees from OU and UT by several more members and worse than that is the possibility that those new members might improve enough to take a spot that you could have had in a better conference (like happened to several members of the renamed Big East now called the AAC)

if the idea is to just make more money until OU and UT leave that is much easier to accomplish and you would actually make much better money getting paid to not expand

and if you want to expand to get "members that might become good" then your program just sucks and the opinion of those running it should be ignored or mocked

(08-31-2016 04:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 03:48 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  New members will bring a pro rata share of revenue to the conference. That means current per school TV revenue x 4 to be distributed unequally to the new members but also to the current members. 9 years is a life time in college FB conferences & what is the alternative? Say no & take less? For sure ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, UK, TCU, BU, & WVU would love to extend GOR & maintain the status quo but they don't get to make those decisions for UT & OU. This group also has to be concerned about life after OU & UT. Better to get 9 yrs to develop the next TCUs of the college FB world & the added revenue while available than coast on the value of UT & OU and have them leave with no added value in place.

a "pro rata" share is still on average $14 million dollars less per new member per year than what current members are set to get from the Big 12

the "pro rata" only covers TV money it does not cover Sugar Bowl money, new CCG money, NCAA football playoff money and other money the Big 12 makes outside of their TV contracts and that money is substantial

for every year you give new members a full share you have to go back to an earlier year and take that amount of money away from those new members

for every year you are taking money away from new members you are prolonging the time it takes them to become financially competitive

if the "goal" of teams that are not UT and OU is to add new members, take lots of money from them in the early years so they are making barely above what they make in their current conference and then at the same time hope those programs become "good" so they can make the conference "good" after UT and OU leave while those other current members just continue to suck well that is the dumbest plan on earth

especially when you would be looking at declining conference payouts for the final years if you were giving new members a full share and when you have just watched new members come into the conference and "become the next TCU" while your program still sucks

that is pretty much a plan on how to guarantee that UT and OU leave the conference and that you end up in a conference called the Big 12 that looks like the AAC or the MWC at "best' and that gets paid like them or at worst you actually end up in the MWC or the AAC

what type of a terrible university president or AD looks to add new members to the conference to make the conference stronger if the most financially appealing members leave while also not realizing that for new members to be good your program has to also continue to pretty much suck

even worse when you would be dividing any exit fees from OU and UT by several more members and worse than that is the possibility that those new members might improve enough to take a spot that you could have had in a better conference (like happened to several members of the renamed Big East now called the AAC)

if the idea is to just make more money until OU and UT leave that is much easier to accomplish and you would actually make much better money getting paid to not expand

and if you want to expand to get "members that might become good" then your program just sucks and the opinion of those running it should be ignored or mocked

Define the $14M you state & the other income.

The pro rata money also doesn't include revenue that would be generated by new members - NCAA BB credits, additional bowl revenue from additional bowl tie-ins, the improved opportunity to appear in the playoffs from added membership that would add funds in years where the B12 might not make the cut under a 10 school conference. For reduced new member payouts see the B1G.

(08-31-2016 05:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 04:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 03:48 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  New members will bring a pro rata share of revenue to the conference. That means current per school TV revenue x 4 to be distributed unequally to the new members but also to the current members. 9 years is a life time in college FB conferences & what is the alternative? Say no & take less? For sure ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, UK, TCU, BU, & WVU would love to extend GOR & maintain the status quo but they don't get to make those decisions for UT & OU. This group also has to be concerned about life after OU & UT. Better to get 9 yrs to develop the next TCUs of the college FB world & the added revenue while available than coast on the value of UT & OU and have them leave with no added value in place.

a "pro rata" share is still on average $14 million dollars less per new member per year than what current members are set to get from the Big 12

the "pro rata" only covers TV money it does not cover Sugar Bowl money, new CCG money, NCAA football playoff money and other money the Big 12 makes outside of their TV contracts and that money is substantial

for every year you give new members a full share you have to go back to an earlier year and take that amount of money away from those new members

for every year you are taking money away from new members you are prolonging the time it takes them to become financially competitive

if the "goal" of teams that are not UT and OU is to add new members, take lots of money from them in the early years so they are making barely above what they make in their current conference and then at the same time hope those programs become "good" so they can make the conference "good" after UT and OU leave while those other current members just continue to suck well that is the dumbest plan on earth

especially when you would be looking at declining conference payouts for the final years if you were giving new members a full share and when you have just watched new members come into the conference and "become the next TCU" while your program still sucks

that is pretty much a plan on how to guarantee that UT and OU leave the conference and that you end up in a conference called the Big 12 that looks like the AAC or the MWC at "best' and that gets paid like them or at worst you actually end up in the MWC or the AAC

what type of a terrible university president or AD looks to add new members to the conference to make the conference stronger if the most financially appealing members leave while also not realizing that for new members to be good your program has to also continue to pretty much suck

even worse when you would be dividing any exit fees from OU and UT by several more members and worse than that is the possibility that those new members might improve enough to take a spot that you could have had in a better conference (like happened to several members of the renamed Big East now called the AAC)

if the idea is to just make more money until OU and UT leave that is much easier to accomplish and you would actually make much better money getting paid to not expand

and if you want to expand to get "members that might become good" then your program just sucks and the opinion of those running it should be ignored or mocked

Define the $14M you state & the other income.

The pro rata money also doesn't include revenue that would be generated by new members - NCAA BB credits, additional bowl revenue from additional bowl tie-ins, the improved opportunity to appear in the playoffs from added membership that would add funds in years where the B12 might not make the cut under a 10 school conference. For reduced new member payouts see the B1G.

as I explained in the other thread

new members will be bringing in ZERO basketball credits and those take 8 years to vest so 75% of the Big 12 GOR and media contracts would be over before those NCAA credits would fully vest

spare bowl games are money LOSERS for conferences they are not money makers

and the "chance" to make the playoffs is just statistical nonsense and bowlsby has already stated that chance mostly comes with playing fewer conference games not with adding new teams and you do not need to add new teams to play fewer conference games you simply play fewer conference games

the money you are pretending exist is peanuts compared to the overall COST of adding teams as soon as you pay them over a 62% share of distributions

and as for the Big 10 they have 6+ year buy ins

that is 75% of the time left on the Big 12 contract by the time they could add new members

plus the Big 10 actually paid out LESS from the BTN as Nebraska earned a larger share and Nebraska will not be to a full share until next year and with Maryland and Rutgers they gave Maryland a ton of money up front, but Maryland pays a ton more back and Rutgers is only getting about $10 million based on what they would have made in the Big East

plus the Big 10 was only a couple of years from a new contract with Rutgers and Maryland added

unlike the Big 12 that is 9 years away from now and 8 years away from when they could have new members

(08-31-2016 06:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  unlike the Big 12 that is 9 years away from now and 8 years away from when they could have new members

7 years from when they would be most likely able to add new members ... moving in a year and a half is a lot more likely than moving in half a year. Could even by 2019/20, depending on how long they drag this out.

So say it is 7 years. Say that it is an 8 year buy in, starting at 30% and rising 10% per year, to a full share in the 8th year.

And suppose that the "financial break-even" is at a 62.5% share.

That track yields a total of 17.5% of a share. Divide by 10 incumbents and by 8 years, that is a bonanza of an extra 0.2% of a share per year per school. So almost 1% more money if four schools are added.

Say it is a 10 year buy-in, with a 30% share for the first three years. That pencils out to a net 45% of a share. A bonanza of 0.45% of a share per new school, so almost 2% more money if four schools are added.

(08-31-2016 09:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 06:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  unlike the Big 12 that is 9 years away from now and 8 years away from when they could have new members

7 years from when they would be most likely able to add new members ... moving in a year and a half is a lot more likely than moving in half a year. Could even by 2019/20, depending on how long they drag this out.

So say it is 7 years. Say that it is an 8 year buy in, starting at 30% and rising 10% per year, to a full share in the 8th year.

And suppose that the "financial break-even" is at a 62.5% share.

That track yields a total of 17.5% of a share. Divide by 10 incumbents and by 8 years, that is a bonanza of an extra 0.2% of a share per year per school. So almost 1% more money if four schools are added.

Say it is a 10 year buy-in, with a 30% share for the first three years. That pencils out to a net 45% of a share. A bonanza of 0.45% of a share per new school, so almost 2% more money if four schools are added.

if you go with the Big 12 being able to add new teams next season and thus they have them for the final 8 years of the media contract

and you start those teams with a 30% share the first year and move them to a 100% share in year 8 and you are calling the full share for the Big 12 averaged over those 8 years to be $36.5 million

you would get a new program earning $189,800,000 over those 8 years while they bring in $180,000,000 in total TV money so that is a net loss of $9,800,000 for the existing members per team added or $19,600,000 for two teams added as a net loss over those 8 years for the 10 current members

if you add in totally unrealistic NCAA credits starting with $0 in year 1, $500,000 in year two (so basically a team playing in two NCAA mens games), $800,000, $1,200,000, $2,400,000, $3,600,000 (getting you to the Big 12 average in year 6) and then $3,600,000 and $3,600,000 in the final two years as well

that gets your new team bringing in $195,700,000 while they consume $189,800,000 of that for a net gain to the conference of $5,900,000 per new member added over 8 years or $23,600,000 total over 8 years in a net gain with HIGHLY unrealistic NCAA credits factored in

that $23,600,000 over 8 years for 10 teams = $295,000 per year in new money

that comes at a COST to ESPN and Fox of $720,000,000 for adding those 4 teams to the Big 12

the Big 12 could ask Fox and ESPN to pay them $1 million more per current team per year which would be $10 million per year X 8 years and that would be a total cost to the media partners of $80 million

that Vs $720,000,000 for adding new members

and each current Big 12 member would make $5,640,000 million MORE over those 8 years than the $2,360,000 they would make for adding new members

and that is with the highly unrealistic expectation that all 4 members will come close to generating NCAA credits equal to that the average Big 12 credits are in just 6 years

and that is without the hassle of dealing with new members and an 8 year buy in for them

and that is saving media partners $640,000,000 over 8 years

if you went with a reduced payout schedule from there you can get it up to Big 12 members perhaps earning as much as $1.2 to $1.5 million more per year in "new money"

but that is for adding 4 members, that is ignoring that any new members will be facing $10 to $15 million dollar buyouts especially if they do not give full notice and that is with a cost to media partners of $720 million over that 8 years

14 is a terrible number for a conference and scheduling and a disaster for having teams play each other often and that $1.2 to $1.5 million in "new money" is still with the HIGHLY unrealistic NCAA credit earnings especially with FOUR teams all needing to earn like that and that is with an 8 year buy in that would not get to a 50% share until year 6 and this is suppose to be "building up project schools and strengthening the conference"

with schools that would basically eat up their first two years of distributions in exit fees to their old conference and then make less than a 50% share for four more years

and then there is the fact that you cost your media partners $720 million over those 8 years for teams they did not want to pay nearly that much to

hell you could get $3 million per current member per year for 8 years and not put up with ANY of that and still save the media partners $480 million

the extremely extremely small amount of realistic "new money" that Big 12 members could get for basically pillaging 4 new teams none of their fans have an interest in being in a conference with makes no sense for the trouble even if the alternative is make no new money and not expand

it is much more likely that the Big 12

Bottom line TR - the B12 is pursuing expansion, notwithstanding your analysis & apparently after having paid good money for their own analysis. When the B12 expands, I suppose you can come back & provide another approach with more credibility.

(08-31-2016 11:46 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  if you go with the Big 12 being able to add new teams next season and thus they have them for the final 8 years of the media contract ...

... then it would net less, and since starting 2018 and getting to a 90% share in the final year of the contract only nets 17.5% of a share, netting less would obviously push into negative territory. I am not on the computer to do a spreadsheet right now, but if it is $(-9m), that would still be brreakeven on a present value basis.

So while the pro rata payment does not open up the financial windfall to incumbents that some imagine, ...

... it does allow removing the financial penalty ... if the conference for strategic reasons would like to expand.

here you have the Big 12 average of $36.5 million per member per year over 8 years if a CCG pays $30 million per year

you have the TV money on a per year basis that the new members would bring in

then you have HIGHLY UNREALISTIC expected NCAA earnings per year

and you have the % of a full Big 12 share per year for those 8 years and the total that % share represents and the total the TV money represents and the total with the HIGHLY UNREALISTIC NCAA credits

so if you just look at this straight away and you do not do any "new money" calculations for the current Big 12 members you are looking at the new members earning $151,475.000 over an 8 year period for their increasing % of a full Big 12 share while you are looking at the current Big 12 members over those same 8 years earning $292.000,000 million

so you have the current members earning $141,525,000 million more over 8 years than new members

there is nothing "strategic" about that especially when all of those new members with the exception of UConn and BYU would absolutely have the lowest budgets in the Big 12 even with new money and even with keeping 100% of their massive academic side subsidies which would also be the extreme highest in the Big 12

and those budgets would be the lowest in the P5 and the subsidies the highest with the possible exception of Rutgers and maybe one or two others

the only thing "strategic" about those finances is strategically having a two tier conference that is all but certain to fall apart after 8 years

then you have the 5 year total of money for new members $63,875,000 which is the 5 years up to and including getting a 50% share of a full Big 12 payout

but each new member with the exception of BYU would also be paying/forgoing about $15 million to leave their current conference

so to make a round number that leaves them with about $50 million in earnings over the first 5 years or about $10 million per year on average

then you get to the "new money"

if you work with the HIGHLY UNREALISTIC NCAA credits and you pretend that the Big 12 which is currently getting about 6 teams per year into the mens NCAAs is going to add 4 new teams and all of those teams are going to find a way to immediately start earning large NCAA credits AND more importantly those new teams earning those new credits are not going to be pushing existing members out of an NCAA slot then you get to the unrealistic total financial contribution of both TV and NCAA money by new members of $195.7 million

again if the Big 12 is getting 6 teams in the NCAAs now and 4 new teams come to the conference even if 3 of them got into the NCAAs every year unless the Big 12 was still getting 5 or 6 other teams in those years you have really not "added" new money you have SUBSTITUTED money

that is the same as saying that a new member would be the one that goes to the Sugar or Cotton Bowl every year.....well that new member did not "bring" that money to the Big 12 the Big 12 had that contract and the Big 12 was going to send a team there no matter what all the new member did was drop other current members into lower bowl games including one that probably COST the conference money to send a team

so if you look at the highly unrealistic NCAA credits of $15.700,000 over 8 years for a single new member and you pretend that each new member will bring that and the $180 million in TV money for a total of $195,700,000

and you look at their earnings of $151,475,000 over 8 years you have a difference of $44,225,000 per new member and X 4 new members = $176,900,000

so you are looking at the current Big 12 members being able to split $176,900,000 over 8 years or $17,690,000 per member over 8 years or just over $2 million per year

now this is not "exact math" because if you change the 8 year current member average distribution you would of course slightly change the money for the new members getting a % of that distribution per year which of course would increase their earnings and decrease the new money for current members and back and forth and back and forth

but if you look at current members getting $292.000,000 now over 8 years and you add $17,690,000 to that you get $309,690,584 for what current members would earn or $38,711,000 per year on average per current member

this while new members would basically earning $2 or $3 million each the first two years after you look at the money they have to pay to leave the current conferences and taking out that money and looking at the first 5 years those members would be earning about $10 million per year for 5 years

so the "strategic" way to "improve" the Big 12 by adding what the Big 12 has termed "project schools" and PRAYING they get to be like TCU is to add those FOUR new members and hope that somehow they take their $28+ million per year less in earnings over the first 5 years and really make a massive jump in financial stability and on the field competitiveness

then over the total 8 years they are suppose to be massively more competitive while earning a total of about $158,000,000 less than current members would make over the same 8 years

and that is ignoring that they would still have some of if not the smallest total budgets in the P5 and they would have some of if not the highest academic side subsidies in the P5 and that is needed to KEEP even being the lowest budgets in the P5

and that is ignoring that if 4 teams somehow improve enough to be "like TCU" well that comes at the EXPENSE of current members of the Big 12 that will be having to lose to the 4 new members in a large number of games

and that is ignoring that more than likely 4 new members are not going to all come to the Big 12 and earn massively unrealistic NCAA credits AND the current members of the Big 12 will still be sending 5 or more teams to the NCAAs as well

and if you drop that $15+ million in highly unrealistic NCAA money down to even a still very unrealistic $10 million then you are looking at new members bringing in $190 million each with cost for those members of $151,475,000 each for a difference of $38,525,000 X 4 = $154,100,000 in money that current members could split or a total of $15,410,000 over 8 years or just under $2 million per year

and you still have the MASSIVE disparity in earnings especially the first 5 years between current and new members and that is with a very unrealistic expectation for ADDITIVE (Vs substitution) NCAA credit earnings

and all of that comes at a COST to ESPN and Fox of $720 million over 8 years

and at the end of those 8 years you are somehow expecting that ESPN and Fox will want to place the Big 12 in a position with 14 teams to start earning $45+ million per year per member in total money which would still be below the Big 10 and SEC by several million per year if not more

when the much simpler and more "strategic" thing for the Big 12 to do is stop looking to massively underfunded "project schools" that would have very low budgets and very high academic side subsidies even to stay at the very BOTTOM of P5 budgets to try and to stop pretending they will all come in and earn massive NCAA credits in addition to a large number of current members doing the same and ignoring the massive cost to ESPN and Fox and the massive disparity in conference earnings and budgets and simply ask ESPN and Fox if they would like to pay a bit more to save a ton

like say paying current Big 12 members $1 or $2 million more per year for 8 years t0 not expand at a total cost of $80 to $160 million and with a total savings of $640 to $560 million over 8 years

then in 6 or 8 years of the Big 12 thinks they need some "project schools" for "strategic purposes" they can add those teams then when they have a much better idea of what other major conferences will be earning on their new deals and when they have a much better grasp of the long term viability of those "project schools" and when they will not have to take 8 years of risk and hopes and dreams and highly unrealistic earnings expectations that there is really ZERO imperative to take right now or for the next 5 or 6 years

Current expansion odds:

1) Stay at 10 ....... 55%
2) Expand to 12 ... 35%
3) Expand to 14 ... 10%

Anyone who thinks expansion is a done deal isn't paying attention. Status quo is still very much an option.

Sure, an option. But the latest Carlton/McMurphy reports have emphasized that expansion is more likely than no expansion.

Which I'm sure you'll say don't mean anything. Fine.

(08-29-2016 08:59 PM)Justme Wrote:  First a few "facts"

1) The current contract allows for up to four members to be added pro rata.
2) ISU has said that they will not support expansion unless there is an extension of the GOR.
3) To get an GOR extension, then the media rights agreement must be extended.
4) At least ESPN is supposedly against paying for the expansion.

Thus, getting members added pro rata and and an extension of the GOR may be mutually exclusive.

So could this scenario be being played out. The Big 12 wants expansion and an extension of the media contract so that the GOR may be extended. The minute the Big 12 asks for a new media contract extension; ESPN say that the old contract must be dismissed and that the new contract will not have the pro rata for the new members.

The Big 12 balks at losing the pro rata for new members and ESPN will then not negotiate for a media contract extension without a lower pay scale for new members. This will leave only FOX being able to bid for the new extension after the current one ends in 8 years. Realize that it would not be in the best interest of either a CBS or NBC to bid on a contract that does not start for another 8 years.

Thus, the Big 12 may want out of the current deal trying to get better terms from FOX, CBS and NBC. ESPN may be then threatening to sue if the Big 12 tries to end the current contract.

Does this scenario make sense and why it might take a long time to hammer out an agreement between the Big 12 and there media partners? ESPN will not increase the length of the media contract without the loss of the pro rata clause and lower initial payments for new members while the Big 12 cannot look weak by losing the pro rata clause or not extending the GOR. Leaves both sides with a need to posture for the best outcome for themselves.

Big 12 should consider adding two state flagships: UConn and UMass. Both have more population than West Virginia and are wealthier states. Also add Cincinnati to be WV's traveling partner. Forget BYU. It is in the new time zone. The fourth team to be considered is Houston, Temple or Navy. IMO Temple is better because it adds footprint to Big 12 and Pennsylvania is big enough to support three P5 teams. Texas has already had five. Adding the sixth is too much a stretch.

A few years back when Texas was trying to destroy the conference last time with the Pac10 and some of their underlings, we were getting ISU and KSU fans over on the mwcboard discussing their future options when the Big 12 imploded. What if Texas and Oklahoma and a couple other schools do that in the future and all run off to the PAC12 or another conference?

For the old Big 8 schools expansion now is about survival while you still have the upper hand on Texas with the GOR and Oklahoma wanting to expand. If you guys get into a similar position as last time with no seat at the table when the music stops because you don't have safety in numbers you will be in a world of hurt. I would also trust that TCU knows what it is like to get left behind by Texas.

Furthermore, how could you even think of adding a Texas puppet school like Houston that will be heavily indebted to Texas and would make Big 8 schools challenge much tougher? ISU's president mentioned that 8 schools have to vote in favor for a candidate or group of candidates. It is hard for me to believe that ISU, KSU, TCU, Baylor, Kansas...just about everyone wouldn't have a very strong incentive to allow Texas more control over conference matters when they have proven they have no qualms with destroying conferences.

BYU could also be a big veto drawer. I am not sure how big of a deal the Sunday play issue and LGBT and cultural concerns will tie into the presidents' decisions. The longer the decision takes without naming BYU the more I think there are reservations about them.

How much does WVU's vote matter? I think that will have a big impact on the votes for the Eastern schools. It is conceivable that the rest of the conference could simply ignore or outvote WVU in their preference to have a travel partner. It seems like there is an awful lot of weight put on the idea that there will be additions in the East. Traditional power conferences don't add a bunch of islands across the country very often. The OLD Big East that had Miami is one of the only ones I can think of. Power conferences are normally in neighboring states and attempt to dominate their specific region.

With the cuts so far, the presidents have set a clear message that academics are also very important. I am not sure if schools like Tulane and SMU are truly in the running but their inclusion does say something about the thoughts of the presidents.

It is going to come down to the presidents deciding who has the fewest unfixable "warts" that a few years of money and exposure can't easily fix. You can bring up you athletics with more institutional support and money but you can't fix geography, cultural "fit", or some other issues with a few more bucks.

CSU is in a good position. I don't think schools feel strongly negative about CSU--they aren't veto bait for anyone. They are in a good position if the presidents look at all of the data points of market, facilities, market, overall athletic program success, driving proximity, college town,etc.

Furthermore, once Texas bolts I think the Big XII could have a good chance of luring Colorado/Utah/Arizona Schools, etc if they have invested in the mountain time zone. If you had BYU and CSU on board, you could make a run at some of these schools if they start to get unhappy in the PAC 10. Nobody who left the Big XII to get away from Texas is going to come back while they are still in the league but schools could take another look if they have regional rivals and Texas finally leaves.

For a lot of the Big XII, I think the decision on who to add needs to be framed through the prism that Texas and Oklahoma WILL be leaving. It is great if they stay but who do we add that will give us the best chance or remaining a power conference that controls our region of the country so we aren't the second or third most dominant conference in our region when that happens. Going east you will be second or third fiddle. You have a chance to own the region to the west, though, and make inroads against the Pac12 beachhead. Instead of being fearful for when Texas and Oklahoma drop the hatchet, you can be proactive and have a solid contingency plan in place for when it does happen....and I am pretty sure it will!