(09-14-2016 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  10th,

Well, it's guaranteed is that he's not saying this: "well if we lose OU and UT it's cool, the Big 12 will implode and ISU won't be in a P league anymore, but oh well, that's life am I right???"


Of course not. He will be proactive. Adding Cincy and Houston doesn't guarantee the Big 12 will survive, but not adding anyone does guarantee the conference will implode.

it actually does not guarantee that at all

and even IF UT and OU were to leave and the Big 12 stayed as a conference big deal for the teams that are left they are now in the AAC or the MWC with a different name

that is like pretending that Cincy and UConn would not be looking to get out of the AAC if the AAC was still called the Big East and the finances were the same now and the only difference was the name

the viability of the Big 12 revolves around the financial competitiveness of the Big 12 and there is nothing that expansion does for that especially long term and even in the current contract situation expansion just means AT BEST the current members of the Big 12 make a small amount of new money that would be almost meaningless as far as overall financial competitiveness so they could have a two tier financial conference and a lot of unknowns about financial competitiveness of the conference at the end of the media contracts

Doing nothing is the only thing that seals the Big 12's fate.

Expansion is the only hope for something.


This expansion vote is a referendum, as such.

(09-14-2016 12:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-14-2016 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless ESPN and Fox decide to unilaterally provide more money to the Big 12 for the exact same content as-is, I find it really difficult to see how the Big 12 would choose to not expand. In essence, the current ESPN and Fox contracts provide free unambiguous money to the Big 12 for expansion. I know I've seen the theory float around that they're just trying to get ESPN and Fox pay some more money to the Big 12 to *avoid* expansion, but how does that make sense to ESPN or Fox? If ESPN and Fox are going to pay more money to the Big 12, why wouldn't they at least want some more content that would be provided from expansion in return? That theory (generally floated by fans of schools that are longshots or have been cut in the Big 12 expansion process) only sounds like it makes sense if you don't take two steps back and trying to convince ESPN/Fox to pay more money for nothing is ludicrous compared to the alternative where they pay more money for at least *something* in return.

Whether the Big 12 ends up lasting in the long-term is a valid question, but in the short-term, it completely behooves everyone in the Big 12 to expand. The question still seems to be *who* they expand with here.

the issue is if the Big 12 expands the Big 12 makes a large amount of income outside of the media contracts that new teams contribute nothing towards

the Big 12 would need to give severally reduced payouts to new teams for at least 6 years to even break even on adding new teams

if the Big 12 wanted to make any type of reasonably meaningful NEW money for current members they would have to pay a reduced amount of money to new members for all but the last year they were under the current media deal

that is just simply how the maths works out when current Big 12 members are set to make on average $36.5 million per member per year for the final 8 years and any new member only brings in on average $22.5 million per year for those same 8 years

and when it would cost the media partners $360 million over 8 years to add 2 teams or $720 million over 8 years to add 4 teams well they can get off a hell of a lot cheaper if they simply pay the Big 12 to not expand

and for the Big 12 it is a hell of a lot easier and more profitable to take money to not expand and not have to deal with new members, reduced payouts, buy outs to other conferences and then the factor of what are those new members worth when the current media deals run out

if the Big 12 was wanting $1 million in "new money" per current member per year for adding new teams well that is $10 million per year or $80 million total

when a pair of new members is only bringing in on average $45 million per year over those 8 years and you are going to take $10 million of that for "new money" to current members the maths get worse

then if you are going to somehow give a full share sometime during the 8 years of the current deal to new members and that "full share" would be well over $22.5 million......well you have to make that up somehow in the earlier years......and if you are already taking $10 million for "new money" to current members and now you are taking money in early years to make up for giving closer to a full share in later years.....well the financials of expansion just get stupid for the Big 12

and when the media partners can simply pay $80 million over 8 years for every $1 million per team per year in "new money" for current members Vs paying $360 per pair of new members over 8 years.....well there is a great deal of savings to those media partners to not have expansion

What is to say that the new teams wouldn't bring in any money other than TV? I mean for one, you'd have an extra conference tournament session so say 20k seats sold times 100 bucks would be 2 million right there.

You are the same one who thinks the networks would agree to..
1- no expansion
2- pay more money to Big 12
3- agree to only 8 conference games instead of 9

oh, and also, with the TV deals for BYU, AAC, and MWC coming up- if there is no Big 12 expansion, the value of those deals would all go up quite a bit. So the networks will be paying in a few years more money to these schools any ways.

(09-14-2016 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-14-2016 12:15 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-14-2016 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless ESPN and Fox decide to unilaterally provide more money to the Big 12 for the exact same content as-is, I find it really difficult to see how the Big 12 would choose to not expand. In essence, the current ESPN and Fox contracts provide free unambiguous money to the Big 12 for expansion. I know I've seen the theory float around that they're just trying to get ESPN and Fox pay some more money to the Big 12 to *avoid* expansion, but how does that make sense to ESPN or Fox? If ESPN and Fox are going to pay more money to the Big 12, why wouldn't they at least want some more content that would be provided from expansion in return? That theory (generally floated by fans of schools that are longshots or have been cut in the Big 12 expansion process) only sounds like it makes sense if you don't take two steps back and trying to convince ESPN/Fox to pay more money for nothing is ludicrous compared to the alternative where they pay more money for at least *something* in return.

Whether the Big 12 ends up lasting in the long-term is a valid question, but in the short-term, it completely behooves everyone in the Big 12 to expand. The question still seems to be *who* they expand with here.

the issue is if the Big 12 expands the Big 12 makes a large amount of income outside of the media contracts that new teams contribute nothing towards

the Big 12 would need to give severally reduced payouts to new teams for at least 6 years to even break even on adding new teams

if the Big 12 wanted to make any type of reasonably meaningful NEW money for current members they would have to pay a reduced amount of money to new members for all but the last year they were under the current media deal

that is just simply how the maths works out when current Big 12 members are set to make on average $36.5 million per member per year for the final 8 years and any new member only brings in on average $22.5 million per year for those same 8 years

and when it would cost the media partners $360 million over 8 years to add 2 teams or $720 million over 8 years to add 4 teams well they can get off a hell of a lot cheaper if they simply pay the Big 12 to not expand

and for the Big 12 it is a hell of a lot easier and more profitable to take money to not expand and not have to deal with new members, reduced payouts, buy outs to other conferences and then the factor of what are those new members worth when the current media deals run out

if the Big 12 was wanting $1 million in "new money" per current member per year for adding new teams well that is $10 million per year or $80 million total

when a pair of new members is only bringing in on average $45 million per year over those 8 years and you are going to take $10 million of that for "new money" to current members the maths get worse

then if you are going to somehow give a full share sometime during the 8 years of the current deal to new members and that "full share" would be well over $22.5 million......well you have to make that up somehow in the earlier years......and if you are already taking $10 million for "new money" to current members and now you are taking money in early years to make up for giving closer to a full share in later years.....well the financials of expansion just get stupid for the Big 12

and when the media partners can simply pay $80 million over 8 years for every $1 million per team per year in "new money" for current members Vs paying $360 per pair of new members over 8 years.....well there is a great deal of savings to those media partners to not have expansion

What is to say that the new teams wouldn't bring in any money other than TV? I mean for one, you'd have an extra conference tournament session so say 20k seats sold times 100 bucks would be 2 million right there.

You are the same one who thinks the networks would agree to..
1- no expansion
2- pay more money to Big 12
3- agree to only 8 conference games instead of 9

oh, and also, with the TV deals for BYU, AAC, and MWC coming up- if there is no Big 12 expansion, the value of those deals would all go up quite a bit. So the networks will be paying in a few years more money to these schools any ways.

who is to say the Big 12 would expand their conference basketball tournament and pretending that they are going to sell 20,000 tickets for $100 each to the first round of an expanded tournament is simply a joke and unrealistic

and even if they did manage to pull that off that is only about $2 million towards the $28 million less in revenue that new two teams bring to the conference Vs what conference members are set to make

things like getting more teams in spare bowl games does not result in "more money" it would most likely result in less money since spare bowl games even for the P5 conferences are not money makers after expenses and ticket sales guarantees

a million here or a couple of 100K there adds up to nothing in terms of the total money being talked about and the amounts needed to make new teams come close to bringing in revenue close to a full share for the Big 12

and I am the one that understands that networks are not starved for content in fact they have more than enough content and they are trying desperately to monetize the content they do have in new ways which is why they are agreeing to conference networks

and I am the one that understands if you do not want to spend X dollars over 8 years and you can get away with spending X/4 dollars over 8 years instead or less than that then you are better off financially than if you spent X dollars

and there is no guarantee that the AAC or BYU will get a large increase in their contracts the CUSA and Sunbelt certainly didn't and the AAC had a chance to take their contract "to market" and ESPN even told them to do so back when networks were shelling out cash like they had their own printing machine and the result was a very low valuation contract offer from NBC that ESPN matched and then sold some content off to CBS Sports

so reality does not line up with what you are saying could happen and while I am not guaranteeing the Big 12 gets more money to not expand or they get to play fewer conference games it would be a lot better for the big 12 and their media partners of that happened

conference tournaments sells a ticket book where you have to purchase the entire tournament book rather than just sessions.
The 2 extra teams also would get a million each for the conference in CFP money just from the educational side of things.
Also if the new teams make the tourney, there's more money in NCAA units.

Bottom line- you can't just say that the only money the new schools would be bringing in would be the extra TV money. Because that's just not realistic at all.

The AAC if there's no expansion would be in a MUCH stronger position in a few years than there was in 2013. Not even remotely close. Especially if the football keeps on doing well, and if basketball can improve some.

What's the true root of your motivation, Todge?

- preserve the best possible chance to keep Texas Tech in a P league, together with Texas, OU, etc.

OR

- suppress G5 schools from trying to get up to Tech's level? IE, "they haven't earned the right to get into a P league" or something along those lines?

???

(09-14-2016 01:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People keep saying no expansion means the conference will explode....why? It seems to be more an article of faith rather than an idea grounded in reality.

I don't think it is an article of faith as it is an article of hope. Hope on the part of those who want to see somebody currently on the outside to be let in.

As I view it, if UT and OU decide it is in their interest to stay, the Big XII remains a power conference. If they decide to leave, it doesn't. And it doesn't matter whether you add new members now or not. If there is no better reason to expand than merely hedging against the future loss of those two, you may as well stand pat.

B12 not expanding likely won't cause an implosion. In the end of the day, even if the worst case scenario happens (Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference), the conference will still be in the money above the G5 schools... they'll just be in that limbo situation the old Big East was before they divorced, without the basketball-only school situation. Essentially the conference's power and influence will drop down.

At that point, they would have two primary options:
- Expand (basically taking BYU + half of the AAC)
- Kansas will be faced with the dilemma of leaving or staying, and the leftovers will expand anyway.

In the end for all of these schools, being a diminished B12 is still a better option than breaking up what you have already and joining the AAC or MWC.

Its really the G5 schools that would be impacted the most via domino effect.

(09-14-2016 01:53 PM)AntiG Wrote:  B12 not expanding likely won't cause an implosion. In the end of the day, even if the worst case scenario happens (Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference), the conference will still be in the money above the G5 schools... they'll just be in that limbo situation the old Big East was before they divorced, without the basketball-only school situation. Essentially the conference's power and influence will drop down.

At that point, they would have two primary options:
- Expand (basically taking BYU + half of the AAC)
- Kansas will be faced with the dilemma of leaving or staying, and the leftovers will expand anyway.

In the end for all of these schools, being a diminished B12 is still a better option than breaking up what you have already and joining the AAC or MWC.

Its really the G5 schools that would be impacted the most via domino effect.

The thing is, the worst case scenario isn't just Texas and Oklahoma leaving. It would include Oklahoma St for sure, and quite possibly Texas Tech. Sorry but a conference with WVU, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Baylor, and TCU(and especially if Kansas is poached)- is not going to be in the money above G5 conferences. If anything, I could see ESPN (if they retain the AAC-and MWC)- trying to use the AAC(and maybe even the MWC) to get the others to keep them away from Fox.

The Big 12 may very well choose not to expand, but in doing so, would surely light the fuse on the conference's eventual blowup. All signs point to the league needing to expand in order for long-term survival (much like the Old Big East). The Old Big East always said it needed to expand (whether it being with ECU, Memphis, Navy, Army, UCF, etc.), but it could never internally agree on who to expand with - and we all know how that ended.

The Texas schools (Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU) need the non-Texas schools (Oklahoma, OK State, Kansas, K-State, Iowa State and West Virginia) need each other in order to survive long term. Oklahoma is more valuable when sharing a conference with Texas (and vice versa). Due to its own greed, the Big 12 lost Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri. Whether or not they lose anyone else is up to them.

If they choose not to expand, they either believe that they can continue to defy the odds as the P5's smallest and weakest member, or they have accepted that the end is near within the decade and are simply collecting money before the ship sinks (in which case only a small number of schools are guaranteed spots in the P5).

Honestly, it really doesn't matter if they add UC/BYU, UH/BYU, BYU/UH, UConn/UC, or any other combination of schools. As long as they get up to 12/14, add more content and add more competitive games to their slate, they will improve their success chances (and survival probability). They could have handled this process a lot better, but if they get what they need, then it all becomes moot anyways.

It'll be a very interesting couple of weeks. Many different scenarios are at play - many of which will surely cause ripples across the collegiate landscape.

(09-14-2016 12:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If I'm the president of ISU, no way am I thinking "well if we lose OU and UT it's cool cuz we have UH and Cincy now!"

No, his statement of "no expansion without a GOR extension" means they are first and foremost about the league retaining UT and OU even if it means not expanding. Which is the only sane position if you are ISU or KSU type with no hope of riding someone's coattail out

That's not the choice they are facing. The choice is--

A) lose Texas and Oklahoma in 2024 and add G5 teams at that time to save whats left of the conference.

B) Add G5 teams now, let them have almost a decade to become entrenched "P5" members---then lose Oklahoma and Texas in 2025 and still have a league that's made up completely of "P5" schools.


The point being, if you are likely to be left behind in the Big12, you are better off adding G5's now to let them build more value during the period between now and 2024---especially considering you dont have to pay the cost of them getting that P5 "image enhancement" (the networks will be paying for it).

The reality is the northern schools stand to benefit the most long term from expansion, which is why I think they will eventually give in to UT's demands. UT is fine with no expansion---they are the one that really has no real motivation to expand---so no reason for them to give in to the northern schools. Additionally, expansion without adding a Texas school dilutes the power of UT's Texas voting bloc. Whats the motivation for Texas to do that? There is none.

(09-14-2016 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  They athletic and academic sides don't seem to be on the same page. Once again, the university presidents were the ones that pushed the issue. At the end of the day, expansion is effectively free money and that free money is going to only last for the duration of this contract (as ESPN, Fox and other networks will be smarter down the road about having automatic pro-rata increases for any type of expansion). In the era of public university budget cuts and revenue shortfalls, I could certainly see the university presidents seeing a couple of more million dollars per year that is effectively automatic as being attractive. That's going to matter way more than, say, the Oklahoma State concerns about recruiting in the Houston area that Tramel referred to in the OP quotes.

UT-Austin has an operating budget of $2.75 billion.

The University of Oklahoma has an operating budget of $915 million.

Iowa State has an operating budget of $1.4 billion.

West Virginia has an budget of 1.04 billion.

I seriously doubt that they make major decisions that affect the entire brand of the school based on couple million dollars in revenue. The money would be nice, but it's small enough that it's a secondary or tertiary for a decision this big.

(09-14-2016 02:07 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The Big 12 may very well choose not to expand, but in doing so, would surely light the fuse on the conference's eventual blowup. All signs point to the league needing to expand in order for long-term survival (much like the Old Big East). The Old Big East always said it needed to expand (whether it being with ECU, Memphis, Navy, Army, UCF, etc.), but it could never internally agree on who to expand with - and we all know how that ended.

The Texas schools (Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU) need the non-Texas schools (Oklahoma, OK State, Kansas, K-State, Iowa State and West Virginia) need each other in order to survive long term. Oklahoma is more valuable when sharing a conference with Texas (and vice versa). Due to its own greed, the Big 12 lost Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri. Whether or not they lose anyone else is up to them.

If they choose not to expand, they either believe that they can continue to defy the odds as the P5's smallest and weakest member, or they have accepted that the end is near within the decade and are simply collecting money before the ship sinks (in which case only a small number of schools are guaranteed spots in the P5).

Honestly, it really doesn't matter if they add UC/BYU, UH/BYU, BYU/UH, UConn/UC, or any other combination of schools. As long as they get up to 12/14, add more content and add more competitive games to their slate, they will improve their success chances (and survival probability). They could have handled this process a lot better, but if they get what they need, then it all becomes moot anyways.

It'll be a very interesting couple of weeks. Many different scenarios are at play - many of which will surely cause ripples across the collegiate landscape.

The demise of the Big East had nothing to do with failing to expand. And their situation and ultimate "solution" teaches us nothing at all about what the Big XII should do now.

An important aspect people are forgetting about the Big 12 expanding when Texas and OU leave vs now is that when you expand now you bring up the 2-4 programs you invite. These 2-4 new members will now have the resources to improve their programs and grow their athletic department. In a 8 years time some of these 2-4 new schools can become the same level as a VaTech or an Texas Tech.

In 8 years after the GOR expire and 4 teams leave (UT, OU, OSU, KU) and Big 12 needs to add teams. The Big 12 would have 8-10 remaining P5 members inviting 2-4 G5 teams.

If they don't expand and 4 teams leave (UT, OU, OSU, KU). Now they only have 6 remaining P5 members adding 4-6 new G5 teams.

4 teams leaving is one of the better case scenario too. Say 6 teams leave (UT, OU, OSU, KU, TT, WVU) Now you have ISU, Baylor, TCU, KSU inviting 6-8 new G5 members.



Noticed: Coog just mentioned it before my post.

Good posts Attackcoog and Cap. I agree with them.

Particularly coog's (#31).


In the late 2000's, everyone would say TCU was a great team and an elite G5 but not a P5, simply by virtue of conference affiliation. Now, no one thinks twice when asked if TCU is a P5 team.

BYU, Houston, and/or Cincy can all get there. The networks are willing to pay for more P5 games, and those schools (esp Houston and BYU) are pretty much right there in terms of on field product.

Only thing they can't deliver right off the bat (and perhaps TCU still doesn't quite deliver) are high end TV ratings.

(09-14-2016 12:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If I'm the president of ISU, no way am I thinking "well if we lose OU and UT it's cool cuz we have UH and Cincy now!"

No, his statement of "no expansion without a GOR extension" means they are first and foremost about the league retaining UT and OU even if it means not expanding. Which is the only sane position if you are ISU or KSU type with no hope of riding someone's coattail out

Yeah, this has me more convinced than ever the conference pegged the updated bylaws and GoR to the tv deal, and the whole thing resets if anything really changes.

Without full consensus, someone or ones bolt. All of these deals have to be restructured and that's the problem. We knew schools wouldn't turn in the GoR without the tv deal...it's not like the cast is different now. This could take a while. It has before.

Disagree about ISU, though. Big school with academic value and supportive fans? Maybe the B1G wouldn't bite, but the rest would.

I think a big point as well. The top schools from the conferences non-Big East- who have moved to P5 conferences- have done pretty well for themselves. TCU, Utah both perennial top 25 teams now. they didn't come in and fall flat on their faces. BYU does well- but because of the indy schedule and how brutally front loaded it is- has struggled some.

Bish,

What are you saying? A GoR is independent of any TV deal. You can even have a GoR without any TV deal.

It just means that if a school leaves, it can't grant its TV rights to the new conference.

What's to stop the PAC-12 from inviting Oklahoma, OK State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and New Mexico to get up to 18 schools? You could have a Pacific Division and a Western Division, add a number of strong and contingent schools/programs, kill the Big 12, move into the central timezones for more TV content, and solidify yourself longterm as a P4.

My impression is they are going to expand. The Big 12 presidents seem to have a different attitude than do the ADs and coaches, to some extent. I still think they go to 14.

They already look dysfunctional. If they go through all this rigamarole and don't expand, they will remove all doubt.