(06-05-2016 08:07 AM)Usajags Wrote: [ -> ]True, but there plan right now is to still play the 9 game, round robin conference schedule, and then play the CCG. That's just a stupid plan with tons of potential to have problems come time to pick the teams in the CCG.
(06-05-2016 12:36 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]they don't have to have 12 teams anymore to hold a CCG
(06-07-2016 10:57 AM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ](06-05-2016 12:36 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]they don't have to have 12 teams anymore to hold a CCG
This pretty much kills expansion. They dont want to add teams and share more money. They just got their cake and get to eat it too.
(06-05-2016 08:07 AM)Usajags Wrote: [ -> ]True, but there plan right now is to still play the 9 game, round robin conference schedule, and then play the CCG. That's just a stupid plan with tons of potential to have problems come time to pick the teams in the CCG.
(06-08-2016 07:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]the Big 12 has not decided how they will hold their CCG
if they have divisions then the winners of the divisions must be in the CCG (that would be a stupid thing to do with 9 conference games)
if they do not have divisions then they must have 9 conference games and the two highest ranked teams have to be in the CCG
but in the press conference they specifically stated they have considered fewer conference games and they also stated there have been "some pretty wild suggestions" as to what to do, but they have not decided anything yet
also there was no study that showed that existing teams would make more money for adding two teams
in fact in the press conference boren specifically stated the reason they have put off expansion is because they have no interest in "diminutive" (his word he said several times) short term gains that come with long term and as of yet unknown consequences
he also stated they are looking well beyond the current TV deals as to what any teams added MIGHT bring and before that can really be concluded there will not be any expansion if ever
running the math and especially with the added money for a 10 team CCG the Big 12 would have to give HORRID buy ins to any new teams and those would only result in small gains for existing teams if any and those gains would quickly turn into losses especially near the end of the current TV deals
(06-08-2016 07:52 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]the Big 12 has not decided how they will hold their CCG
if they have divisions then the winners of the divisions must be in the CCG (that would be a stupid thing to do with 9 conference games)
if they do not have divisions then they must have 9 conference games and the two highest ranked teams have to be in the CCG
but in the press conference they specifically stated they have considered fewer conference games and they also stated there have been "some pretty wild suggestions" as to what to do, but they have not decided anything yet
also there was no study that showed that existing teams would make more money for adding two teams
in fact in the press conference boren specifically stated the reason they have put off expansion is because they have no interest in "diminutive" (his word he said several times) short term gains that come with long term and as of yet unknown consequences
he also stated they are looking well beyond the current TV deals as to what any teams added MIGHT bring and before that can really be concluded there will not be any expansion if ever
running the math and especially with the added money for a 10 team CCG the Big 12 would have to give HORRID buy ins to any new teams and those would only result in small gains for existing teams if any and those gains would quickly turn into losses especially near the end of the current TV deals
They were talking about the study on Monday morning Dallas sports radio on the #1 show in town.
I didn't make the stuff up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06-08-2016 08:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:52 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]the Big 12 has not decided how they will hold their CCG
if they have divisions then the winners of the divisions must be in the CCG (that would be a stupid thing to do with 9 conference games)
if they do not have divisions then they must have 9 conference games and the two highest ranked teams have to be in the CCG
but in the press conference they specifically stated they have considered fewer conference games and they also stated there have been "some pretty wild suggestions" as to what to do, but they have not decided anything yet
also there was no study that showed that existing teams would make more money for adding two teams
in fact in the press conference boren specifically stated the reason they have put off expansion is because they have no interest in "diminutive" (his word he said several times) short term gains that come with long term and as of yet unknown consequences
he also stated they are looking well beyond the current TV deals as to what any teams added MIGHT bring and before that can really be concluded there will not be any expansion if ever
running the math and especially with the added money for a 10 team CCG the Big 12 would have to give HORRID buy ins to any new teams and those would only result in small gains for existing teams if any and those gains would quickly turn into losses especially near the end of the current TV deals
They were talking about the study on Monday morning Dallas sports radio on the #1 show in town.
I didn't make the stuff up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not saying that YOU made it up
what I am saying is that people that report on these types of things generally have no clue what they are talking about
and I just listened to the Big 12 presser again and it was "marginal" gains that boren stated over and over not diminutive so my mistake there
the report from dennis dodds for example that talked about the Big 12 getting up to $1 billion in new revenue was somewhat correct on that amount, but still when it is all said and done even with terrible buy ins the result would be very very small gains for the existing members in the first few years, then pretty much no gain and then a decrease in the final few years that would be meaningful
and as they stated in the Big 12 presser at this point it is about more than just the existing contract it is about beyond that as well and what would two more members mean there
when you look at the Big 12 distributing $304 million this year and you look at the fact that probably only $170 million of that was from tier 1 and tier 2 TV deals and the rest was from other sources the "one billion" number over 8 years is not a massive amount and that $1 billion includes the CCG that the Big 12 has decided on with 10 teams no matter what and that was for adding FOUR teams....if they added two teams it would be closer to $560 million
so you can take out about $240 million of the $$560 million right there which leaves $360 million for adding two teams
if the Big 12 was to hold constant (it grows) in revenue distributions from this year until the end of the contract that would be $304 million X 8 years or $2.432 billion
if you add $240 million to that for the CCG you get $2.762 million or divided by 10 teams $276.2 million per team over the next 8 years
if you added the pro rata TV money of about $320 million to that (because none of the other money is pro rata that is the issue) you have $2.992 billion over that same 8 years
if you divide that by 12 you get $249.34 million over 8 years per team or a net loss for existing teams of nearly $27 million each over those 8 years
or a net loss over those 8 years of about $270 million or a net loss of about $33.75 million per year
the new teams are only bringing in about $40 million combined
so now you need to figure out a way to take from that $40 million they bring in and keep enough of it for existing members to make up for that net loss of $33.75 million if the money was all divided equally (and again that money INCLUDES the money for the new teams)
so basically you need to find two teams that would take about $6 million per year divided by TWO (or about $3 million each) to join the conference for the entire time they are in the conference
I am positive there are dozens of teams that would gladly take that, but then you are still stuck with them at the end of 8 years
that is simple math that ignores a lot of factors, but it shows the difficulty of adding teams that bring in only a portion of the total distributions with them
(06-09-2016 07:37 AM)runamuck Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 08:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:52 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]the Big 12 has not decided how they will hold their CCG
if they have divisions then the winners of the divisions must be in the CCG (that would be a stupid thing to do with 9 conference games)
if they do not have divisions then they must have 9 conference games and the two highest ranked teams have to be in the CCG
but in the press conference they specifically stated they have considered fewer conference games and they also stated there have been "some pretty wild suggestions" as to what to do, but they have not decided anything yet
also there was no study that showed that existing teams would make more money for adding two teams
in fact in the press conference boren specifically stated the reason they have put off expansion is because they have no interest in "diminutive" (his word he said several times) short term gains that come with long term and as of yet unknown consequences
he also stated they are looking well beyond the current TV deals as to what any teams added MIGHT bring and before that can really be concluded there will not be any expansion if ever
running the math and especially with the added money for a 10 team CCG the Big 12 would have to give HORRID buy ins to any new teams and those would only result in small gains for existing teams if any and those gains would quickly turn into losses especially near the end of the current TV deals
They were talking about the study on Monday morning Dallas sports radio on the #1 show in town.
I didn't make the stuff up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not saying that YOU made it up
what I am saying is that people that report on these types of things generally have no clue what they are talking about
and I just listened to the Big 12 presser again and it was "marginal" gains that boren stated over and over not diminutive so my mistake there
the report from dennis dodds for example that talked about the Big 12 getting up to $1 billion in new revenue was somewhat correct on that amount, but still when it is all said and done even with terrible buy ins the result would be very very small gains for the existing members in the first few years, then pretty much no gain and then a decrease in the final few years that would be meaningful
and as they stated in the Big 12 presser at this point it is about more than just the existing contract it is about beyond that as well and what would two more members mean there
when you look at the Big 12 distributing $304 million this year and you look at the fact that probably only $170 million of that was from tier 1 and tier 2 TV deals and the rest was from other sources the "one billion" number over 8 years is not a massive amount and that $1 billion includes the CCG that the Big 12 has decided on with 10 teams no matter what and that was for adding FOUR teams....if they added two teams it would be closer to $560 million
so you can take out about $240 million of the $$560 million right there which leaves $360 million for adding two teams
if the Big 12 was to hold constant (it grows) in revenue distributions from this year until the end of the contract that would be $304 million X 8 years or $2.432 billion
if you add $240 million to that for the CCG you get $2.762 million or divided by 10 teams $276.2 million per team over the next 8 years
if you added the pro rata TV money of about $320 million to that (because none of the other money is pro rata that is the issue) you have $2.992 billion over that same 8 years
if you divide that by 12 you get $249.34 million over 8 years per team or a net loss for existing teams of nearly $27 million each over those 8 years
or a net loss over those 8 years of about $270 million or a net loss of about $33.75 million per year
the new teams are only bringing in about $40 million combined
so now you need to figure out a way to take from that $40 million they bring in and keep enough of it for existing members to make up for that net loss of $33.75 million if the money was all divided equally (and again that money INCLUDES the money for the new teams)
so basically you need to find two teams that would take about $6 million per year divided by TWO (or about $3 million each) to join the conference for the entire time they are in the conference
I am positive there are dozens of teams that would gladly take that, but then you are still stuck with them at the end of 8 years
that is simple math that ignores a lot of factors, but it shows the difficulty of adding teams that bring in only a portion of the total distributions with them
the b12 is looking at what any school available would add to the revenue pile. none of the possible adds generate much cash and very little national buzz. you or at least I cant blame them for thinking that schools like memphis or ucf or houston dont bring much but when added will suddenly be getting 20-25 mil from the conference. mainly added to appease a few sportswriters and prognosticators. I can think of no alum I know from these schools that thinks there are any available peer schools in that group. maybe if we're talking byu or clemson or fla. state but we arent. crap, there are even people tossing colorado state into the mix. they draw about 25k to games...seems comparable to the 95,000 or so at a texas game or the continual sell-outs they have at ou and tech and osu dont you think?
(06-09-2016 08:12 AM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-09-2016 07:37 AM)runamuck Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 08:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:52 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-08-2016 07:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]the Big 12 has not decided how they will hold their CCG
if they have divisions then the winners of the divisions must be in the CCG (that would be a stupid thing to do with 9 conference games)
if they do not have divisions then they must have 9 conference games and the two highest ranked teams have to be in the CCG
but in the press conference they specifically stated they have considered fewer conference games and they also stated there have been "some pretty wild suggestions" as to what to do, but they have not decided anything yet
also there was no study that showed that existing teams would make more money for adding two teams
in fact in the press conference boren specifically stated the reason they have put off expansion is because they have no interest in "diminutive" (his word he said several times) short term gains that come with long term and as of yet unknown consequences
he also stated they are looking well beyond the current TV deals as to what any teams added MIGHT bring and before that can really be concluded there will not be any expansion if ever
running the math and especially with the added money for a 10 team CCG the Big 12 would have to give HORRID buy ins to any new teams and those would only result in small gains for existing teams if any and those gains would quickly turn into losses especially near the end of the current TV deals
They were talking about the study on Monday morning Dallas sports radio on the #1 show in town.
I didn't make the stuff up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not saying that YOU made it up
what I am saying is that people that report on these types of things generally have no clue what they are talking about
and I just listened to the Big 12 presser again and it was "marginal" gains that boren stated over and over not diminutive so my mistake there
the report from dennis dodds for example that talked about the Big 12 getting up to $1 billion in new revenue was somewhat correct on that amount, but still when it is all said and done even with terrible buy ins the result would be very very small gains for the existing members in the first few years, then pretty much no gain and then a decrease in the final few years that would be meaningful
and as they stated in the Big 12 presser at this point it is about more than just the existing contract it is about beyond that as well and what would two more members mean there
when you look at the Big 12 distributing $304 million this year and you look at the fact that probably only $170 million of that was from tier 1 and tier 2 TV deals and the rest was from other sources the "one billion" number over 8 years is not a massive amount and that $1 billion includes the CCG that the Big 12 has decided on with 10 teams no matter what and that was for adding FOUR teams....if they added two teams it would be closer to $560 million
so you can take out about $240 million of the $$560 million right there which leaves $360 million for adding two teams
if the Big 12 was to hold constant (it grows) in revenue distributions from this year until the end of the contract that would be $304 million X 8 years or $2.432 billion
if you add $240 million to that for the CCG you get $2.762 million or divided by 10 teams $276.2 million per team over the next 8 years
if you added the pro rata TV money of about $320 million to that (because none of the other money is pro rata that is the issue) you have $2.992 billion over that same 8 years
if you divide that by 12 you get $249.34 million over 8 years per team or a net loss for existing teams of nearly $27 million each over those 8 years
or a net loss over those 8 years of about $270 million or a net loss of about $33.75 million per year
the new teams are only bringing in about $40 million combined
so now you need to figure out a way to take from that $40 million they bring in and keep enough of it for existing members to make up for that net loss of $33.75 million if the money was all divided equally (and again that money INCLUDES the money for the new teams)
so basically you need to find two teams that would take about $6 million per year divided by TWO (or about $3 million each) to join the conference for the entire time they are in the conference
I am positive there are dozens of teams that would gladly take that, but then you are still stuck with them at the end of 8 years
that is simple math that ignores a lot of factors, but it shows the difficulty of adding teams that bring in only a portion of the total distributions with them
the b12 is looking at what any school available would add to the revenue pile. none of the possible adds generate much cash and very little national buzz. you or at least I cant blame them for thinking that schools like memphis or ucf or houston dont bring much but when added will suddenly be getting 20-25 mil from the conference. mainly added to appease a few sportswriters and prognosticators. I can think of no alum I know from these schools that thinks there are any available peer schools in that group. maybe if we're talking byu or clemson or fla. state but we arent. crap, there are even people tossing colorado state into the mix. they draw about 25k to games...seems comparable to the 95,000 or so at a texas game or the continual sell-outs they have at ou and tech and osu dont you think?
Houston and BYU would be at the top of list for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06-10-2016 12:08 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote: [ -> ]Problem with that is, Big 12 already has 4 schools in Texas. I'd find it hard to believe that either Texas or Texas Tech would want Houston in their backyard.
(06-10-2016 12:30 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-10-2016 12:08 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote: [ -> ]Problem with that is, Big 12 already has 4 schools in Texas. I'd find it hard to believe that either Texas or Texas Tech would want Houston in their backyard.
You remember the SWC?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06-10-2016 05:02 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote: [ -> ](06-10-2016 12:30 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-10-2016 12:08 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote: [ -> ]Problem with that is, Big 12 already has 4 schools in Texas. I'd find it hard to believe that either Texas or Texas Tech would want Houston in their backyard.
You remember the SWC?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea, that kinda fuels my point though. When that league was blown up Houston was left out of the party.
(06-10-2016 05:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ](06-10-2016 05:02 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote: [ -> ](06-10-2016 12:30 PM)WolfBird Wrote: [ -> ](06-10-2016 12:08 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote: [ -> ]Problem with that is, Big 12 already has 4 schools in Texas. I'd find it hard to believe that either Texas or Texas Tech would want Houston in their backyard.
You remember the SWC?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea, that kinda fuels my point though. When that league was blown up Houston was left out of the party.
To be fair, when the deal was hatched to skip a full merger between the Big8 and SWC, the only two schools invited to join the Big8 party were Texas and Texas A&M. When the plan began to leak out in the Austin capital building in Feb of 1994, Tech and Baylor were lucky enough to have alumni in the right political positions to apply enough pressure to get thier schools included in the deal. Today, Houston has more people in powerful positions and might have been able to do what Tech and Baylor did--but that wasn't the case in early 1994. The Big 8 was willing to take a couple of tag alongs if that's what it took to land UT and Aggie. They could have cared less who the tag alongs were.