09-16-2022, 03:38 PM
once again you do not come close to understanding the Big 12 finances (or P5 finances in general)
1. an extension of the current deal is weak when one understands all the factors in play......even the MWC and the AAC were able to increase their deals over their older ones and the AAC did it when it was clear the AAC was at risk of losing members which means that media partners were not looking to give max dollars to that contract when it was signed
The Big 12 faced the same issues when they had their current deals put on place they had just lost NU and CU when the tier 2 Fox deal was signed and the Big 12 renegotiated their tier 1 deal with ESPN 3 years early after aggy and MU left and WVU and TCU were signed.....you are not going to get your best deals when you have lost two teams and your new tier 2 deal specifies that if more teams leave you have to replace them and also when you renegotiate a tier 1 deal 3 years early
those are not factors that allow a conference to go to market and get full value for their deals those are deals that "keep you competitive" right up to and until they no longer keep you competitive
you are looking at the Big 10 that has had massive increases twice since the Big 12 negotiated any deal at all and the SEC SEC SEC that had large jumps as well in that time period
and you weak ass answer to that is "status quo" and lets compete for 3rd!!!.......while probably not even remotely getting a chance to sniff full market value of the Big 12
no one is pretending that the Big 12 will get close to the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC, but going with the piss poor idea of "just take something that keeps us in 3rd" sucks when you can be leaving significant money on the table and missing any chance to see what real market value is
2. there is no guarantee that the Big 12 would still be in 3rd place getting an extension of their current deal
again you do not seem to understand that the Big 12 gets significant money outside of the current TV contracts
the Big 12 gets $50 million 2 out of 3 years for The Sugar Bowl and $50 million per year for the CFP
you also do not seem to understand that the Big 12 is 10 teams now and will be 12 teams in the future (at the lowest) and thus that $250 million payout over 3 years divided by 10 teams will now become $250 million over 3 years divided by 12 teams
so right there is things stay the same that goes from $8.33 million per Big 12 member per year to $6.94 or a $1.39 million LOSS for adding two extra teams
but of course you do not understand that because you do not understand that the Big 12 earns a large amount of money outside of the TV deal
there is also the issue that for at least a few years until cable subscribers drop low enough the ACC is going to get some additional income from the ACCn that could be $1 to $5 million per year per member by some estimates......often those high estimates are way off and cable subs will continue to decline and cable and sat MSOs will be dropping the ACCn in the future as they are doing with other conference networks (including the BTN) so that money will be short term, but the Big 12 does not need to take your "safety contract" to try and "KeEp ThIrD PlAcE" instead of getting FULL MARKET VALUE no matter what place that gets the Big 12
3. your next point is just G5 garbage that again shows you do not have a clue what makes up the components of the Big 12 financial distribution to the members of the Big 12
you are so stuck making the same tired "we contribute" nonsense that you still do not understand that a "pro rata" TV contract clause that will pay an additional dollar amount equal to the TV MONEY that a network pays does not cover ANY of the additional money that the Big 12 gets from other sources besides TV money
you are simply financially illiterate apparently because you somehow believe that if the Big 12 is getting $27 million in TV MONEY and paying out $45 million per member in a distribution that when you add new members that get a "pro rata" $27 million in TV MONEY there is NO EXTRA MONEY that comes with those new members that means they can also get a payout of $45 million
someone would have to be mathematically and financially illiterate to not understand that.....or of course they would have to be a G5er that thinks another slot in the Weedeater Bowl for $850,000 a year somehow adds $18 more million dollars to the value of a new member that only brings $27 million in "pro rata" TV MONEY
it is laughable how silly G5ers are and how mathematically and financially challenged they are willing to make themselves look to try and pretend that a new member bringing a "pro rata" TV MONEY share to a conference that is $15 to $18 million less than a full conference payout somehow makes sense for a conference to want to add
4 cable and sat subs are declining and that rate of decline is accelerating and cable and sat MSOs have been dropping conference networks, dropping "in market" rates, and moving conference networks to higher tier packages with fewer subscribers for several years now....the fact that you seem to think that is not happening or that will not impact the contribution and the worth of a conference network (much less the TV exposure for a conference that depends on one for a lot of exposure) just means you live in an alternate reality
and yes I did point out above that the ACC will get some additional money IN THE SHORT TERM for the ACCn, but I clearly stated that will be sort term, it will decline rapidly from the high, and eventually it will go to zero and the exposure on that network will fall as well and that is a disaster for them
they got lucky that ESPN was able to cram them on some MSOs right before those companies started to push back to that and to find they could successfully push back and not anger subscribers and now that they know they can they are doing so more and more often....with the current way that college football is going and the moves by Fox and ESPN and the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 you can guarantee that more people will be in support of their cable and sat MSOs putting up a fight over channel cramming especially over priced conference networks for conferences they want to see get torn down a notch
the Big 12 needs not even consider that in their new deals they need to move right on from that and stick with exposure being extremely important and with FIXED and KNOWN dollar payouts not payouts depending on networks with declining subscribers and a model that is dying
1. an extension of the current deal is weak when one understands all the factors in play......even the MWC and the AAC were able to increase their deals over their older ones and the AAC did it when it was clear the AAC was at risk of losing members which means that media partners were not looking to give max dollars to that contract when it was signed
The Big 12 faced the same issues when they had their current deals put on place they had just lost NU and CU when the tier 2 Fox deal was signed and the Big 12 renegotiated their tier 1 deal with ESPN 3 years early after aggy and MU left and WVU and TCU were signed.....you are not going to get your best deals when you have lost two teams and your new tier 2 deal specifies that if more teams leave you have to replace them and also when you renegotiate a tier 1 deal 3 years early
those are not factors that allow a conference to go to market and get full value for their deals those are deals that "keep you competitive" right up to and until they no longer keep you competitive
you are looking at the Big 10 that has had massive increases twice since the Big 12 negotiated any deal at all and the SEC SEC SEC that had large jumps as well in that time period
and you weak ass answer to that is "status quo" and lets compete for 3rd!!!.......while probably not even remotely getting a chance to sniff full market value of the Big 12
no one is pretending that the Big 12 will get close to the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC, but going with the piss poor idea of "just take something that keeps us in 3rd" sucks when you can be leaving significant money on the table and missing any chance to see what real market value is
2. there is no guarantee that the Big 12 would still be in 3rd place getting an extension of their current deal
again you do not seem to understand that the Big 12 gets significant money outside of the current TV contracts
the Big 12 gets $50 million 2 out of 3 years for The Sugar Bowl and $50 million per year for the CFP
you also do not seem to understand that the Big 12 is 10 teams now and will be 12 teams in the future (at the lowest) and thus that $250 million payout over 3 years divided by 10 teams will now become $250 million over 3 years divided by 12 teams
so right there is things stay the same that goes from $8.33 million per Big 12 member per year to $6.94 or a $1.39 million LOSS for adding two extra teams
but of course you do not understand that because you do not understand that the Big 12 earns a large amount of money outside of the TV deal
there is also the issue that for at least a few years until cable subscribers drop low enough the ACC is going to get some additional income from the ACCn that could be $1 to $5 million per year per member by some estimates......often those high estimates are way off and cable subs will continue to decline and cable and sat MSOs will be dropping the ACCn in the future as they are doing with other conference networks (including the BTN) so that money will be short term, but the Big 12 does not need to take your "safety contract" to try and "KeEp ThIrD PlAcE" instead of getting FULL MARKET VALUE no matter what place that gets the Big 12
3. your next point is just G5 garbage that again shows you do not have a clue what makes up the components of the Big 12 financial distribution to the members of the Big 12
you are so stuck making the same tired "we contribute" nonsense that you still do not understand that a "pro rata" TV contract clause that will pay an additional dollar amount equal to the TV MONEY that a network pays does not cover ANY of the additional money that the Big 12 gets from other sources besides TV money
you are simply financially illiterate apparently because you somehow believe that if the Big 12 is getting $27 million in TV MONEY and paying out $45 million per member in a distribution that when you add new members that get a "pro rata" $27 million in TV MONEY there is NO EXTRA MONEY that comes with those new members that means they can also get a payout of $45 million
someone would have to be mathematically and financially illiterate to not understand that.....or of course they would have to be a G5er that thinks another slot in the Weedeater Bowl for $850,000 a year somehow adds $18 more million dollars to the value of a new member that only brings $27 million in "pro rata" TV MONEY
it is laughable how silly G5ers are and how mathematically and financially challenged they are willing to make themselves look to try and pretend that a new member bringing a "pro rata" TV MONEY share to a conference that is $15 to $18 million less than a full conference payout somehow makes sense for a conference to want to add
4 cable and sat subs are declining and that rate of decline is accelerating and cable and sat MSOs have been dropping conference networks, dropping "in market" rates, and moving conference networks to higher tier packages with fewer subscribers for several years now....the fact that you seem to think that is not happening or that will not impact the contribution and the worth of a conference network (much less the TV exposure for a conference that depends on one for a lot of exposure) just means you live in an alternate reality
and yes I did point out above that the ACC will get some additional money IN THE SHORT TERM for the ACCn, but I clearly stated that will be sort term, it will decline rapidly from the high, and eventually it will go to zero and the exposure on that network will fall as well and that is a disaster for them
they got lucky that ESPN was able to cram them on some MSOs right before those companies started to push back to that and to find they could successfully push back and not anger subscribers and now that they know they can they are doing so more and more often....with the current way that college football is going and the moves by Fox and ESPN and the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 you can guarantee that more people will be in support of their cable and sat MSOs putting up a fight over channel cramming especially over priced conference networks for conferences they want to see get torn down a notch
the Big 12 needs not even consider that in their new deals they need to move right on from that and stick with exposure being extremely important and with FIXED and KNOWN dollar payouts not payouts depending on networks with declining subscribers and a model that is dying