(08-05-2014 11:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 11:29 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:35 AM)Underdog Wrote:  “The Big 12 will survive as a 10-team league because of an influx of television money from Fox that ensured its financial future and lured back Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M — the Big 12’s bedrock teams “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/sports....html?_r=0

This means that A$M, Texas, and OU were the marquee schools that the contract would be built on. In fact, those three schools initially were suppose to make more money than the other schools in the conference because they were "the Big 12’s bedrock teams":

You have done more research on this than me and i bow to that. But, these articles are from 2010 when the deal was signed so do not tell us what FOX thinks of them now.

More critically, ESPN was willing to also sign a massive deal with the Big 12 in September 2012, two years after FOX, despite TAMU and Mizzou having left, strong evidence that the market still values the current ten team B12 highly.

What Underdog is saying is the contract was valuated with the original members coming back. And after A&M left, they agreed to keep the contract the same if TCU replaced A&M and they had a hand in picking the next team (WVU). They did not re-valuate the conference, they kept the status quo to keep it together.

Whether that makes it overpaid, is the topic at hand (I venture to stay out of it). But his point about when the contract was valuated, does not change because it was actually signed later with new members. His argument is that they conceded to pay more to keep it together. Now he is asking if they are overpaid because of it?

That’s exactly the point that I am making, but not as well articulated as you’ve presented adcorbett. I know that you’ve stated, “Whether that makes it overpaid, is the topic at hand (I venture to stay out of it).” Nevertheless, I would like to know your unbiased opinion on if you think a B12 conference with TCU and WV is worth the same without aTm money making machine and MIZZOU?

Btw... I'll understand if you decide not to respond.

A&M for TCU is a dropoff. Mizzou for WVU isn't much of one if it's one at all nationally. In terms of national brand WVU was coming off 3 BCS bowls, has a long term winning history, and usually delivers strong ratings. Mizzou had some strong seasons (2006, 2007, 2010) but typically was a .500 program in the Big 12. The bottom cut of their broadcasts vs WV's isn't much different.

Now to be fair A&M wasn't setting the world on fire in the Big 12 so the hurdle for TCU isn't what most would expect from the Manziel A&M brand but there is a drop off.

Either way the difference isn't much to the bottom line as it's only the weaker slate of games (FOX deal) that was cut prior to the swap. The top games are where the big money per-game is and that deal (ABC/ESPN) was signed with the current roster.

Same as when the ACC lost Maryland and replaced them with Louisville. The networks cut a deal with one team in mind and felt the replacement was solid enough to not warrant a redo. The ACC adding ND of course added a chunk of money though.

(08-05-2014 12:21 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Same as when the ACC lost Maryland and replaced them with Louisville. The networks cut a deal with one team in mind and felt the replacement was solid enough to not warrant a redo. The ACC adding ND of course added a chunk of money though.

That is the point of his contention though. He is saying the deal was agreed to with the old roster, but accepted as is with the pending changes. His question is, because of that, are they overpaid.

Not saying I agree or disagree with him, but when you (in general, not just "you") attempt to write it off as a bogus question, because it was signed with the current configuration, that is not fair. The question is valid.

You have to look at the big picture and not the individual teams.

For ESPN, keeping the Big 12 together is worth more to them than seeing it break up and having its properties spread out among the remaining power conferences. They've intervened several times to preserve that league and incentivize it's continued existence.

So by that logic, the Big 12 is not overpaid if keeping them financially competitive saves you more money in the long run than letting them fall behind and fall apart as a result

(08-05-2014 01:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to look at the big picture and not the individual teams.

For ESPN, keeping the Big 12 together is worth more to them than seeing it break up and having its properties spread out among the remaining power conferences. They've intervened several times to preserve that league and incentivize it's continued existence.

So by that logic, the Big 12 is not overpaid if keeping them financially competitive saves you more money in the long run than letting them fall behind and fall apart as a result.

That logic is unassailable, IMO. Every negotiation involves using whatever leverage you have - positive or negative. What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4. If that were true, why would they go to great lengths to keep that goal from happening on its own, and sooner, without intervention?

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to look at the big picture and not the individual teams.

For ESPN, keeping the Big 12 together is worth more to them than seeing it break up and having its properties spread out among the remaining power conferences. They've intervened several times to preserve that league and incentivize it's continued existence.

So by that logic, the Big 12 is not overpaid if keeping them financially competitive saves you more money in the long run than letting them fall behind and fall apart as a result.

That logic is unassailable, IMO. Every negotiation involves using whatever leverage you have - positive or negative. What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4. If that were true, why would they go to great lengths to keep that goal from happening on its own, and sooner, without intervention?

I'm not saying your logic here is flawed, it's not. But there is another possible explanation, timing. The property involved "the Big 12" had its rights more or less equally divided between FOX and ESPN. A move to the PAC by Texas and Oklahoma destabilizes ESPN and potentially FOX's investment since the PACN is the property of the PAC. In that case maintaining the Big 12 contract is in the interest of both FOX and ESPN. Both only lease rights from the PAC.

I found it interesting that in the immediate aftermath of the Big 12's survival that both FOX and ESPN put the rush on to sign T3 deals with key properties. FOX landed Oklahoma and ESPN of course landed the LHN for Texas and signed a T3 deal with Kansas.

While what has happened plays into the logic you put forth, it could also simply be that FOX and ESPN, given the uncertainty of so many factors involving college sports and conference realignment, were not yet ready to commit to a given strategy for future profits and that the existing contract was paid and bumped slightly to simply hold things as they are until present issues were decided and the future a bit clearer. To gain advantages with the schools they really wanted they utilized T3 as an instrument of leverage.

(08-05-2014 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to look at the big picture and not the individual teams.

For ESPN, keeping the Big 12 together is worth more to them than seeing it break up and having its properties spread out among the remaining power conferences. They've intervened several times to preserve that league and incentivize it's continued existence.

So by that logic, the Big 12 is not overpaid if keeping them financially competitive saves you more money in the long run than letting them fall behind and fall apart as a result.

That logic is unassailable, IMO. Every negotiation involves using whatever leverage you have - positive or negative. What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4. If that were true, why would they go to great lengths to keep that goal from happening on its own, and sooner, without intervention?

I'm not saying your logic here is flawed, it's not. But there is another possible explanation, timing. The property involved "the Big 12" had its rights more or less equally divided between FOX and ESPN. A move to the PAC by Texas and Oklahoma destabilizes ESPN and potentially FOX's investment since the PACN is the property of the PAC. In that case maintaining the Big 12 contract is in the interest of both FOX and ESPN. Both only lease rights from the PAC.

I found it interesting that in the immediate aftermath of the Big 12's survival that both FOX and ESPN put the rush on to sign T3 deals with key properties. FOX landed Oklahoma and ESPN of course landed the LHN for Texas and signed a T3 deal with Kansas.

While what has happened plays into the logic you put forth, it could also simply be that FOX and ESPN, given the uncertainty of so many factors involving college sports and conference realignment, were not yet ready to commit to a given strategy for future profits and that the existing contract was paid and bumped slightly to simply hold things as they are until present issues were decided and the future a bit clearer. To gain advantages with the schools they really wanted they utilized T3 as an instrument of leverage.

I would guess that this - uncertainty - may be the most important factor of all. So, while some internet posters may want to proclaim that one outcome or another is inevitable, the people who will actually make those decisions don't agree with them. Since there are a lot of conflicting opinions circulating on the web, it is a near certainty that one of them will turn out to be right. And the ones who guessed correctly will no doubt crow about their intelligence and perspicacity, even though they probably had about a one in four chance based on dumb luck alone.

As long as the cost for expressing one of those opinions is zero, forums like this one will thrive.

Exactly, it makes more sense for Fox and ESPNs bottom line to incentivize the Big 12s continued existence. If you keep their pay competitive then UT, OU and KU are less likely to think of leaving and especially for the PAC at the time.

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4.

What ever gave you the idea they were working towards that? They have always worked against larger power conferences, as whole, because less conferences gives the conferences more power. Some point to ESPN seemingly conspiring to help destroy the Big East as proof, but that is not really what that was about. ESPN (and Fox) actively worked to keep conferences from further consolidating.

The fact of the matter is that it's only the bottom tier of the league contract.

TCU-KU and A&M-KU isn't a huge difference in most years for national and regional interest. A&M would have more than TCU due to alumni but when it's a weak game its a weak game.
WVU-ISU and Mizzou-ISU is the same thing as well only WVU and Mizzou are probably on pretty equal footing for the ratings given similar seasons, tv windows, networks, etc. There might be a slight difference but at the end of the day it's roughly the worst 13-15 games of the 19 that the two swaps account for a part of annually. The gap per-game simply isn't going to amount to much of a FOX contract that has over 60 games.

The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

(08-05-2014 02:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4.

What ever gave you the idea they were working towards that? They have always worked against larger power conferences, as whole, because less conferences gives the conferences more power. Some point to ESPN seemingly conspiring to help destroy the Big East as proof, but that is not really what that was about. ESPN (and Fox) actively worked to keep conferences from further consolidating.

Absolutely nothing. I don't believe they are. But there surely are some here who believe they are.

I happen to think that most of the networks actions have been more reactive than proactive. I think the forces that drove the implosion of the Big East were internal, and ESPN just wanted to make sure they landed on their feet when it happened. And I think the forces threatening the Big 12 were internal as well. In some ways the networks were playing musical chairs, trying to insure they had a seat when the music stopped. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist.

(08-05-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to look at the big picture and not the individual teams.

For ESPN, keeping the Big 12 together is worth more to them than seeing it break up and having its properties spread out among the remaining power conferences. They've intervened several times to preserve that league and incentivize it's continued existence.

So by that logic, the Big 12 is not overpaid if keeping them financially competitive saves you more money in the long run than letting them fall behind and fall apart as a result.

That logic is unassailable, IMO. Every negotiation involves using whatever leverage you have - positive or negative. What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4. If that were true, why would they go to great lengths to keep that goal from happening on its own, and sooner, without intervention?

I'm not saying your logic here is flawed, it's not. But there is another possible explanation, timing. The property involved "the Big 12" had its rights more or less equally divided between FOX and ESPN. A move to the PAC by Texas and Oklahoma destabilizes ESPN and potentially FOX's investment since the PACN is the property of the PAC. In that case maintaining the Big 12 contract is in the interest of both FOX and ESPN. Both only lease rights from the PAC.

I found it interesting that in the immediate aftermath of the Big 12's survival that both FOX and ESPN put the rush on to sign T3 deals with key properties. FOX landed Oklahoma and ESPN of course landed the LHN for Texas and signed a T3 deal with Kansas.

While what has happened plays into the logic you put forth, it could also simply be that FOX and ESPN, given the uncertainty of so many factors involving college sports and conference realignment, were not yet ready to commit to a given strategy for future profits and that the existing contract was paid and bumped slightly to simply hold things as they are until present issues were decided and the future a bit clearer. To gain advantages with the schools they really wanted they utilized T3 as an instrument of leverage.

I would guess that this - uncertainty - may be the most important factor of all. So, while some internet posters may want to proclaim that one outcome or another is inevitable, the people who will actually make those decisions don't agree with them. Since there are a lot of conflicting opinions circulating on the web, it is a near certainty that one of them will turn out to be right. And the ones who guessed correctly will no doubt crow about their intelligence and perspicacity, even though they probably had about a one in four chance based on dumb luck alone.

As long as the cost for expressing one of those opinions is zero, forums like this one will thrive.

Ken D forums like this one thrive because in a world in which people feel like they have so little control the illusion of figuring things out is essential to the psyche. If we all truly recognized that we had no control over what might happen next things would really be insane and horrific. Even government itself is an illusion of control. They may control us but they can't control Yellowstone, asteroids, the sun, or even other governments.

My theory is that since the backyard fence is no longer utilized to air opinions with neighbors that the internet (with even less regard for the other guy's input than the fence between neighbors) is now one of the most important bleed off valves in our society. After 20 years of social work, 15 years of corporate sales, and various other endeavors I now realize that people are more on edge than at any time in my life. They are isolated and separated from others by electronic fences now. The society in which they exist is overly sensitive and reactive and treats new ideas frequently as some kind of hostile affront and they confuse feelings with facts. If not for the internet chat room the carbonation of their souls would burst forth from the shaking of their uncertain worlds leaving only a sticky mess where a persona once lived.

Realignment at its zenith essentially coincided with the effects (about a 2 year lag from the actual event) of the last economic collapse. I think it became a social phenomenon because it had skullduggery, it assaulted peoples cherished memories of beloved institutions, and it was a perfect foil for the expression of extraneous discontent over something they knew their personal opinion couldn't touch, the economy. The passion expressed over realignment has been both legitimate and a projection of feelings over issues where no other appropriate or communal outlets existed. It has both galvanized some fan bases and alienated others.

I say this because recognizing the need for people to feel that they have some sway over the events of their world is important. For that reason I have entertained all manner of notions and tried to give most of them equal respect. But you are 100% correct in that nobody knows where this thing goes. But, it is a pass time so does it really matter? And if some poor schmo thinks he or she figured it out when really they just made a lucky guess and that motivates them to tackle other issues in life that count then isn't it a good thing in a weird sort of way?

When this is over the networks, commissioners and presidents will have decided. But if the public owns it, debates it, or even crows about it, all I've got to say is thank God for a great distraction from a really volatile era of history.

(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

It wasn't signed until the ESPN deal. Before that, it was just an agreement in principle.

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

hey no fair using actual facts and reality because when you do that their argument falls apart completely

(08-05-2014 03:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

hey no fair using actual facts and reality because when you do that their argument falls apart completely

ahem, too bad said "facts" were incorrect." The Big 12 signed a deal with ESPN in September of 2012. That same deal actually formalized the Grant of Rights. In fact, CBS had even reported that as of July, 2012, the GOR had not been signed

Quote: The Big 12 disputed a report Sunday that conference schools had formally agreed to a 13-year grant of media rights. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby was quoted by the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail as saying that the anticipated deal “has been extended to 13 years and it has been signed.”

Bowlsby was en route Sunday to Morgantown, W.Va. for a Big 12 celebration. However, a league spokesman said, “The grant of rights has not been executed. What [Bowlsby] told the reporter is, it will be executed upon completion of current television negotiations.”

But yeah, don't let "facts" get in the way.

Oh, sorry, I forgot

(08-05-2014 03:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

hey no fair using actual facts and reality because when you do that their argument falls apart completely

ahem, Buck,
too bad said "facts" were incorrect." The Big 12 signed a deal with ESPN in September of 2012. That same deal actually formalized the Grant of Rights. In fact, CBS had even reported that as of July, 2012, the GOR had not been signed

Quote: The Big 12 disputed a report Sunday that conference schools had formally agreed to a 13-year grant of media rights. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby was quoted by the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail as saying that the anticipated deal “has been extended to 13 years and it has been signed.”

Bowlsby was en route Sunday to Morgantown, W.Va. for a Big 12 celebration. However, a league spokesman said, “The grant of rights has not been executed. What [Bowlsby] told the reporter is, it will be executed upon completion of current television negotiations.”

But yeah, don't let "facts" get in the way.

Oh, sorry, I forgot

adcorbett-

There was a shorter GOR (6 years) already in place that was signed by the 9 programs (TCU+8 original members) in the league prior to Mizzou officially joining the SEC. The 13 year one was an extension IIRC.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205311928


So back at ya!

(08-05-2014 03:26 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The bigger rivalries (UT-A&M, KU-Mizzou) and matchups (OU vs each, Texas-Mizzou, Texas-WVU) would typically be felt on the ABC/ESPN contract which was struck with the existing roster.

The new contract is not set up like the old one. It is set up more like the PAC 12 contract, with Fox and ESPN splitting tiers. This was done so that ESPN could gain more Texas games, and so that Fox could show games on the Fox Network.

But pointing this out, as you say, ESPN actually lost the most in terms of what they did have, and what they have now. But in terms of "when" they agreed, that was somewhat moot, because they knew what the offer needed to be to keep Texas and Oklahoma happy to keep the thing together. Which goes back to the OP's question.

ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

hey no fair using actual facts and reality because when you do that their argument falls apart completely

ahem,
too bad said "facts" were incorrect." The Big 12 signed a deal with ESPN in September of 2012. That same deal actually formalized the Grant of Rights. In fact, CBS had even reported that as of July, 2012, the GOR had not been signed

Quote: The Big 12 disputed a report Sunday that conference schools had formally agreed to a 13-year grant of media rights. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby was quoted by the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail as saying that the anticipated deal “has been extended to 13 years and it has been signed.”

Bowlsby was en route Sunday to Morgantown, W.Va. for a Big 12 celebration. However, a league spokesman said, “The grant of rights has not been executed. What [Bowlsby] told the reporter is, it will be executed upon completion of current television negotiations.”

But yeah, don't let "facts" get in the way.

Oh, sorry, I forgot

adcorbett-

There was a shorter GOR (either 5 or 6 years) already in place that was signed by the 9 programs (TCU+8 original members) in the league prior to Mizzou officially joining the SEC. The 13 year one was an extension IIRC.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205311928


So back at ya!

Ahem, did you bother to read that?

"The Big 12 Conference Board of Directors agreed to a formal grant of television rights for a minimum of six years during a teleconference today."

As stated above, it was never signed by all parties until the new TV contracts were made, which was what was stated above.

So, I guess

[note, before anyone else responds, can we agree to either cease with the nut kicking, or allow a five minute recess for some ice and to install cups?]

(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:26 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

hey no fair using actual facts and reality because when you do that their argument falls apart completely

ahem,
too bad said "facts" were incorrect." The Big 12 signed a deal with ESPN in September of 2012. That same deal actually formalized the Grant of Rights. In fact, CBS had even reported that as of July, 2012, the GOR had not been signed

Quote: The Big 12 disputed a report Sunday that conference schools had formally agreed to a 13-year grant of media rights. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby was quoted by the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail as saying that the anticipated deal “has been extended to 13 years and it has been signed.”

Bowlsby was en route Sunday to Morgantown, W.Va. for a Big 12 celebration. However, a league spokesman said, “The grant of rights has not been executed. What [Bowlsby] told the reporter is, it will be executed upon completion of current television negotiations.”

But yeah, don't let "facts" get in the way.

Oh, sorry, I forgot

adcorbett-

There was a shorter GOR (either 5 or 6 years) already in place that was signed by the 9 programs (TCU+8 original members) in the league prior to Mizzou officially joining the SEC. The 13 year one was an extension IIRC.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205311928


So back at ya!

Ahem, did you bother to read that?

"The Big 12 Conference Board of Directors agreed to a formal grant of television rights for a minimum of six years during a teleconference today."

As stated above, it was never signed by all parties until the new TV contracts were made, which was what was stated above.

So, I guess

[note, before anyone else responds, can we agree to either cease with the nut kicking, or allow a five minute recess for some ice and to install cups?]

1- The 6 year agreement was done prior to the ESPN deal being finalized in 2012. I can't find the link right now but remember it being confirmed in radio interviews. Either way it was a formality delayed only by giving the respective BOR's and legal teams time for due dillegence.

2-
Five minutes is up....

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to look at the big picture and not the individual teams.

For ESPN, keeping the Big 12 together is worth more to them than seeing it break up and having its properties spread out among the remaining power conferences. They've intervened several times to preserve that league and incentivize it's continued existence.

So by that logic, the Big 12 is not overpaid if keeping them financially competitive saves you more money in the long run than letting them fall behind and fall apart as a result.

That logic is unassailable, IMO. Every negotiation involves using whatever leverage you have - positive or negative. What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4. If that were true, why would they go to great lengths to keep that goal from happening on its own, and sooner, without intervention?

I'm not saying your logic here is flawed, it's not. But there is another possible explanation, timing. The property involved "the Big 12" had its rights more or less equally divided between FOX and ESPN. A move to the PAC by Texas and Oklahoma destabilizes ESPN and potentially FOX's investment since the PACN is the property of the PAC. In that case maintaining the Big 12 contract is in the interest of both FOX and ESPN. Both only lease rights from the PAC.

I found it interesting that in the immediate aftermath of the Big 12's survival that both FOX and ESPN put the rush on to sign T3 deals with key properties. FOX landed Oklahoma and ESPN of course landed the LHN for Texas and signed a T3 deal with Kansas.

While what has happened plays into the logic you put forth, it could also simply be that FOX and ESPN, given the uncertainty of so many factors involving college sports and conference realignment, were not yet ready to commit to a given strategy for future profits and that the existing contract was paid and bumped slightly to simply hold things as they are until present issues were decided and the future a bit clearer. To gain advantages with the schools they really wanted they utilized T3 as an instrument of leverage.

I would guess that this - uncertainty - may be the most important factor of all. So, while some internet posters may want to proclaim that one outcome or another is inevitable, the people who will actually make those decisions don't agree with them. Since there are a lot of conflicting opinions circulating on the web, it is a near certainty that one of them will turn out to be right. And the ones who guessed correctly will no doubt crow about their intelligence and perspicacity, even though they probably had about a one in four chance based on dumb luck alone.

As long as the cost for expressing one of those opinions is zero, forums like this one will thrive.

Ken D forums like this one thrive because in a world in which people feel like they have so little control the illusion of figuring things out is essential to the psyche. If we all truly recognized that we had no control over what might happen next things would really be insane and horrific. Even government itself is an illusion of control. They may control us but they can't control Yellowstone, asteroids, the sun, or even other governments.

My theory is that since the backyard fence is no longer utilized to air opinions with neighbors that the internet (with even less regard for the other guy's input than the fence between neighbors) is now one of the most important bleed off valves in our society. After 20 years of social work, 15 years of corporate sales, and various other endeavors I now realize that people are more on edge than at any time in my life. They are isolated and separated from others by electronic fences now. The society in which they exist is overly sensitive and reactive and treats new ideas frequently as some kind of hostile affront and they confuse feelings with facts. If not for the internet chat room the carbonation of their souls would burst forth from the shaking of their uncertain worlds leaving only a sticky mess where a persona once lived.

Realignment at its zenith essentially coincided with the effects (about a 2 year lag from the actual event) of the last economic collapse. I think it became a social phenomenon because it had skullduggery, it assaulted peoples cherished memories of beloved institutions, and it was a perfect foil for the expression of extraneous discontent over something they knew their personal opinion couldn't touch, the economy. The passion expressed over realignment has been both legitimate and a projection of feelings over issues where no other appropriate or communal outlets existed. It has both galvanized some fan bases and alienated others.

I say this because recognizing the need for people to feel that they have some sway over the events of their world is important. For that reason I have entertained all manner of notions and tried to give most of them equal respect. But you are 100% correct in that nobody knows where this thing goes. But, it is a pass time so does it really matter? And if some poor schmo thinks he or she figured it out when really they just made a lucky guess and that motivates them to tackle other issues in life that count then isn't it a good thing in a weird sort of way?

When this is over the networks, commissioners and presidents will have decided. But if the public owns it, debates it, or even crows about it, all I've got to say is thank God for a great distraction from a really volatile era of history.

They better not control Yellowstone. That hour and a half traffic jam better have been random. Remarkable place (even traffic jams in the middle of nowhere). Took a long time to convince my wife to go but she was impressed.