(08-01-2016 10:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (08-01-2016 05:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (08-01-2016 04:05 PM)Dasville Wrote: Are you calling Bob Bowlsby a liar? He point blank said that the tv partners "may not" feel they need to compensate the Big 12 for a CCG. This was after 2012 and just when Boren spilled the beans about the pro data clause in the Big 12 contract.
the Big 12 contract states that ESPN and Fox rotate years hosting the game and they have the obligation to host it
in their press conference from back when they decided on a CCG they talk multiple times and answer multiple questions about the "financial benefits" of a CCG and both boren and Bowlsby state it will be in the high 20s for payment
I do not recall him ever saying that the media partners might not have to pay for the CCG if you have any proof of that I would be glad to read it
(08-01-2016 04:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (08-01-2016 03:39 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (08-01-2016 02:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote: Yup. By that time, at the end of the contract, they were under contracts not with the current sports valuation. However the could have, if they wanted to, changed the contract. They even used that influence to dictate both who the new teams would be, and to insist they had to have them in place the next year and not drop below ten teams (logically if what Todge said was true and they could not dictate that the conference have 12 teams, they could not have dictated they had ten teams: it is one of the other). For Fox it was pretty easy because they only had I think two years left. But ESPN had several years left, and were the ones who lost the CCG game, and still remained the same. They even negotiated early a new contract, although I seem to remember most believing it was due to needing to work a new agreement with Fox so split up the then pure second tier rights, as previously they could not air Big 12 games on ESPN (only ABC), and it made it easier for ESPN to move a few games to LHN. Obviously that is hearsay, but that was the going thought at the time.
the Fox deal that was in place when MU and A&M left the Big 12 was a new deal that called for 10 teams
the Big 12 did not drop down below that 10 team mark until after that NEW DEAL was signed
No it wasn't. They (Colorado and Nebraska) left in 2010, or at the end of that season, and A&M and Missouri the next. The Big 12 played two years under the old deal for both conferences, that was set for 12 teams and a CCG in FB, and 12 teams in basketball (actually three since even in that link you provided, it showed that it didn't kick in until 2012-13). The "favor" they are talking about, is that until those extensions kicked in, three years after they lost teams they still paid them for games they weren't playing.
You really confuse your issues when on the same post you say the deal was signed in 2011, and then tell Dasville it was "100% signed after 2012." Anyway no one is saying the new contract wasn't for ten teams, even though you keep using the argument against that to prove you were right. The issue is, the networks DID have the power to reduce or terminate the contract, which is why they made it public they were not, in an attempt to stabalize the conference, but is WHY they told them they had to have ten teams in 2011, but chose not too. That is what the OP is referencing.
it is you that is confused
the Big 12 had an agreement with ESPN that ended in 2015-16....there has never been any actual proof that this agreement required 12 teams
people can assume or want to believe that is the case, but until that is shown to be true it is similar to the "look in" for the SEC SEC SEC adding MU and A&M that never happened with CBS or with ESPN
they had an agreement with Fox that was from the same time period and again it has never been shown that agreement required 12 teams
as I showed above with the Baylor the Big 12 when they had 10 members and had MU and A&M as members and AFTER CU and NU had already left negotiated a brand new agreement with Fox
that agreement did specify 10 teams
this is the reason the Big 12 needed to add two new members ASAP when A&M and MU decided to leave to the Big 12 several months later
so again there has never been definitive proof only assumptions that PAST ESPN and Fox deals required 12 teams
and back to your comment of "well if they could require 10 teams then they could require 12 teams"
true they COULD do that, but there has never been any definitive proof that the contracts actually DID require that
and there is actual proof that the Fox TV deal that was announced in the Baylor link above and that was a NEW DEAL did in fact contractually require 10 teams....and it was signed with 10 teams that included A&M and MU and those teams left shortly AFTER that deal
now to the 2012 part again there is no confusion on my part only your part
the Big 12 had the NEW deal with Fox that was from 2011 when the Big 12 had 10 teams that included A&M and MU and that required 10 teams contractually and the ESPN deal that expired in 2015-16 that has never been PROVEN to require 12 teams
in Sept of 2012 after TCU and WVU were both members of the conference the Big 12 signed a NEW DEAL with ESPN to replace the one that was set to expire in 2015-16 and at that SAME TIME Fox came back to the table with the very new deal from 2011 when the Big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and that is known to have required 10 teams and they renegotiated parts of that deal for additional money to get additional picks of games
so again there is no actual PROOF only assumptions that the past ESPN and Fox deals REQUIRED 12 teams
and the Big 12 first signed a NEW DEAL in 2011 with Fox that DID require 10 teams when A&M and MU were still members
and that deal was renegotiated in Sept of 2012 along with a brand new deal with ESPN to replace the one that was set to expire in 2015-16
so the fact that a Fox deal that was signed in 2011 when the Big 12 had 10 teams and it was well known that some Big 12 members were still looking around had a KNOWN requirement for 10 members is not proof that the prior Fox deal or the ESPN deal that was still inn place at that time had a requirement for 12 teams
it is only proof that Fox was smart enough to require 10 teams in a new deal they signed in 2011 when the big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and it was known others were looking around
and the fact that AFTER A&M and MU left and were replaced by TCU and WVU and ESPN came to the Big 12 several years early to negotiate a NEW contract to replace the one that expired in 2015-16 and that new contract that was 3 years before the old one expired paid $50 million more for 10 teams than the one it replaced (and that is ASSUMED to have required 12 teams) means that ESPN has little reason to cry about "doing the Big 12 favors" all the way back in 2010
and the fact that Fox came to the table as well in Sept 2012 at that same time and renegotiated parts of the contract they had signed in 2011 with the Big 12 with 10 teams that included A&M and MU (that had left in mid 2011 after the Fox contract had been signed originally) and been replaced by TCU and WVU again shows that Fox really has no reason to cry or complain about any "favors" they feel they might have done back in 2010 before they signed the contract with a 10 team Big 12 that included A&M and MU and that required 10 teams
because Fox worked with a 10 team Big 12 TWICE on a contract after the Big 12 was 10 teams and once after the Big 12 was 10 teams with TCU and WVU and ESPN worked with the Big 12 three years early to pay $50 million more per year for a 10 team conference than they had to pay under their existing contract that was assumed to require 12 teams when the Big 12 was 10 teams with TCU and WVU
so both parties should have called in any "favors" they felt they were owed then and they should not have also given a pro rata increase clause at that time if they thought that the Big 12 would not use it or if they thought the Big 12 would only use it how the media partners ask them to because of "favors" owed from past contracts
Todge that is a very long post, so I won't repaid to all of it. But here's the Thing: you keep asking people to prove the networks had the right to enforce the number of teams. The networks made that clear at that time, whether you agree or not, they felt that way, and no one disputes it. And that is why everyone remembers it and reports it. Since you are in the minority and you are the only one who feels they could not hold hem to it (and I have seen network contracts, and yes they do specify the number of teams, number of games to be televised, what happens with membership changes, etc), the onus is on YOU to prove it wrong. Not the other way around. Keep in mind the big east signed their contract around the same time, and when their membership changed, their contract was diminished (and they actually kept the same number of football teams and increased the number of basketball teams). As we've seen ESPN uses he same format for a lot of contract. And Not when the networks dictated the teams to be backloaded. Not when the conference absolutely stated they HAD to get back to ten teams and that's why WVU had to bust out of the big east when they did, and not when the tv contracts all line with the timeline spelled out. You day he is wrong: you have to prove it. Not the they way around.
and what you do not seem to understand is something called "the bigger picture"
even IF ESPN in particular or Fox and ESPN had a clause in those old contracts that called for 12 teams in the Big 12 and they considered they were doing the Big 12 "a solid" by continuing to pay them in 2010
the time to get that "favor" REPAID was in 2011 or 2012 for Fox when Fox did a new contract with the Big 12 in 2011 that consisted of 10 teams and then in 2012 when Fox renegotiated parts of that contract with the Big 12 that consisted of 10 teams that included TCU and WVU
and the time to get that "favor" repaid by ESPN if they feel they were owed that was also in 2012 when ESPN did an entirely new contract 3 years early with a 10 team Big 12 that included TCU and WVU and they paid $50 million more per year for 10 teams than the past contract would have paid and they paid that for 3 years when they could have kept paying less
and the time to get that "favor" repaid if they felt they were owed that with respect to the pro rata portion of the contract was when the contract was signed in 2012 and they could have included language that specified particular teams, teams from particular conferences, teams with particular sets of metrics as far as on the field performance, teams with viewership or fan/ticket sales metrics and on and on
you don't just redo. renew or sign totally new contracts once or twice and allow things to be included while at the same time you think that you have some type of "wink wink" "you owe us a solid" BS that is not in the contract, but that is "understood" to be out there floating around with no proof and no parameters assigned to it unless you are a total and complete moron
hell how many of the Big 12 presidents are the same now as they were in 2010, Powers from UT is gone, TTU has a new president (possible 2) since then, Starr is gone and probably a couple of more
Beebe was there in 2010 and he is gone and it went from him to Chucketer Neinas as interim then to toilet bowlsby
how many of the ADs are around from 2010, DeLoss is gone, McCaw is gone, the KSU guy is leaving and Hocutt was not at Tech in 2010 and probably more
how many of the people that were dealing with the Big 12 in 2010 for ESPN and were dealing with them in 2012 are still dealing with them now.....who in the hell knows
but again in situations where people leave, change positions, retire, get new bosses, have new financial positions for their company or their university or their athletics department only a total dumb*** would expect that there will be some "favor" repaid from back in 2010 6 years and 1 (for Fox) and 1 (for ESPN) major contracts later and 1 (for Fox) smaller renegotiation later and even more so when 20% of the conference was not the same teams as 2010
who is stupid enough to run major businesses and major conferences and major athletics departments like that besides a moron or a sports "journalist" that needs stupidity and innuendo to get clicks
that is like something the idiot travis clay wrote about the SEC SEC SEC and about what is going on with the Big 12 as well
he was saying never before has a dispute like this gone public and even the dispute that the SEC SEC SEC had with CBS about no actual "look in" for A&M and MU made the SEC SEC SEC so furious that they were STILL unlikely to renew with CBS when the contract expires and that did not go public.........until the SEC SEC SEC and CBS signed a new contract
which of course is total stupidity (as usual) on the part of travis clay because how can you STILL be so furious at CBS that you are STILL not likely to renew a contract with them when it expires even though travis clay has said you already renewed a contract with CBS AFTER the incident you are upset about happened.....wouldn't you be upset with yourself for renewing a contract with CBS after you got so upset you did not want to renew with them to the point you are still upset and do not want to renew with them.....even though you renewed with them.....much less that travis clay wrote a long stupid article in the past about how CBS and the SEC were so "donezo" that CBS should just go ahead and sell off their rights to the SEC SEC SEC because the SEC SEC SEC wold not renew with them
now the idiot travis clay is saying that the SEC SEC SEC has actually renewed with CBS (although no one with any integrity has been saying this) and yet they are still so angry they will not renew with CBS in the future because of an incident that happened BEFORE they renewed with them
how in the hell does that make sense.....oh wait it doesn't it is just nonsense from a moron just like the nonsense that ESPN and Fox should expect some type of wink wink favor from 6 years ago and a 20% change in conference membership and a 30+% change in Big 12 conference administration and a change in Big 12 commissioners 2 times since then......not to mention major contract negotiations and even a renegotiation
your expected "favors" have a finite life span they do not carry over forever and ever and ever when you are running a major business, a major conference and major universities and athletics programs
if you are stupid enough to think otherwise then prepare to be disappointed and to not get what you thought you were owed, but were too stupid to put in any contract when you had the opportunity to do so.....if you do not understand this then you are a very poor business person, negotiator, lawyer or media rights guy and no one should feel sorry for you or think that you have any solid case to get your "solid" returned long after you had the chance to and long after those that might have drank with you and buddy buddied you and slapped your back have moved on
you got chumped suck it up and stick by the CONTRACT YOU SIGNED
/
Big 12 TV partners push back on expansion
