OH look, my school's booster is bigger than yours.
#vicariousliving

Still no 8 vote consensus on new teams? Can the Big 12 look any more ridiculous?

Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

(08-04-2016 04:34 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Still no 8 vote consensus on new teams? Can the Big 12 look any more ridiculous?

That's not possible. Unfortunately The Big 12 is a case study in what not to do when making decisions and negotiating.
CJ

(08-04-2016 04:34 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Still no 8 vote consensus on new teams? Can the Big 12 look any more ridiculous?

It states that it hasn't really started horse trading yet. I know everyone wants to pounce on them but this isn;t a legit reason.

(08-04-2016 05:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

I suspect Frank O Tank has a school in mind for the BYU punch to the nuts. No not BYU, but a BYU like punch to the nuts.
Cheers!

(08-04-2016 03:30 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 10:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  The Big 12 has been talking to Memphis for almost 3 years, and have said some things to us that make me feel they are ready to add 4 teams.

Interesting.

For almost three years, the Big 12 has been coming to UH saying:

"Memphis just offered this and that. What are you prepared to offer."

Methinks Memphis and their Fed Ex sugar daddy are being played to drive up the price of poker for the rest of us.

Funny, that's what they told us, too.

(08-04-2016 05:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

I suspect Frank O Tank has a school in mind for the BYU punch to the nuts. No not BYU, but a BYU like punch to the nuts.
Cheers!

My guess is if Houston gets in, that bumps out Boise as FB only, and moves BYU to all sports, along with UH, UC, UM. I already assumed that with my original guess, after the shots fired by the Texas gov and others.

Before that, I thought it was UC, UM and BYU and Boise, both FB only. But apparently there is some opposition to FB only, anyway, so that's helping Houston, too. JMO.

(08-04-2016 06:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 05:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank the Tank says there's going to be at least 1 school who truly thinks it is Big 12 bound that gets a swift kick in the nuts because of UH.

But probably not Cincy.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...1987172352

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5004703745

I suspect Frank O Tank has a school in mind for the BYU punch to the nuts. No not BYU, but a BYU like punch to the nuts.
Cheers!

My guess is if Houston gets in, that bumps out Boise as FB only, and moves BYU to all sports, along with UH, UC, UM. I already assumed that with my original guess, after the shots fired by the Texas gov and others.

Before that, I thought it was UC, UM and BYU and Boise, both FB only. But apparently there is some opposition to FB only, anyway, so that's helping Houston, too. JMO.

LOL

Here's the deal. Either the Big 12 expands with Houston. Or the Big 12 doesn't expand at all.

This is why THIRTEEN MONTHS AGO, Boren's mouthpiece Sittler tweeted Houston was the #1 candidate should the Big 12 expand.

UT has been behind Houston from the beginning.

So, all of you Big 12 hopefuls better pray that Houston gets an invite.

Because you don't get one unless we get one first.

I don't see Boise even being in the hunt, and they certainly are not competitive against UofH.

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

But Fox owns half the rights and they want expansion. Also why give the Big XII MORE money? That makes no sense since it would just be cheaper to let them expand then.

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

Fox wants them to expand though because it increases their content. More Big XII teams means more Big XII games that they get to air. It seems only ESPN is upset about this.

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

(08-04-2016 07:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

Fox wants them to expand though because it increases their content. More Big XII teams means more Big XII games that they get to air. It seems only ESPN is upset about this.

Just saying the same thing in response to multiple comments doesn’t make it more likely to become true, you know.

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

Fox wants to expand though. I'm going to keep posting this. Fox needs more content for FS1, even with the B1G coming in 2017 they want more. Forget want, they NEED more. More games means they have more options to add more games every weekend.

Multiple games on Fox OTA and multiple games on FS1 every Saturday. Thats what they need to truly go head to head with ESPN.

(08-04-2016 07:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:02 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

I think what they mean is having ESPN give each of the ten teams more money so they don't expand. If they expand they have to give each new team around 30k plus all the original schools more money too.

Supposedly ESPN says none of the schools left are worth 30k so maybe they will give the big 12 more money to say no to expansion.

That might happen, essentially the networks would be saying, we'll give you some more money (and probably add years onto the contract) in exchange for deleting whatever contract clause is leading the Big 12 to argue that they could add 60 new members and get seven times as much money as the networks are now paying.

Fox wants them to expand though because it increases their content. More Big XII teams means more Big XII games that they get to air. It seems only ESPN is upset about this.

Just saying the same thing in response to multiple comments doesn’t make it more likely to become true, you know.

But it is true, because they do in fact need more content. Ignoring that doesn't make it untrue.

(08-04-2016 07:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 07:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 06:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 04:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Chip Brown's latest article was pretty negative in regards to expansion happening.

Would not be surprised if the Big 12 schools take the money and tell the G5 schools bye.

This doesn't make much sense. "The money" is the pro-rata increase in the ESPN / Fox contracts, combined with unequal revenue shares in the current contract, leading to more money for the incumbents.

There is no "the money" to take if they "tell the G5 schools bye".

each new school added would be at a cost of $22.5 million per team per year on average for 8 years or a total cost per team added of $180 million over 8 years

so if two teams are added it is a cost of about $180 million over 8 years for ESPN and for Fox

the idea being that Fox and ESPN could save a ton of money if instead of paying $180 million each over 8 years to add two teams they do not want to pay that much for or $360 million each over 8 years for 4 teams they do not want to pay that much for they can simply pay the 10 members of the Big 12 some portion of that money like say $2 million per team per year for a total cost of $10 million to Fox and $10 million to ESPN each year over 8 years or a total of $80 million each to Fox and ESPN which saves each of them $100 million over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 2 teams and $280 million each over 8 years if the Big 12 was "wanting" to add 4 teams

would you rather pay $80 million that you do not want to pay or $180 to $360 million you do not want to pay over 8 years

Fox wants to expand though. I'm going to keep posting this. Fox needs more content for FS1, even with the B1G coming in 2017 they want more. Forget want, they NEED more. More games means they have more options to add more games every weekend.

Multiple games on Fox OTA and multiple games on FS1 every Saturday. Thats what they need to truly go head to head with ESPN.

we really do not know if Fox wants to expand or not we have a bunch of losers that are suppose to be journalist saying things like that so they can have something to make up a story about, but we really do not know if there is any truth to it at all

and really for that matter we do not know if the Big 12 really even wants to expand at all or if they really just want more money

when the idiot boren was all excited about expansion it was because he was stupid enough to think that the Big 12 was getting a network, but once that was shot down and the Big 12 agreed to a CCG without expansion he was content as things were

and more so does Fox want to expand with the teams that the Big 12 MIGHT want to expand with.....if the Big 12 really "wants" two teams that Fox has no interest in because they are already in an area that Fox has a lot of teams then the benefit to Fox is diminished

if there is disagreement between ESPN and Fox on teams they could be talking about Fox paying more of the cost so that the Big 12 adds the teams Fox prefers because perhaps adding those teams might come much more at the expense of ESPN

or perhaps ESPN will pay a bit more of Fox is ok with adding teams that come with a much lower "expense" to ESPN like a team or teams out of the MWC instead of the ACC

but is any of that OK with the Big 12

which gets us back to the stupidity of all of this especially having it all out so publicly

there are no great options, no good options, no options that everyone will really like and a lot of garbage that comes with most of the options and that garbage keeps getting piled higher and stinking more as politicians get involved and as it is "reported" that those footing the bills are not happy

which makes it a lot easier to sit down, pay a bit more money and everyone moves on with getting mostly what they want

ESPN and Fox paying a lot less money than they could have paid for teams they might not really have wanted, the Big 12 getting paid more and perhaps Fox wishing they had gotten a particular team and a few Big 12 wall flowers wishing they could hang their future on some G5 schools performing better than they plan on their program doing and ESPN upset they had to pay a bit more

but that is a hell of a lot better than cramming 2-4 teams in the Big 12 that most members and their fan bases care nothing about, the consequences of the long term cost of that, putting up with the two tier payments that would have to last for 8 years, your media partners really feeling taken advantage of and then 8 years from now you probably are more likely to lose top programs anyway

why not take more money, concentrate on building your program in the Big 12 instead of hoping some G5ers getting less than a half share "save you in a P5 conference" and move on