http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ion-option

Quote:Horn: Is there any way if there's expansion to keep Houston out?

Tramel: I don’t think there’s going to be an expansion. I don’t think there is. I think there are some schools that don’t want it and even if you get the chances to have expansion, then you’ve got to go back to the table and figure out food. I don’t think there’s a consensus there. My money is stronger and stronger on no expansion.

Well we know that 10th has a big poster of Tramel now up in the living room.

Wouldn't surprise me at all....

Granted, Tramel is advocating that position just to gain favor with terrified Oklahoma St fans and boosters. You can see that in the rest of the link.

But nonetheless, worth discussing ...

it'd be wild if there is no expansion. The biggest thing is with the AAC. Their tv deal runs out with ESPN after the 19-20 season. You just wonder what's going to happen there. Do they go open market, with Fox maybe making a push? AAC basketball coinciding with Big East/Big Ten/Pac 12 basketball would be pretty good- plus helping FS1 out with some more football. Or does ESPN need that volume given Big Ten games cut in half, along with at least a bit of a loss in ACC games to the new ACC network. Also, MWC tv deal runs out after 19-20 season. Going to be some interesting developments there with those 2 conferences I feel if there's no Big 12 expansion.

(09-14-2016 10:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it'd be wild if there is no expansion. The biggest thing is with the AAC. Their tv deal runs out with ESPN after the 19-20 season. You just wonder what's going to happen there. Do they go open market, with Fox maybe making a push? AAC basketball coinciding with Big East/Big Ten/Pac 12 basketball would be pretty good- plus helping FS1 out with some more football. Or does ESPN need that volume given Big Ten games cut in half, along with at least a bit of a loss in ACC games to the new ACC network. Also, MWC tv deal runs out after 19-20 season. Going to be some interesting developments there with those 2 conferences I feel if there's no Big 12 expansion.

Yes 2019 is the last football season contracted with ESPN for the AAC and CBS-SN/ESPN for the MWC. I also think the BYU football contract with ESPN ends before that even. I could be wrong but didn't BYU sign a 6 or 8 year contract with ESPN starting with the 2011 season? Plenty of good football games will be open for the 2020 season including a lot of big P5 names coming to AAC, MWC and BYU stadiums.
Cheers!

The American should sick with ESPN. The converage they get, particularly in basketball, will not be matched on Fox. They also get multiple ABC football games...

ESPN has a 8 year deal- running thru the 18 football season. With a 1 year option. So if ESPN exercised the option, that would be thru also the 19-20 school year.

(09-14-2016 11:13 AM)Tech Savy Wrote:  The American should sick with ESPN. The converage they get, particularly in basketball, will not be matched on Fox. They also get multiple ABC football games...

Yeah unless a Fox or NBC was willing to offer considerably more money and comparable exposure I'd wanna stay with ESPN. I used to not agree with that, but after seeing how ECU coverage essentially disappeared off the face of the earth when C-USA ditched ESPN it would take considerable money for me to want to risk that happening again.

Unless ESPN and Fox decide to unilaterally provide more money to the Big 12 for the exact same content as-is, I find it really difficult to see how the Big 12 would choose to not expand. In essence, the current ESPN and Fox contracts provide free unambiguous money to the Big 12 for expansion. I know I've seen the theory float around that they're just trying to get ESPN and Fox pay some more money to the Big 12 to *avoid* expansion, but how does that make sense to ESPN or Fox? If ESPN and Fox are going to pay more money to the Big 12, why wouldn't they at least want some more content that would be provided from expansion in return? That theory (generally floated by fans of schools that are longshots or have been cut in the Big 12 expansion process) only sounds like it makes sense if you don't take two steps back and trying to convince ESPN/Fox to pay more money for nothing is ludicrous compared to the alternative where they pay more money for at least *something* in return.

Whether the Big 12 ends up lasting in the long-term is a valid question, but in the short-term, it completely behooves everyone in the Big 12 to expand. The question still seems to be *who* they expand with here.

Sorry you don't want to hear the truth.

And Frank, I don't think that's correct. There's a lot of folks who don't want expansion.

The northern schools in particular are wary of this for these reasons

-Some like ISUs president have said no to expansion without an extension of the GOR. They are rightly worried about wandering eyes and don't want expansion to enable UT and OU to abandon the conference. And OU and UT have no reason to trade a GOR extension for expansion. Those two have zero reason to give up their negotiating leverage (do what we want or we don't sign the new GOR and leave) this early with nothing gained.

-The other big issue is the new North division they would be forced into. It's potentially a huge mess geographically (potentially stretching from Utah to Connecticut) and a patchwork of teams with no history together (while the south continues to enjoy a compact division full of rivals) all while giving up lucrative annual games with OU and UT.

So what it comes down to is several don't want expansion at all and the rest cannot agree on who because none of the candidates have 8 votes.

(09-14-2016 11:54 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sorry you don't want to hear the truth.

Several don't want expansion at all and the rest cannot agree on who because none of the candidates have 8 votes.

I can certainly believe that many athletic department people at Big 12 schools may not want expansion.

However, I still don't believe that we can transpose that onto the university presidents. Note that the feedback constantly from the athletic side of the Big 12 for the past few years was "No" to expansion - they even had reporters convinced that there wouldn't be expansion up until literally a few minutes before the university presidents came out and said that they were going to openly solicit expansion candidates. They athletic and academic sides don't seem to be on the same page. Once again, the university presidents were the ones that pushed the issue. At the end of the day, expansion is effectively free money and that free money is going to only last for the duration of this contract (as ESPN, Fox and other networks will be smarter down the road about having automatic pro-rata increases for any type of expansion). In the era of public university budget cuts and revenue shortfalls, I could certainly see the university presidents seeing a couple of more million dollars per year that is effectively automatic as being attractive. That's going to matter way more than, say, the Oklahoma State concerns about recruiting in the Houston area that Tramel referred to in the OP quotes.

(09-14-2016 11:54 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sorry you don't want to hear the truth.

And Frank, I don't think that's correct. There's a lot of folks who don't want expansion.

The northern schools in particular are wary of this for these reasons

-Some like ISUs president have said no to expansion without an extension of the GOR. They don't want expansion to enable UT and OU to abandon the conference and those two have zero reason to give up their negotiating leverage this early with nothing gained.

-The other big issue is the new North division they would be forced into. It's potentially a huge mess geographically and a patchwork of teams with no history together (while the south continues to enjoy a compact division full of rivals) all while giving up annual games with OU and UT.

So what it comes down to is several don't want expansion at all and the rest cannot agree on who because none of the candidates have 8 votes.

Hence, the Big 12 implodes!

I mean, if you're the president of Iowa St, Kansas St, and even Oklahoma St, you've got to be thinking to yourself that, regardless what happens in this expansion, your school could be in real trouble if certain schools leave the Big 12, in the sense of remaining in a conference with a tier I payout and national designation.

So, in that situation, I have to think you vote based on what's best for your school.


If you add schools like Houston, Cincy, and maybe BYU ... that could save the bacon, should a school like Texas leave.

(09-14-2016 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless ESPN and Fox decide to unilaterally provide more money to the Big 12 for the exact same content as-is, I find it really difficult to see how the Big 12 would choose to not expand. In essence, the current ESPN and Fox contracts provide free unambiguous money to the Big 12 for expansion. I know I've seen the theory float around that they're just trying to get ESPN and Fox pay some more money to the Big 12 to *avoid* expansion, but how does that make sense to ESPN or Fox? If ESPN and Fox are going to pay more money to the Big 12, why wouldn't they at least want some more content that would be provided from expansion in return? That theory (generally floated by fans of schools that are longshots or have been cut in the Big 12 expansion process) only sounds like it makes sense if you don't take two steps back and trying to convince ESPN/Fox to pay more money for nothing is ludicrous compared to the alternative where they pay more money for at least *something* in return.

Whether the Big 12 ends up lasting in the long-term is a valid question, but in the short-term, it completely behooves everyone in the Big 12 to expand. The question still seems to be *who* they expand with here.

the issue is if the Big 12 expands the Big 12 makes a large amount of income outside of the media contracts that new teams contribute nothing towards

the Big 12 would need to give severally reduced payouts to new teams for at least 6 years to even break even on adding new teams

if the Big 12 wanted to make any type of reasonably meaningful NEW money for current members they would have to pay a reduced amount of money to new members for all but the last year they were under the current media deal

that is just simply how the maths works out when current Big 12 members are set to make on average $36.5 million per member per year for the final 8 years and any new member only brings in on average $22.5 million per year for those same 8 years

and when it would cost the media partners $360 million over 8 years to add 2 teams or $720 million over 8 years to add 4 teams well they can get off a hell of a lot cheaper if they simply pay the Big 12 to not expand

and for the Big 12 it is a hell of a lot easier and more profitable to take money to not expand and not have to deal with new members, reduced payouts, buy outs to other conferences and then the factor of what are those new members worth when the current media deals run out

if the Big 12 was wanting $1 million in "new money" per current member per year for adding new teams well that is $10 million per year or $80 million total

when a pair of new members is only bringing in on average $45 million per year over those 8 years and you are going to take $10 million of that for "new money" to current members the maths get worse

then if you are going to somehow give a full share sometime during the 8 years of the current deal to new members and that "full share" would be well over $22.5 million......well you have to make that up somehow in the earlier years......and if you are already taking $10 million for "new money" to current members and now you are taking money in early years to make up for giving closer to a full share in later years.....well the financials of expansion just get stupid for the Big 12

and when the media partners can simply pay $80 million over 8 years for every $1 million per team per year in "new money" for current members Vs paying $360 per pair of new members over 8 years.....well there is a great deal of savings to those media partners to not have expansion

(09-14-2016 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  At the end of the day, expansion is effectively free money and that free money is going to only last for the duration of this contract (as ESPN, Fox and other networks will be smarter down the road about having automatic pro-rata increases for any type of expansion). In the era of public university budget cuts and revenue shortfalls, I could certainly see the university presidents seeing a couple of more million dollars per year that is effectively automatic as being attractive. That's going to matter way more than, say, the Oklahoma State concerns about recruiting in the Houston area that Tramel referred to in the OP quotes.

If I'm the president of ISU, no way am I thinking "well if we lose OU and UT it's cool cuz we have UH and Cincy now!"

No, his statement of "no expansion without a GOR extension" means they are first and foremost about the league retaining UT and OU even if it means not expanding. Which is the only sane position if you are ISU or KSU type with no hope of riding someone's coattail out

(09-14-2016 12:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If I'm the president of ISU, no way am I thinking "well if we lose OU and UT it's cool cuz we have UH and Cincy now!"

No, his statement of "no expansion without a GOR extension" means they are first and foremost about the league retaining UT and OU even if it means not expanding. Which is the only sane position if you are ISU or KSU type with no hope of riding someone's coattail out

Staying at 10 is a death sentence regardless.

The way I understand the original plan for divisions at 5 teams:
South: Texas/Tech/Baylor/TCU/WVU

North: Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State/OK/OK State with OK-Texas a protected crossover game.

The reason this is important is because the South can essentially be seen as Southwest Conference + WVU and the North the Big 8 - 3.

I think IF there is expansion, those "brands" will try to keep a similar structure. So in the South, schools like SMU/Rice/Houston are still in it.

In the North: a school like Colorado State or Air Force would fit with the Big 8 schools, possibly BYU.

The real issue seems to be that USF/UCF, Cincy, UConn, Tulane don't fit that mold but Cincy is clearly one of the best options.

The solution could be to stick Houston in the North, but that might annoy OK schools.

10th,

Well, it's guaranteed is that he's not saying this: "well if we lose OU and UT it's cool, the Big 12 will implode and ISU won't be in a P league anymore, but oh well, that's life am I right???"


Of course not. He will be proactive. Adding Cincy and Houston doesn't guarantee the Big 12 will survive, but not adding anyone does guarantee the conference will implode.

The GOR comment is just the start of the negotiating position. Yes he'd love to lock down Texas and OU, but he will prioritize survival over nothing.

People keep saying no expansion means the conference will explode....why? It seems to be more an article of faith rather than an idea grounded in reality.