(06-29-2019 01:18 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:39 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  1. as pointed out the $550 million calculation is incorrect

the Big 12 will be paying out about $46 million per year with no third tier included at the end of their contract

a school would need to cover that 100% and then add at least $12 million more (because they are not going to go to 11) and if two schools managed to do that then that would be about $2 million more for the Big 12 members for adding two teams or $48 million and that is if the best deal the Big 12 can get is a deal that pays them basically even money from their past deal plus $2 million more for adding two teams

so a school would need to add about $60 million each to even be considered

2. the difficulty with this is that would need to be TV MONEY because there is not going to be an increase in the $50+ million paid for the NCAA football playoffs nor will there be an increase in the (2 out of 3 years) $40 million Sugar Bowl money

so if you do the math on that it is (($50 million X 3) + ($40 million X 2)) / 3 or about $77 million a year to the conference in money not directly from a TV contract

so a media partner would need to be paying the freight for adding two teams and the cost to the conference members of that in relation to the NY6 and NCAA playoff credits

and no to anyone that wants to suggest this getting another team in "random bowl game" (that pays $1.2 million a year that is eaten up mostly with expenses) does not cover that it covers the cost of having another team in the conference going to a lower level bowl

because again even if the new members rotated going to the NY6 bowl every year that does not bring new money to the conference it just bumps the other members all down a spot in the bowl order until one team fills the last lower level bowl

3. the next issue is NCAA basketball credits the Big 12 does extremely well on those as it is now....new members would have NONE

even if they were earning them at a high rate that would only barely cover them being equal to the already high earning Big 12 or if they were just both amazing it might add $300,000 or so which does not come close to covering the gap created by factor #2

so really you need two teams that combined bring in about $120 million combined and really more than that because that would be the Big 12 flat lining on their next media deal and not even getting one that starts at the same $46 million they paid out the prior year and then scales to the end of the deal

so if the Big 12 got a deal that paid $1 million more than the prior year to start and scaled $1 million per year for X number of years then the new members would need to start tacking on that additional money to their needed value


and doing the math for what it would take to get the Big 12 to lose two teams so that others can move up just looks less realistic

A. you are now talking about the top earners in the Big 12 moving elsewhere so Texas will be making $46 million plus $15 million in the final year of the Big 12 contract so a total of $61 million.....and of course that $15 million from the LHN is locked in past the end of the current Big 12 media deal

OU will probably be making about $52 or more depending on how their third tier deal plays out

so now you have the Big 12 currently paying out $36.5 million while the PAC 12 and ACC pay out $30 million or so and that is excluding the LHN and Sooner Sports money that those two top earning teams earn

it makes ZERO sense to pretend that you take two teams one earning $51.5 million and another earning $42.5 or $43.5 million in a 10 team conference and instead place them in a 12 or 14 team conference and then bump up 12 or 14 other teams to $51.5 million (if you want Texas) or $43.5 million (if you want just OU)

that is horrible math and not realistic to the market to think that you have valued those other conferences at a lower per member value for a larger group of teams, but somehow it makes sense to pay massive amounts of new money to those 12 or 14 teams because you moved one or two teams in with them

B. and no "cable rates" will do nothing.....if the ACC is going to get decent money from their new network much less good money they they will already need to be getting high cable fees from most all of the USA to do so and even if they get great money it will probably only catch them up to the Big 12 excluding any LHN or Sooner Sports money so there is still a huge gap to fill there

and even comcrap in Houston did not pay "in market" rates for the SECn SECn SECn because aggy was added so adding Texas and OU is not a guarantee of that and doing just that cramming networks and charging "in state" is why people are cutting the cord in droves

C. then there is the same issue with Rose or Orange Bowl money and NCAA playoff money and NCAA credits.....Texas and OU will bring no new money to any conference for any of that and they will have to start earning NCAA credits to just cover themselves much less add to the conference and that does not come close to covering the additional splits of Rose or Orange Bowl money or NCAA playoff credits

D. so the math that the OP did with the $550 million (that was incorrect in relation to moving a G5 to the Big 12) is probably closer to correct for moving Texas or OU to another P5 conference

lets use the PAC 12 as an example.....$50 million football playoffs.....$40 million Rose two out of 3 years = $6.38 million per team per year on average with 12 teams in the PAC 12

bump that to 14 that is $5.48 so a loss of $824,000 per team per year X 12 teams or a total of $9.9 million per year (we will call it $10)

so there is $5 million a year each Texas and OU need to bring over and above covering their own payouts for everything else

then you have Texas making $51 million per year at the end of the Big 12 contract while the PAC 12 will probably be at about $37 (they are at $30 now and the deal scales just like the Big 12 deal does)

so there is $14 million needed just to get Texas to even money for moving....and the PAC 10 did have uneven revenue sharing in the past and USC and UCLA did make demands on the other schools with the new contract, but no chance they let Texas or Texas and OU have uneven revenues

so now you need to bump 12 other teams up $14 million EACH and then you need to bump OU up about $7 million

so now you have $14 X 12 + $7 + $10 (the money to cover Rose and playoff money cuts) so that totals $180 million per year needed to get Texas and OU to the PAC 12 and just break even on the money paid for all those programs in the final year of their current contracts

then there are the exit fees even if Texas and OU are able to skate away only having the final year distribution withheld that is $46 million each or $92 million.....that is 1 time not yearly, but that still adds up that is another $9.2 million on a 10 year contact so now $189.2 million per year needed to get Texas and OU to the PAC 12

E. here is where everyone says "money saved by dumping Big 12 teams and now paying them nothing" (as if those teams will simply get nothing

not to mention it is HIGHLY unlikely that Texas and OU will want to be in a 14 team conference on a far east Island in the crap half of that conference playing teams their fans never cared about in the Big 12 (and barely in the Big 8) or that they never cared about at all

so if you add in OkState and Texas Tech the cost just goes through the roof

plus you are looking at $189.2 million PER YEAR to move just Texas and OU so if you divide that by 8 that is $23.65 million per year

or just about what the Big 12 will be earning in strictly TV money in the final year of the contract

so basically you would be break even on money moving Texas and OU to the PAC 12 and paying the PAC 12 even money to what Texas will be earning and that is pretending like you pay the others in the Big 12 zero after that and pretending that Texas and OU would go alone

and for that you get a lot less content and a lot more convoluted conferences that will probably not last long

it would make much more financial sense to go the other way and add 4 schools to the 10 already making a lot more money

and if you do the math of Texas and OU to the ACC the numbers are probably worse and to the SEC SEC SEC probably not good at all and to the Big 10 still probably not good and the Big 10 will have the buy in that Texas will not be eating and if Texas does not eat it then OU will not eat it.....and even if the Big 10 puts it in to shut up NU someone will be laying Texas and OU to not eat that buy in

Wow, you've got some really good arguments there. I would not try to dispute them outright, though like all things "realignment" your math is based on a lot of speculation. So is mine. I can readily agree that moving Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC 12 or ACC would be senseless because those two conferences are earning less media money than the Big XII; unworkable.
Another fact I think should always be noted is that Texas could form a conference with all the state universities in the State of Texas and be entirely financially viable. They will always be flush with money, so whatever might motivate them to move will have to be in addition to big bucks. But money still matters. It always matters.
Now I'll speculate. The SEC and the B1G are not the only two parties who would like to separate Oklahoma and Texas from the Big XII. ESPN groused every time a G5 school was promoted to a P5 conference. Rutgers, TCU, Pitt, Syaracuse, etc. How much was ESPN paying for these schools media rights in their old conference compared to what the rate is today. At best these schools could be making AAC money today had they not been added to P5 conferences. In the last few years it has amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars.
In each conference you will find duds that are being overpaid simply because of the longstanding alliances they have with their conferences. ESPN can't really do anything about it. But they did disuade the Big XII from adding teams #11 and #12 because they didn't want to pay for two more promotions. And when the Big XII media deal expires, it will be an opportunity to actually reduce the number of schools being paid at the highest level. The conference without OK and TX would not likely fall immdiately to AAC level money. But look at the conference without the two principal players. Is it a compelling combination of football/athletic brands and advertising footprint? I'm not disparaging the schools themselves or the athletic programs. I'm looking at what they offer to ESPN or Fox that those media companies don't already have.
The B1G and the SEC will both come a-courting. The B1G media payout was 54.7 in 2018. What will that look like by 2023 (the last year of their deal)? The new contract begining in 2024 will be interesting because we may see new media companies involved (I know, speculation). The SEC's current deal is trailing close behind the B1G, and they rework their Tier 1 deal begining in 2024 as well. This adds up to a financial tug-o-war for those two football thouroughbreds. Maybe they will resist the overtures... maybe.

The big pay media pay you are talking about is all relative to the spending levels. In some P5 cases it can hardly cover the jumbo administrative costs.

OTOH, 5 million of media money for a mid major conference is huge.