The next expansion hinges on Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma is with their rights to demand to be paid the same amount as Texas for their media rights to stay in the Big 12 and if not they should bolt.

Will ESPN grant that to keep the Big 12 in one piece?

(06-15-2020 05:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The next expansion hinges on Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma is with their rights to demand to be paid the same amount as Texas for their media rights to stay in the Big 12 and if not they should bolt.

Will ESPN grant that to keep the Big 12 in one piece?

Isn't that a conference decision?

(06-15-2020 06:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 05:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The next expansion hinges on Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma is with their rights to demand to be paid the same amount as Texas for their media rights to stay in the Big 12 and if not they should bolt.

Will ESPN grant that to keep the Big 12 in one piece?

Isn't that a conference decision?

Well the current Big 12 model is first tier and second tier rights are split equally but third tier rights are individual schools. The Big 12 can change that model if they wish. ESPN can certainly suggest Oklahoma get more for Tier 1/2 rights but the decision would be the conference's. Oklahoma's Tier 3 deal with FOX Sports expires after 2022, ESPN could give the Sooners a big Tier 3 deal contingent on staying in the Big 12 if it wishes but that's assuming ESPN wants Oklahoma to stay in the Big 12 and not move to the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac 12. Maybe they think if they can get Oklahoma to leave they can get Texas to join them and then they don't have to pay P5 prices to the Little Eight.

What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Guess which TV market has the most viewers watching college football on ESPN/ABC.

(06-15-2020 09:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Guess which TV market has the most viewers watching college football on ESPN/ABC.

He thinks Texas A&M rules the Texas market

That's not what I meant.

I mean, on the average CFB Saturday, which TV market in the US has the most people watching the games?

(06-15-2020 10:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Guess which TV market has the most viewers watching college football on ESPN/ABC.

He thinks Texas A&M rules the Texas market

That's not what I meant.

I mean, on the average CFB Saturday, which TV market in the US has the most people watching the games?

Oh, I know what you meant, he has a different agenda.

(06-15-2020 09:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Guess which TV market has the most viewers watching college football on ESPN/ABC.

He thinks Texas A&M rules the Texas market

I am the average Joe in Texas and nobody cares about the SEC here outside of Houston

You totally miss the point, as usual. And you are in such a damned hurry to lay an insult that you didn't read the post well enough either! The SEC will rule ESPN/ABC but not until they are no longer on CBS. There is only one way to augment further investment in Texas and Oklahoma, and as I said it isn't the SEC.

To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

And another thing you are no average Joe in Texas, and the SEC does quite well there, but certainly not Texas numbers, but you spit the bit trying for an insult as usual. Then thought better of it and tried to take down the post.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

(06-15-2020 10:40 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  If the SEC is the greatest, why did you take the little sister instead of the number one franchise

Because the #2 in the State of Texas is still majorly valuable and because they wanted to leave.

By 2024, probably sooner if ESPN buys out CBS, the SEC per school payout will be 67 million per school under the new contract plus escalators between now and then. We had the best ratings by quite a bit over the Big 10. We have the best value rating by the WSJ and that one isn't even remotely close. And we do pretty well on the field. We are the best and in every measurable category athletically.

If Texas ever wants to join they'll be taken. If not they won't be missed. That's the long and short of it and Texas knows it.

What's this cheesy new game of yours? Post a taunt and then delete it? I caught 'em both.

And the real issue is that ESPN has all of Texas (the state). That's all that's relevant because they pay for the privilege.

(06-15-2020 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:40 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  If the SEC is the greatest, why did you take the little sister instead of the number one franchise

Because the #2 in the State of Texas is still majorly valuable and because they wanted to leave.

By 2024, probably sooner if ESPN buys out CBS, the SEC per school payout will be 67 million per school under the new contract plus escalators between now and then. We had the best ratings by quite a bit over the Big 10. We have the best value rating by the WSJ and that one isn't even remotely close. And we do pretty well on the field. We are the best and in every measurable category athletically.

If Texas ever wants to join they'll be taken. If not they won't be missed. That's the long and short of it and Texas knows it.

What's this cheesy new game of yours? Post a taunt and then delete it? I caught 'em both.

And the real issue is that ESPN has all of Texas (the state). That's all that's relevant because they pay for the privilege.

I deleted posts as I was trying to help an Auburn fan understand nothing less. It’s true you are slower nothing wrong with that.

(06-15-2020 10:55 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:40 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  If the SEC is the greatest, why did you take the little sister instead of the number one franchise

Because the #2 in the State of Texas is still majorly valuable and because they wanted to leave.

By 2024, probably sooner if ESPN buys out CBS, the SEC per school payout will be 67 million per school under the new contract plus escalators between now and then. We had the best ratings by quite a bit over the Big 10. We have the best value rating by the WSJ and that one isn't even remotely close. And we do pretty well on the field. We are the best and in every measurable category athletically.

If Texas ever wants to join they'll be taken. If not they won't be missed. That's the long and short of it and Texas knows it.

What's this cheesy new game of yours? Post a taunt and then delete it? I caught 'em both.

And the real issue is that ESPN has all of Texas (the state). That's all that's relevant because they pay for the privilege.

I deleted posts as I was trying to help an Auburn fan understand nothing less. It’s true you are slower nothing wrong with that.

And you're just an ass. Goodbye!

(06-15-2020 05:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The next expansion hinges on Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma is with their rights to demand to be paid the same amount as Texas for their media rights to stay in the Big 12 and if not they should bolt.

Will ESPN grant that to keep the Big 12 in one piece?

In terms of the current state of Oklahoma football and Texas football, Oklahoma deserves to be paid as much as Texas. The problem is Texas's LHN deal dates back to 2011 (discussed by Stugray at another thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-901140.html). Anyone here would say that's a great deal for Texas today and that ESPN overpaid but no one imagined cord-cutting going the way it would. Texas should be getting around $16M a year in 2024-25. Does anyone think Oklahoma will be getting anywhere near $16M a year for Tier 3 rights which amounts to just one football game a year assuming the current Big 12 first and second tier rights? Who would pay for that? If ESPN has to pay Oklahoma $16M a year in T3 rights just so they can keep playing Iowa State and Baylor, it's not worth it.

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Missouri and Arkansas could be added.....they would enhance the value of the Big 12, and simultaneously their removal from the SEC would not diminish the value of the SEC at all. It would be a win-win and give ESPN another opportunity to enhance their income stream by being able to tap into more localized sources of advertising revenue.
It's not only a questions of whats's good for the schools, it's got to be what's good for ESPN/FOX who are footing the bill for broadcast income.

(06-16-2020 07:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Missouri and Arkansas could be added.....they would enhance the value of the Big 12, and simultaneously their removal from the SEC would not diminish the value of the SEC at all. It would be a win-win and give ESPN another opportunity to enhance their income stream by being able to tap into more localized sources of advertising revenue.
It's not only a questions of whats's good for the schools, it's got to be what's good for ESPN/FOX who are footing the bill for broadcast income.

But Missouri and Arkansas aren't leaving the SEC for less money in the Big 12 and for ESPN to pay them enough money to make it worthwhile they'd have to pay everyone else in the Big 12 on average the same amount which is idiotic for ESPN to do.

(06-16-2020 08:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 07:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Missouri and Arkansas could be added.....they would enhance the value of the Big 12, and simultaneously their removal from the SEC would not diminish the value of the SEC at all. It would be a win-win and give ESPN another opportunity to enhance their income stream by being able to tap into more localized sources of advertising revenue.
It's not only a questions of whats's good for the schools, it's got to be what's good for ESPN/FOX who are footing the bill for broadcast income.

But Missouri and Arkansas aren't leaving the SEC for less money in the Big 12 and for ESPN to pay them enough money to make it worthwhile they'd have to pay everyone else in the Big 12 on average the same amount which is idiotic for ESPN to do.

Why would ESPN have to pay anyone other than Arkansas and Missouri?

(06-16-2020 06:46 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 05:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The next expansion hinges on Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma is with their rights to demand to be paid the same amount as Texas for their media rights to stay in the Big 12 and if not they should bolt.

Will ESPN grant that to keep the Big 12 in one piece?

In terms of the current state of Oklahoma football and Texas football, Oklahoma deserves to be paid as much as Texas. The problem is Texas's LHN deal dates back to 2011 (discussed by Stugray at another thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-901140.html). Anyone here would say that's a great deal for Texas today and that ESPN overpaid but no one imagined cord-cutting going the way it would. Texas should be getting around $16M a year in 2024-25. Does anyone think Oklahoma will be getting anywhere near $16M a year for Tier 3 rights which amounts to just one football game a year assuming the current Big 12 first and second tier rights? Who would pay for that? If ESPN has to pay Oklahoma $16M a year in T3 rights just so they can keep playing Iowa State and Baylor, it's not worth it.

Deserves gots nothing to do with it-- William Munney

(06-16-2020 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 08:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 07:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 08:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What happens with those Oklahoma T3 rights will be a big indicator of what will happen in 2024. If Fox resigns at a modest rate for a short contract you can bet that Fox is moving behind the scenes to try and move Oklahoma to the Big Ten. If ESPN pays big for those rights and/or tries to start renegotiating the Big 12’s T1 and T2 rights then it will be pretty obvious that ESPN is paying to keep the league together.

ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Missouri and Arkansas could be added.....they would enhance the value of the Big 12, and simultaneously their removal from the SEC would not diminish the value of the SEC at all. It would be a win-win and give ESPN another opportunity to enhance their income stream by being able to tap into more localized sources of advertising revenue.
It's not only a questions of whats's good for the schools, it's got to be what's good for ESPN/FOX who are footing the bill for broadcast income.

But Missouri and Arkansas aren't leaving the SEC for less money in the Big 12 and for ESPN to pay them enough money to make it worthwhile they'd have to pay everyone else in the Big 12 on average the same amount which is idiotic for ESPN to do.

Why would ESPN have to pay anyone other than Arkansas and Missouri?

Hypothetically...

If the Big 12 kicked out KSU, WVU and replaced them with Arkansas and Mizzu. Would that ten team conference make more than it does now?

(06-16-2020 08:30 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 08:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 07:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Missouri and Arkansas could be added.....they would enhance the value of the Big 12, and simultaneously their removal from the SEC would not diminish the value of the SEC at all. It would be a win-win and give ESPN another opportunity to enhance their income stream by being able to tap into more localized sources of advertising revenue.
It's not only a questions of whats's good for the schools, it's got to be what's good for ESPN/FOX who are footing the bill for broadcast income.

But Missouri and Arkansas aren't leaving the SEC for less money in the Big 12 and for ESPN to pay them enough money to make it worthwhile they'd have to pay everyone else in the Big 12 on average the same amount which is idiotic for ESPN to do.

Why would ESPN have to pay anyone other than Arkansas and Missouri?

Hypothetically...

If the Big 12 kicked out KSU, WVU and replaced them with Arkansas and Mizzu. Would that ten team conference make more than it does now?

That's actually an interesting question. I see them as kind of a wash. Missouri and Arkansas have bigger markets than a second school from a state of ~3 million and the flagship of a state with less than 2 million. But WVU is more competitive than either Missouri or Arkansas and K State is an unknown without Snyder.

(06-16-2020 08:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 08:30 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 08:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 07:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  Missouri and Arkansas could be added.....they would enhance the value of the Big 12, and simultaneously their removal from the SEC would not diminish the value of the SEC at all. It would be a win-win and give ESPN another opportunity to enhance their income stream by being able to tap into more localized sources of advertising revenue.
It's not only a questions of whats's good for the schools, it's got to be what's good for ESPN/FOX who are footing the bill for broadcast income.

But Missouri and Arkansas aren't leaving the SEC for less money in the Big 12 and for ESPN to pay them enough money to make it worthwhile they'd have to pay everyone else in the Big 12 on average the same amount which is idiotic for ESPN to do.

Why would ESPN have to pay anyone other than Arkansas and Missouri?

Hypothetically...

If the Big 12 kicked out KSU, WVU and replaced them with Arkansas and Mizzu. Would that ten team conference make more than it does now?

That's actually an interesting question. I see them as kind of a wash. Missouri and Arkansas have bigger markets than a second school from a state of ~3 million and the flagship of a state with less than 2 million. But WVU is more competitive than either Missouri or Arkansas and K State is an unknown without Snyder.

See this is what confuses me, is it historical programs? location? state population?

As a UT guy, I grew up hating Arkansas but playing them thanksgiving weekend would be big. I think Arkansas can get back to better times in the Big 12 compared to the SEC. Wouldn't pig fans enjoy playing UT, ou, osu every year? Than a fake rival LSU, Ole Miss, Bama?

As far as the money.. I have no idea how it works out. But maybe adding those two and KEEPING KSU and WV can demand a channel? Pay the 11 schools equally and then UT can place it's tier 3 rights back into it once the LHN deal expires?