(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 11:09 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 10:53 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  It usually is, but the obstacle seems to be this: At least a faction in the Big 12 wants OU and UT to make a payment large enough that it really hurts them to depart early, maybe $100 million per school or more, and doesn't want to let them go early for an amount they can easily afford.

Win the battle, lose the war.

A larger buyout but no further games in revenue sports against OU and UT is the short-sighted play — particularly for Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Instead of "Screw y'all for leaving (even though we'd be doing the same thing if we could"), the smarter move would be "Hey, best of luck in the SEC and let's find a fair and appropriate settlement where you don't have wait 'til the Summer of 2025 to leave."

At the end of the day, Big XII schools are better off building a cooperative relationship with the "Big Two" conferences and accepting the fact that schools are going to want to move to a better (i.e. richer) neighborhood if the option presents itself.

Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 11:09 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 10:53 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  It usually is, but the obstacle seems to be this: At least a faction in the Big 12 wants OU and UT to make a payment large enough that it really hurts them to depart early, maybe $100 million per school or more, and doesn't want to let them go early for an amount they can easily afford.

Win the battle, lose the war.

A larger buyout but no further games in revenue sports against OU and UT is the short-sighted play — particularly for Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Instead of "Screw y'all for leaving (even though we'd be doing the same thing if we could"), the smarter move would be "Hey, best of luck in the SEC and let's find a fair and appropriate settlement where you don't have wait 'til the Summer of 2025 to leave."

At the end of the day, Big XII schools are better off building a cooperative relationship with the "Big Two" conferences and accepting the fact that schools are going to want to move to a better (i.e. richer) neighborhood if the option presents itself.

Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I said it before, but Fox is as large of an impediment to Texas and OU leaving early as anything. What's their incentive? That's not to say it can't be worked out (and I really don't care one way or another) but they are a party that is a factor in this.

(05-02-2022 08:43 PM)cc22 Wrote:  I said it before, but Fox is as large of an impediment to Texas and OU leaving early as anything. What's their incentive? That's not to say it can't be worked out (and I really don't care one way or another) but they are a party that is a factor in this.

Why? FOX wiped its hands of the Big 12 CCG. ESPN picked it up. You have 3 years remaining on a contract which will not renew with the 2 largest draws. FOX likely won't bid on the NBig 12 unless ESPN has agreed to step aside, and I doubt they have. FOX will concentrate on the Big 10. Sure, their talking heads will talk up the NB12 because it's a friendly rib stick to some ESPN talking heads. The 2 Networks have a peculiar working arrangement and if the current contract is honored until 2025 both have a fresh set of downs on deciding what it's worth to them moving forward. So far it appears to me that ESPN is upscaling some AAC properties and consolidating its hold on BYU. Maybe it has other plans for its growth and maybe not. We'll see soon enough.

(05-02-2022 11:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 08:43 PM)cc22 Wrote:  I said it before, but Fox is as large of an impediment to Texas and OU leaving early as anything. What's their incentive? That's not to say it can't be worked out (and I really don't care one way or another) but they are a party that is a factor in this.

Why? FOX wiped its hands of the Big 12 CCG. ESPN picked it up. You have 3 years remaining on a contract which will not renew with the 2 largest draws. FOX likely won't bid on the NBig 12 unless ESPN has agreed to step aside, and I doubt they have. FOX will concentrate on the Big 10. Sure, their talking heads will talk up the NB12 because it's a friendly rib stick to some ESPN talking heads. The 2 Networks have a peculiar working arrangement and if the current contract is honored until 2025 both have a fresh set of downs on deciding what it's worth to them moving forward. So far it appears to me that ESPN is upscaling some AAC properties and consolidating its hold on BYU. Maybe it has other plans for its growth and maybe not. We'll see soon enough.

But they didn’t wipe their hands of the rest of this contract (at least not yet).

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 11:09 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 10:53 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  It usually is, but the obstacle seems to be this: At least a faction in the Big 12 wants OU and UT to make a payment large enough that it really hurts them to depart early, maybe $100 million per school or more, and doesn't want to let them go early for an amount they can easily afford.

Win the battle, lose the war.

A larger buyout but no further games in revenue sports against OU and UT is the short-sighted play — particularly for Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Instead of "Screw y'all for leaving (even though we'd be doing the same thing if we could"), the smarter move would be "Hey, best of luck in the SEC and let's find a fair and appropriate settlement where you don't have wait 'til the Summer of 2025 to leave."

At the end of the day, Big XII schools are better off building a cooperative relationship with the "Big Two" conferences and accepting the fact that schools are going to want to move to a better (i.e. richer) neighborhood if the option presents itself.

Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

The new schools getting to play OU and Texas a couple of times benefits the new schools a little bit, but the old Big12 schools lose out, as JR and PeteTheChop so aptly stated.....win the battle and lose the war.

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 11:09 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Win the battle, lose the war.

A larger buyout but no further games in revenue sports against OU and UT is the short-sighted play — particularly for Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Instead of "Screw y'all for leaving (even though we'd be doing the same thing if we could"), the smarter move would be "Hey, best of luck in the SEC and let's find a fair and appropriate settlement where you don't have wait 'til the Summer of 2025 to leave."

At the end of the day, Big XII schools are better off building a cooperative relationship with the "Big Two" conferences and accepting the fact that schools are going to want to move to a better (i.e. richer) neighborhood if the option presents itself.

Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

lol. Thank you for my laugh of the day. That was awesome : )

And, as expected, OU's Tier 3 rights are reportedly moving to ESPN+. Details to be announced as early as Thursday or Friday.

https://www.si.com/college/oklahoma/foot...-with-espn

It may not be rolled into the existing Big 12 Now on ESPN+. It'll simply be Sooner Sports on ESPN+. This will serve as a bridge for OU to the SEC Network.

ESPN will become OU's Tier 3 partner before the move to the SEC, whenever that may occur.

(05-03-2022 02:11 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 11:09 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Win the battle, lose the war.

A larger buyout but no further games in revenue sports against OU and UT is the short-sighted play — particularly for Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Instead of "Screw y'all for leaving (even though we'd be doing the same thing if we could"), the smarter move would be "Hey, best of luck in the SEC and let's find a fair and appropriate settlement where you don't have wait 'til the Summer of 2025 to leave."

At the end of the day, Big XII schools are better off building a cooperative relationship with the "Big Two" conferences and accepting the fact that schools are going to want to move to a better (i.e. richer) neighborhood if the option presents itself.

Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

The new schools getting to play OU and Texas a couple of times benefits the new schools a little bit, but the old Big12 schools lose out, as JR and PeteTheChop so aptly stated.....win the battle and lose the war.

Lol.

If only Ukraine would have just agreed to Putin’s terms.

This is just business. The old schools don’t lose out. What is good for the new ones is good for the conference. Play the long game- the war- not some short term battle. There’s really no benefit to not having a high asking price to let OU and UT early.

Who really loses out are OU, UT, and SEC. Hence the begging in this thread.

The cost/benefit is clearly asymmetrical. You don’t offset that with some fan fantasy about gentlemen agreements and emotions. Let me guess, you also thought the Alliance was meaningful?

The SEC and OU, UT are free to level that- offer something real, binding, and substantial in exchange for releasing them early. We’re in that phase.

This has nothing to do with retribution and the SEC is not the “enemy” . The only conferences the B12 is aligned against are the P12 and ACC. If the SEC were to first get ESPN to take USC or pillage the ACC, I have no doubt OU and UT would be moved soon after.

This is primarily a money move in my view for Texas and Oklahoma. I don't know if the schools or coaches are going to be happier, but the money will be high and more secure.

Because of all that, I have been thinking a later date is more likely. It is a fortune to buy out of the grant of rights. Texas and Oklahoma might buy out a little early, especially if SEC money will pay the difference, but if this move is about money, they aren't going to throw away a fortune they don't have to just get out a year or two earlier.

That said, I do think there is a conpromise in 2024 for one fewer lame duck year, but wouldn't be surprised if even that doesn't happen.

Now if the SEC puts pressure and finanical support on earlier, that does change things. Contract negotiations could effect this that year as well.

I just thought of something is there a possibility to work on a Big 12 network with Texas gone? Wasn't the longhorn network one of the major reasons it wasn't created? Would working with ESPN like the SEC and ACC did be helpful for the Big 12 and be almost a benefit to let them leave early?

(05-04-2022 11:42 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  This is primarily a money move in my view for Texas and Oklahoma. I don't know if the schools or coaches are going to be happier, but the money will be high and more secure.

Because of all that, I have been thinking a later date is more likely. It is a fortune to buy out of the grant of rights. Texas and Oklahoma might buy out a little early, especially if SEC money will pay the difference, but if this move is about money, they aren't going to throw away a fortune they don't have to just get out a year or two earlier.

That said, I do think there is a conpromise in 2024 for one fewer lame duck year, but wouldn't be surprised if even that doesn't happen.

Now if the SEC puts pressure and finanical support on earlier, that does change things. Contract negotiations could effect this that year as well.

I respect you and like you as a poster. I believe this time you are wrong. It's not a money move. Texas makes more annually than anyone except your Buckeyes on some years. The move was made to distance their brands from lesser schools which they had elevated in the SWC and B12.

Higher Ed is headed for a downsizing. This is about making sure you are with those who will survive and maintain national branding. Money is secondary. Recruiting advantages supersede the money.

Now this is network driven as well as it gives them high markt impact numbers while paying fewer SKU's. So the money aspect is their lure.

I live in a major P5 campus community. Rapid building is happening here, in Tuscaloosa, in Athens, even in Mississippi as prep work is done to route more students to fewer schools, a necessary step in downsizing.

So, there is an element of streamlining to cut overheads to state budgets.

The overall financial situation, demographics like birth rate decline in the middle class, a shrinking middle class, shrinking natural resources, and automation all play a part and other factors to be sure.

I think we will see a court ruling on pay for play by 2023. A change in law and the equity of existing contracts can void a GOR. It's possible we will see massive realignment in a couple of years. Breakaway is simply part of it, or the culmination of it. But those in the know are clearly in agreement change, huge change, is coming.

When those impacted are numerous, and the amounts in some cases are over 440 million in a decade, state lawsuits against the GOR's will proliferate. It will get interesting pretty soon.

(05-04-2022 11:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I just thought of something is there a possibility to work on a Big 12 network with Texas gone? Wasn't the longhorn network one of the major reasons it wasn't created? Would working with ESPN like the SEC and ACC did be helpful for the Big 12 and be almost a benefit to let them leave early?

Let's say the SEC and B1G grow further and the remnants of the PAC 12, ACC, and B12 coalesce into the 3rd power conference the market reach would then justify such a network.

More on the new OU Tier 3 deal:

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Da...ahoma.aspx

"ESPN+ and Oklahoma have agreed to the most expansive media-rights deal for an individual athletic program on the streaming service. ESPN+ will carry more than 100 live Oklahoma events, including one football game each season, some men’s and women’s basketball, studio shows and archived content. ESPN+ for the first time will create a landing page that directs viewers to “SoonerVision on ESPN+.” SoonerVision is Oklahoma’s in-house production arm. The new multiyear agreement will launch in August, in time for the start of fall events, and will carry live OU home events that are not picked up by linear channels. This content previously ran as part of Sooner Sports TV on Bally Sports Oklahoma and Bally Sports Southwest.

Financial terms were not released, but Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione told SBJ that “it would be worth more than what we’ve had previously.” The Sooners will join the SEC, which has all of its media rights with ESPN, no later than '25. “This deal is about access and reach,” Castiglione added. “I’m just happy that we’re going to be able to continue to offer more than 1,000 hours annually of live content.”

OU/UT don't 'need' the SEC-perception, just the SEC money. They already have national blue blood status in the eys of fans and networks. If it costs more to be in the SEC early, there isn't 'much' need for them to move. I can see OU/UT being relatively content. That cost decreases with time and maybe there is a break-even point 1 year out instead of 0, but I don't know.

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 11:09 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Win the battle, lose the war.

A larger buyout but no further games in revenue sports against OU and UT is the short-sighted play — particularly for Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Instead of "Screw y'all for leaving (even though we'd be doing the same thing if we could"), the smarter move would be "Hey, best of luck in the SEC and let's find a fair and appropriate settlement where you don't have wait 'til the Summer of 2025 to leave."

At the end of the day, Big XII schools are better off building a cooperative relationship with the "Big Two" conferences and accepting the fact that schools are going to want to move to a better (i.e. richer) neighborhood if the option presents itself.

Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I'm probably taking Don Pardo's response too seriously. However,
1) SEC schools will still schedule Big 12 schools. Games like UF-UCF, KY-Cincy, Houston-A&M will be fun regional rivalries, even if not played every year. Schools will still want to schedule Kansas as their P5 OOC matchup. OK will still play OK State, Texas will play Tech.
2) I'm not sure the Big 12 loses the Sugar Bowl (at least for now).
3) While a higher payout is true, that is mitigated by not playing Texas/OK. We haven't heard the new numbers for sure yet (as far as I know), but we are about to find out what those two schools on a schedule are worth to TV, and they are certainly worth something at the gate too.

(05-05-2022 09:52 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I'm probably taking Don Pardo's response too seriously. However,
1) SEC schools will still schedule Big 12 schools. Games like UF-UCF, KY-Cincy, Houston-A&M will be fun regional rivalries, even if not played every year. Schools will still want to schedule Kansas as their P5 OOC matchup. OK will still play OK State, Texas will play Tech.
2) I'm not sure the Big 12 loses the Sugar Bowl (at least for now).
3) While a higher payout is true, that is mitigated by not playing Texas/OK. We haven't heard the new numbers for sure yet (as far as I know), but we are about to find out what those two schools on a schedule are worth to TV, and they are certainly worth something at the gate too.

1. Don't bet on it. We may be moving to a closed system in scheduling in the not too distant future. AD's are discussing these matters aleeady.
2. At the end of the current contract. The Sugar Bowl wanted OU and UT's brand power, not so much the rest.
3. There is no doubt as to OU and UT's value in the B12. The WSJ consistently estimated their value at 54% of the Big 12 total and the highest valued conference game was the RRR. The big question is what are they worth against A&M, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. We just know it's huge. Estimates are low end 10 million more per school in payouts and upper end 20 million more.

(05-05-2022 07:59 AM)johnintx Wrote:  Financial terms were not released, but Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione told SBJ that “it would be worth more than what we’ve had previously.” The Sooners will join the SEC, which has all of its media rights with ESPN, no later than '25.

I notice that no financial terms are being released. OU was getting $7-8M per year from the Fox/Bally deal.

One or both of two things could be in play here: 1) OU could be getting paid SEC money for moving their content to ESPN, content to be transferred to SEC Network at the proper time. 2) This is something that could be used to help buy OU out of the Big 12 GOR and to negotiate an exit.

Lots of moving parts in the background.

We need one more option: NEVER, because the entire college sports system will collapse before they can get to the SEC.

Not sayin, just throwing it out there.