No B-12 will take a pay cut if G5 are invited, you don't expand to lose money
B-12 will negotiate with networks before any invititations go out
top G5 valuations are around 25M
45M contract is 20M apiece & 5m for extra travell expenses for 12 members

the above is why the Big 12 needs to forget any G5 programs exist, forget Colorado exist and only expand with Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah if any of the three become available

anyone that wants the Big 12 to expand with any of the remaining G5 just wants to make sure that the big 12 will always be viewed as the weakest conference no matter what and they want to make sure that the Big 12 will have no chance to make meaningful differentiation from the PAC 12 especially and even the ACC in terms of media payout and conference payout

that is just a ridiculous idea and horrible for the conference and the conference membership

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

when one looks at the individual schools they can also see that the Big 12 as a whole has made great progress in ramping academic side subsidies down and while there is a jump for the year in question being shown the Big 12 is still a solid cohesive conference in terms of revenues WITHOUT academic side subsidies and the bump for the year shown looks to be covid related to make up for the weaker revenues from the prior year

no what anyone tries to argue especially from one fan base in particular there is nothing but weakness when you have high academic side subsidies and the Big 12 should want nothing to do with members that need huge academic side subsidies just to be at the very low end of P5 revenues nor should the Big 12 have a "goal" of trying to add more programs that will make sure the Big 12 has a lot more members at the very lowest end of P5 revenues (all the worse ones with huge academic side subsidies to even be there)......that will just make a conference of weak garbage that is ready to fall apart and that will never lure teams even if other P5 conferences fall apart

with the ACC Wake and BC are down there in the very low end of P5 revenues in the last numbers I have seen in a while and Miami and Duke are pretty high while Syracuse is in the middle.....so the PAC 12 and ACC have a lot more bottom end programs than the Big 12, but of course one of the new Big 12 members is going to be a drag and another looks like they will be down there too and Cincy looks like they could have decent numbers.....and again if you want to come talk about how your university "can afford the subsidy" then your university and your athletics program is weak and a drag on the Big 12

worse yet with the new TV contract the Big 12 should be able to stay well ahead of the PAC 12 and possibly even consistently have higher budgets than some more of their members and they should be able to improve in budget against some ACC teams as well since the ACC is not getting the (very slight) bump in revenues the Big 12 is getting for their new contract

the dumbest thing the Big 12 could do is add weak budget programs with massive academic side subsidies and reduce the per member payout to do so even if it is "only" a few million per year per member to do so.....because doing that takes any chance for the Big 12 to show meaningful improvement in conference distribution and athletics budgets vs the PAC 12 and ACC and places the Big 12 back being a conference with a target on it's back and dead weight sucking money from current programs......lets see if some of the new programs can live up to their "if only" BS first and even if they can lets still not take a chance and add more of the same

The TV exposure the BIG12 has this season is really really good. If we don't have 14 schools going in to the 2024 season, we won't have enough content to fill all the spots that we have now. Of course losing OUT affects how desirable the networks view our future content. But we're in a little bit of a hurry to add two schools so we can retain most of the same linear slots for the 2024 season. But we're better off losing those slots, than adding the wrong schools.

(07-10-2023 10:10 AM)CustersDoctor Wrote:  The TV exposure the BIG12 has this season is really really good. If we don't have 14 schools going in to the 2024 season, we won't have enough content to fill all the spots that we have now. Of course losing OUT affects how desirable the networks view our future content. But we're in a little bit of a hurry to add two schools so we can retain most of the same linear slots for the 2024 season. But we're better off losing those slots, than adding the wrong schools.

the idea of "content" is laughable

ESPN has more than enough content and they have so much of it they do not even know what to do with it.....that is why ESPN has pretty much shown ZERO interest in the PAC 12

lets do basic math

ESPN owns 100% of the SEC SEC SEC and the ACC

16 SEC SEC SEC teams and 14 ACC teams (we will ignore ND altogether)

that is 30 teams playing 8 conference games each so 240 wins and losses......but 120 GAMES because each conference game has two conference members in it

so 120 games / 13 weeks = 9.23 games per week that ESPN owns 100% for just those 2 conferences and just conference games

every SEC SEC SEC team plays a "buy in game" that ESPN will own so that is 16 more games.....we will say that 1/2 the ACC does even though it is probably more so that is 7 more games

there is UGA/GT, Clemson/SC, Florida/Miami/FSU that are OOC games. but ESPN will own 100% of every year

so you have 26 more games right there

so now with just those two conferences you have 146 games that ESPN owns over 13 weeks or 11.23 games

ESPN has 5 networks to show them on....ESPN. ESPN II, ABC, ACCn SEC SEC SECn

11.23 / 5 = 2.24 games per network or about 7 hours worth of football per network and probably more like 8 hours of programming with all the fluff between games

so ESPN between just two conferences they own 100% of has enough content to fill Saturday with college football programming that is an actual game or leading up quickly to a game from 11am to 6pm

ESPN owns 100% of the AAC as well with 14 teams and 8 conference games to equal 112 wins and losses or 56 actual games

146 + 56 = 202 games that ESPN has over 13 weeks for 3 conferences they own 100% of so that is 15.5 games per week and of course those games are not going to be in the ACCn or the SEC SEC SECn, but we can say that ESPN can bump ACC and SEC SEC SEC games off of ESPN, ESPN II, and ABC for the AAC

so now you have 3 games per network to show on a Saturday or enough actual game programming to go from 11am to 9:30pm if each game takes 3.5 hours

and we still have not even gotten to the Sunbelt, MAC, or CUSA games that ESPN owns.....much less the Big 12

so sitting around looking at ESPN that has enough college football content to show 10.5 hours of strictly game play on 5 networks for 13 weeks straight for just three of the conferences that they own 100% of and talking about "the Big 12 might lose slots of they do not add some G5 members" is being void of all reality

much less acting like ESPN will want to pay a lot of money to make those adds when they possibly already own that content, they have surely accounted for the fact that the Big 12 has a contract for 12 members that last 6 years and thus there are no "slots owned by the Big 12" and ignoring the massive fact that the more "content" that ESPN pays for means they are just paying for more "content" to compete with the mass of too much content thy already own and do not know what to do with

all the more so when ESPN has never placed 10.5 hours of straight college football on ABC other than perhaps bowl season and they generally do not even place 10.5 hours of straight college football on ESPN or ESPN II even during the biggest weeks of the college football season

and before anyone starts in....no Thursday and Friday night games are not going to reduce that mass of too much content that ESPN already owns especially when the Big 12 and ACC are not having to have games on those nights and I did not even include any MACtion, Sunbelt or CUSA games in the calculations above

there are no "tv slots", "markets", "chess or checkers moves", "out foxing other conferences", or any other stupidity that would make sense for the Big 12 to be stupid enough to do in order to add programs with weak budgets, facilities in need, massive academic side support, or any other anchor while costing existing Big 12 members meaningful dollars to do so

Just read a rumor of TAM & Ark to B12. I doubt they want that $$$ haircut,

Now TAM to the B1G might make $en$e and it gets TAM away from UT.

(07-14-2023 08:09 AM)doss2 Wrote:  Just read a rumor of TAM & Ark to B12. I doubt they want that $$$ haircut,

Now TAM to the B1G might make $en$e and it gets TAM away from UT.

Stop wasting your time with such crazy rumors.

(07-14-2023 08:09 AM)doss2 Wrote:  Just read a rumor of TAM & Ark to B12. I doubt they want that $$$ haircut,

Now TAM to the B1G might make $en$e and it gets TAM away from UT.

UT will never have control of the revenue sharing in the SEC as they used to in the Big XII. TAM and UT will be more equal as SEC members. No need for TAM to leave unless the B1G can offer them bigger bucks than the SEC.

(07-14-2023 08:09 AM)doss2 Wrote:  Just read a rumor of TAM & Ark to B12. I doubt they want that $$$ haircut,

Now TAM to the B1G might make $en$e and it gets TAM away from UT.

Source?

It makes zero sense short term whys but if I had to predict one or both of Oklahoma and Texas are going to regret their move long term whys and just become known as regular SEC school instead of a blue blood for the next generation.