(05-30-2012 10:47 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 10:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:56 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If the XII schools can't get any more bump from the TV contract by adding schools, why would they add anyone? The BCS, NCAA Tourney, and bowl money would be split such that each existing school would lose 20% of that money by going to 12. Plus then they run into that issue of potentially having the best ranked team lose in a CCG (or others not even being able to get to the CCG like in 2008).

They didn't say there couldn't be a bump. They said the Big12 can't LOSE any money per school.

When the guy says the money would be the same if it were Appalachian State or Florida State, that kind of tells me there's no bump. But it is pretty wide open for interpretation, I guess.

Ahhh...I follow what you're saying now. That's really interesting that it can't drop though. I guess that pretty much shows how much a conference Texas and Oklahoma football are worth.

Yep. As soon as they mentioned Florida State, that means there is no bump. I assume that means no bump for a CCG, either, since that is probably where a lot of the $40M would come from, with added inventory accounting for the remainder.

I still think there is an incentive for the B12 to expand, though. Not saying they will (I voted no), but depending on how the playoff format works out, if the B12 took 2 or 4 of the best FB schools from the ACC, that would put almost all the good FB schools in the top 4 conferences. That could help ensure the top 4 in the playoffs come from the top 4 conferences. That notion was mentioned in the OP linked article.

OTOH, it could also mean a "BCS Buster" could rise up from the ACC, BE, etc. b/c their path would be easier to a better record.

Interesting development. I still think for now, the B12 is going to stand pat at 10. Unless Notre Dame moved in, and I don't see that happening, as long as they have access when they are ranked in the top 4. Which they will.

(05-30-2012 08:37 PM)Maize Wrote:  So apparently they will not lose any $$$$ if they expand no matter who the school is and ESPN will not stand in the way to "save" the ACC.

The new Big 12 TV deal is expected to be announced any day, perhaps here this week as a celebration of the league's new-found strength. Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

One industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, "Appalachian State or Florida State." And according to another industry source, ESPN wouldn't stand in the way of Big 12 expansion even after negotiating a new deal with the ACC.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...0-12-or-14

No mention of the automatic escalator clause where the money goes up depending upon who the expansion candidate is?

Cheers,
Neil

Sounds like a clause that prevents the B12 from reopening the contract if they expand (ala the ACC). Sounds like a bad deal.

Maybe the SEC saved the ACC after all.

Is that the average over the term of the deal?

(05-30-2012 11:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Yep. As soon as they mentioned Florida State, that means there is no bump. I assume that means no bump for a CCG, either, since that is probably where a lot of the $40M would come from, with added inventory accounting for the remainder.

Remember all those people who guaranteed on this board that the the Big 12 would add Florida State and Clemson and get the ESPN/Fox TV deal raised to $30 million a year? Seems like that was only a couple of days ago. Oh, wait, it was only a couple of days ago.

(05-30-2012 11:19 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Sounds like a clause that prevents the B12 from reopening the contract if they expand (ala the ACC). Sounds like a bad deal.

How can this possibly be? I mean, for weeks we have been lectured to here by all the "experts" with "sources" deep inside the WVU fan blogosphere that have claimed that if FSU and Clemson came into the B12, the deal would be reopened and all the B12 teams would get well north of $20M per year.

If this article and what it seems to imply is accurate, it would provide yet another example of waiting until the actual terms are published before spouting off on what the so-called facts are!

(05-31-2012 01:18 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 11:19 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Sounds like a clause that prevents the B12 from reopening the contract if they expand (ala the ACC). Sounds like a bad deal.

How can this possibly be? I mean, for weeks we have been lectured to here by all the "experts" with "sources" deep inside the WVU fan blogosphere that have claimed that if FSU and Clemson came into the B12, the deal would be reopened and all the B12 teams would get well north of $20M per year.

If this article and what it seems to imply is accurate, it would provide yet another example of waiting until the actual terms are published before spouting off on what the so-called facts are!

And it could likely mean the ACC deal is more lucrative since multiple ADs in the ACC have estimated, when comparing apples to apples, the ACC is likely between $24-26 million per year (due to retained multi-media and corporate sponsorship rights that often get lumped with Tier 3). The money's not there folks.

(05-30-2012 10:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  So after the Big 12 gets rejected by FSU and Clemson (which they will, if the FSU president has any brains), does this clause revive hopes for a Louisville/Cincy combo? If the money's the same, why not go for it?

They do not want Cincy or Louisville

To be more precise - they don't want them if they don't increase the pie.

And if Florida State doesn't increase the pie, no Big East team will.

Quote:Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

Speculating wildly (because on this board, that is the manner in which we roll), I'd speculate that this clause was written in by ESPN specifically to protect the ACC, and ESPN's investment in the ACC.

Or, ESPN and Fox decided not to allow the Big 12 to expand later in a hotter rights market to boost the per-school payout. Big 12 wants to go to 16 in 2017? Great. The contract goes from $200M to $320M.

I agree. ESPN put that in there to protect themselves against having to pay more for less of what they already have under contract. This means the incremental increase in value to ACC teams will not be compelling when you figure in the large exit fee and increased travel costs. When you figure in the location of the alumni base and the effect moving to a Midwest conference will have on them (reduced opportunities to attend away games) it really leads me to believe that there will be no ACC teams moving west.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

(05-31-2012 05:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

Speculating wildly (because on this board, that is the manner in which we roll), I'd speculate that this clause was written in by ESPN specifically to protect the ACC, and ESPN's investment in the ACC.

Or, ESPN and Fox decided not to allow the Big 12 to expand later in a hotter rights market to boost the per-school payout. Big 12 wants to go to 16 in 2017? Great. The contract goes from $200M to $320M.

(05-31-2012 05:37 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I agree. ESPN put that in there to protect themselves against having to pay more for less of what they already have under contract. This means the incremental increase in value to ACC teams will not be compelling when you figure in the large exit fee and increased travel costs. When you figure in the location of the alumni base and the effect moving to a Midwest conference will have on them (reduced opportunities to attend away games) it really leads me to believe that there will be no ACC teams moving west.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

I think you guys may be jumping to conclusions. It makes ZERO sense for the B12 to sign a contract like that. Unless they are looking at schools that are not worth the $20Mil that is. If they plan to expand with schools that are worth less then this is brilliant.

(05-31-2012 03:21 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 10:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  So after the Big 12 gets rejected by FSU and Clemson (which they will, if the FSU president has any brains), does this clause revive hopes for a Louisville/Cincy combo? If the money's the same, why not go for it?

They do not want Cincy or Louisville

To be more precise - they don't want them if they don't increase the pie.

And if Florida State doesn't increase the pie, no Big East team will.

If this clause thing is correct, then no one can increase the football pie, not even FSU.

But Cincy and Louisville will increase the basketball pie much more than 20%. That's two more perennial NCAA tournament teams, and all the NCAA tournament credits that they will earn. Those are big money; until the most recent football contracts NCAA tournament credits were more than football TV money for the Big 10, ACC, and Big East.

Haha, wishful thinking on all the ACC and BE fans part here. The Big 12 is just protected if it cant get a big fish with this clause. If it has to settle for Louisville instead of FSU, it automatically goes up to $20 million. Even if it doesnt go to 12. That is smart thinking on the B12's part, since the B1G was at 11 for 15 years or so.

Its just saying the B12 doesnt have to add FSU, it doesnt say FSU wouldnt give it even more money or that a champ game wouldnt give it more money.

The big question here is....what do FSU and Clemson WANT to do? The Big 12 is playing the role of the SEC now, where the SEC waited for T A&M & Missouri to make their decisions and never really said they were expanding. The Big 12 wants to sit back and see who wants in.

I think this removes all doubt that the Big 12 will be expanding at some point.

It is called negotiation. It makes less sense to add costs for expansion when ESPN is already over paying the B12. Keep in mind they no longer have a championship game, but ESPN did not lower the payout. ESPN saved the B12 by keeping the payout per team high enough that teams stayed put and didn't jump. Plus it really looks like the broadcasters have hit the top of the limit when it come to paying for sports programming. If ESPN pays more to the B12, what will the SEC and B10 ask for? Today's contract sets the market rate for tomorrow's negotiations. I am continually amazed by people who seem to think the broadcast partner are super rich idiots ready for fleecing. They make back their money by selling advertising. In this economy, companies are very careful about how they spend those dollars. CBS is reportedly baking at upping the SEC's money for adding A&M and Missou. There is a limit and I think we are very near if not already there.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

Obviously, with an article posted like this, the Nbe and ACC fans start their denial posts. Some things are obviously predictible.

Being a B12 and CUSA fan, they have my sympathies. But ACC raided BE for Miami, Va Tech, and BC...and then took Pitt and Syracuse. And BE raided CUSA just recently and took Cincy, USF, and Louisville before that.

So, in the final analysis, who is caling the kettle black?

Congrats to both B12 and CUSA for fighting back. Hit hard, both conferences are making a strong come back.

(05-31-2012 06:23 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  It is called negotiation. It makes less sense to add costs for expansion when ESPN is already over paying the B12. Keep in mind they no longer have a championship game, but ESPN did not lower the payout. ESPN saved the B12 by keeping the payout per team high enough that teams stayed put and didn't jump. Plus it really looks like the broadcasters have hit the top of the limit when it come to paying for sports programming. If ESPN pays more to the B12, what will the SEC and B10 ask for? Today's contract sets the market rate for tomorrow's negotiations. I am continually amazed by people who seem to think the broadcast partner are super rich idiots ready for fleecing. They make back their money by selling advertising. In this economy, companies are very careful about how they spend those dollars. CBS is reportedly baking at upping the SEC's money for adding A&M and Missou. There is a limit and I think we are very near if not already there.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

What makes you think that the ceiling has been hit? It doesn't matter what *SPN wants to pay so much as what Fox, NBC and possibly Turner will pay. And in the case of the B1G, what they will pay THEMSELVES with the BTN. *SPN is paying $1.1Bil a year just for Monday Night Football games and the Pac-12 got $250Mil for less games, saving even tier 1 content for their own network. College football has been run VERY poorly and VASTLY underpaid. Of course *SPN and CBS aren't going to pay without a struggle. The networks have to be careful though, the last negotiating period *SPN played hardball with the B1G and now there is a BTN making tons of money for the conference without them.

Seems people are getting way ahead of themselves.

things to ask:

Have you seen the actual documents? NO

Have you seen statements regarding any of this from BIG 12 officials? NO

Have you seen statements from ESPN officials announcing such a deal? NO

Everyone is excited over "industry sources" that-for all anyone knows--have no direct knowledge of the matter and are simply speculating.

Again, it reads:

One industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, "Appalachian State or Florida State."

(05-31-2012 05:47 AM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 05:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).

Speculating wildly (because on this board, that is the manner in which we roll), I'd speculate that this clause was written in by ESPN specifically to protect the ACC, and ESPN's investment in the ACC.

Or, ESPN and Fox decided not to allow the Big 12 to expand later in a hotter rights market to boost the per-school payout. Big 12 wants to go to 16 in 2017? Great. The contract goes from $200M to $320M.

(05-31-2012 05:37 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I agree. ESPN put that in there to protect themselves against having to pay more for less of what they already have under contract. This means the incremental increase in value to ACC teams will not be compelling when you figure in the large exit fee and increased travel costs. When you figure in the location of the alumni base and the effect moving to a Midwest conference will have on them (reduced opportunities to attend away games) it really leads me to believe that there will be no ACC teams moving west.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

I think you guys may be jumping to conclusions. It makes ZERO sense for the B12 to sign a contract like that. Unless they are looking at schools that are not worth the $20Mil that is. If they plan to expand with schools that are worth less then this is brilliant.

The B12 at the time was overpaid in order to keep the league solvent. I think ESPN is telling them you can add whomever but we are standing pat...take us to arbitration.