If ESPN insisted on that- I'm pretty sure the Big 12 wouldn't sign that contract and would just go out on the open market in 2016. The way you guys are reading it makes absolutely zero sense for the Big 12 at all.... None. I mean- can you really see Chuck Nienas agreeing to that? I don't think so....

(05-31-2012 05:47 AM)joe4psu Wrote:  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.

Yes, except this may actually be intended as a "poison pill" to discourage the B12 from going after existing ESPN schools like FSU and Clemson. ESPN may officially be saying "we don't care" while simultaneously negotiating the elimination of any incentive for the B12 to poach the ACC.

Setting the price up front also eliminates the need for a messy reopening like ESPN has gone through with the SEC and ACC.

(05-31-2012 07:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If ESPN insisted on that- I'm pretty sure the Big 12 wouldn't sign that contract and would just go out on the open market in 2016. The way you guys are reading it makes absolutely zero sense for the Big 12 at all.... None. I mean- can you really see Chuck Nienas agreeing to that? I don't think so....

Keep in mind that the package that would go onto the market in 2016 is only 18-20 games, since the Tier 2 and 3 rights, 52 games, are already controlled by FOX and the schools. At $200 million per year, the incremental value over the FOX Tier 2 deal is $110 million for these 18-20 football games plus the basketball package. That's around $5 million per football game. I'm not seeing that they would do much better in 2016. Further, even if OU and Texas may be willing to wait, the rest of the conference members would probably like the stability of the 13 year GOR that would come with the new deal.

(05-31-2012 07:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If ESPN insisted on that- I'm pretty sure the Big 12 wouldn't sign that contract and would just go out on the open market in 2016. The way you guys are reading it makes absolutely zero sense for the Big 12 at all.... None. I mean- can you really see Chuck Nienas agreeing to that? I don't think so....

Well, you're getting a bump from $15M to $20M per year per school. Starting now.

That could very well be enough of an incentive to extend the contract, and give up the right to renegotiate-by-expansion.

If this is in the contract--no renegotiation-by-expansion, $20M per school for whatever schools--I wonder if the Big XII, in return, got back the rights to auction off a Conference Championship Game if they have one.

Or we could just look at ESPN bumping up the first-tier rights fee as a bribe not to expand at the ACC's expense.

(05-31-2012 07:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If ESPN insisted on that- I'm pretty sure the Big 12 wouldn't sign that contract and would just go out on the open market in 2016. The way you guys are reading it makes absolutely zero sense for the Big 12 at all.... None. I mean- can you really see Chuck Nienas agreeing to that? I don't think so....

Well, you're getting a bump from $15M to $20M per year per school. Starting now.

That could very well be enough of an incentive to extend the contract, and give up the right to renegotiate-by-expansion.

If this is in the contract--no renegotiation-by-expansion, $20M per school for whatever schools--I wonder if the Big XII, in return, got back the rights to auction off a Conference Championship Game if they have one.

Or we could just look at ESPN bumping up the first-tier rights fee as a bribe not to expand at the ACC's expense.

I think the Conference Championship Game would be the more likely of the scenario's you present. That would go out on the open market- and would probably get 25 million dollars, which would be 2 million per school.

(05-31-2012 07:39 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(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.

Except that the ESPN contract expires shortly, so the Big 12 would just go to the market. This isn't like the ACC deal where the ACC was already locked in for the next generation.

A lot of wishful thinking ITT. And the train is still rolling down the tracks...

(05-31-2012 08:03 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:39 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(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.

Except that the ESPN contract expires shortly, so the Big 12 would just go to the market. This isn't like the ACC deal where the ACC was already locked in for the next generation.

A lot of wishful thinking ITT. And the train is still rolling down the tracks...

When does it expire?

(05-31-2012 08:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  When does it expire?

2015-16 is the final year of the current deal. http://mattsarzsports.com/Football2012/Big12

(05-31-2012 07:17 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  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."

I wholeheartedly agree with this and I think that it is good advice for people on ALL sides of this issue as it seems to me that EVERYONE has been guilty of wishful thinking. Let's wait until the actual contract is released and detailed for all to see before making any proclamations about anything.

We have no idea if this is good or bad news for the ACC - or the B12 for that matter - and it is riduculous for anyone to presume otherwise.

Having said that, I will say this. I have a difficult time believing that ESPN would injure itself on one contract that it literally just signed and looks to be below market to make what would essentially constitute relatively minimnal gains on another pact. That can't possibly be a net gain for the four-letter network and they are the primary money source through all of this. That is why I have been so skeptical about the B12's "impending raid" of the ACC. It doesn't appear to make financial sense for anyone except the B12. However, I have been wrong before so you never do know. It's just that, through all of the opinions both here and throughout the rest of the blogosphere, I have yet to read a single, detailed case for why that would make sense; and until I do, I'm sticking to my prediction that this smells a lot more like Texas and the B12 last year than it does Texas A&M and the SEC.

(05-31-2012 08:33 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:17 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  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."

I wholeheartedly agree with this and I think that it is good advice for people on ALL sides of this issue as it seems to me that EVERYONE has been guilty of wishful thinking. Let's wait until the actual contract actually comes out before making any proclamations about anything.

Yeah this is what I have decided on. Waiting for Big 12 meeting news and waiting for BCS meeting news. We keep getting contradictory information through variable sources and we never know whether any of it is true. Time to sit back and wait, best of luck to all of you that have a horse in this race.

Thank god I am a Big Ten fan.

I thought that all along. Once the playoff format is settled, I expect the time up until Aug 15 to be insane. If ACC can wake up on August 16 with all 14 teams still around, they're fine. 11 weeks from today.

I think all the comments made are totally just posturing right now.

(05-31-2012 06:23 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Plus it really looks like the broadcasters have hit the top of the limit when it come to paying for sports programming.

Really?

Facts seem to prove otherwise...as every sport and even for ever conf...new TV deals have "blown away" virtually all estimates set before them...and with new players in the mix (re-launched channels like NBC Sports Network and CBS Sports, let alone FOX wanting more sports programming), plus how advertisers are rushing to any and all LIVE PROGRAMMING (i.e. DVR Free...best way to get their ads seen), I don't see the "increasing" $$$$ demand for live sports ever hitting a "limit" anytime soon.

(05-31-2012 08:54 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:23 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Plus it really looks like the broadcasters have hit the top of the limit when it come to paying for sports programming.

Really?

Facts seem to prove otherwise...as every sport and even for ever conf...new TV deals have "blown away" virtually all estimates set before them...and with new players in the mix (re-launched channels like NBC Sports Network and CBS Sports, let alone FOX wanting more sports programming), plus how advertisers are rushing to any and all LIVE PROGRAMMING (i.e. DVR Free...best way to get their ads seen), I don't see the "increasing" $$$$ demand for live sports ever hitting a "limit" anytime soon.

Ryan Seacrest makes $59 million a year. I don't think broadcasters have a limit on stupidity.

(05-31-2012 06:44 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  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.

The Big XII is alive because Texas knew better then to kill the "Golden Goose" and the Pac 12 didn't really want Oklahoma without the Longhorns.

C-USA @ this point is irrelevent...DeLoss Dodds doesn't even acknowledge C-USA in the article...here is what he said about the ACC, BIG EAST & MWC. From the article:

Here's how it would work: If the Big 12 goes to a dozen teams (or 14, or 16) it would reinstall a conference championship game. That would crystallize what the Champions Bowl announcement helped formalize -- that the base of power in college football exists with the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.

"It absolutely does that ...," Dodds said of the bowl that kicks off in 2014. "It puts us in the role of being in the top four."

In that scenario, the Big Four all would have conference title games. That means eight division winners playing off for four conference titles in leagues that have won national championships in 16 of the last 18 seasons. Given that history, each of those division winners, playing the top schedules in the country, could conceivably be in the running for the national championship.

See where this could be headed?

"That eliminates the ACC, Big East and Mountain West," Dodds said. "That eliminates a lot of football teams, but you're accurate in what you're saying."

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

Again, the Texas Athletic Boss probably doesn't even know C-USA exist and with the addition of UTSA I can understand why...not say'n...juz say'n.

(05-31-2012 08:33 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:17 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  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."

I wholeheartedly agree with this and I think that it is good advice for people on ALL sides of this issue as it seems to me that EVERYONE has been guilty of wishful thinking. Let's wait until the actual contract is released and detailed for all to see before making any proclamations about anything.

We have no idea if this is good or bad news for the ACC - or the B12 for that matter - and it is riduculous for anyone to presume otherwise.

Having said that, I will say this. I have a difficult time believing that ESPN would injure itself on one contract that it literally just signed and looks to be below market to make what would essentially constitute relatively minimnal gains on another pact. That can't possibly be a net gain for the four-letter network and they are the primary money source through all of this. That is why I have been so skeptical about the B12's "impending raid" of the ACC. It doesn't appear to make financial sense for anyone except the B12. However, I have been wrong before so you never do know. It's just that, through all of the opinions both here and throughout the rest of the blogosphere, I have yet to read a single, detailed case for why that would make sense; and until I do, I'm sticking to my prediction that this smells a lot more like Texas and the B12 last year than it does Texas A&M and the SEC.

As previously stated, the ESPN deal is up after 2015-16. The Big 12 is getting paid one way or another, is part of the Big 4, and offers a football-centric conference in football-centric times. Not sure why this is hard to understand. Maybe the ties that bind FSU & Clemson to the ACC are strong enough to resist this, but don't count on it.

(05-31-2012 09:12 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:44 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  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.

The Big XII is alive because Texas knew better then to kill the "Golden Goose" and the Pac 12 didn't really want Oklahoma without the Longhorns.

C-USA @ this point is irrelevent...DeLoss Dodds doesn't even acknowledge C-USA in the article...here is what he said about the ACC, BIG EAST & MWC. From the article:

Here's how it would work: If the Big 12 goes to a dozen teams (or 14, or 16) it would reinstall a conference championship game. That would crystallize what the Champions Bowl announcement helped formalize -- that the base of power in college football exists with the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.

"It absolutely does that ...," Dodds said of the bowl that kicks off in 2014. "It puts us in the role of being in the top four."

In that scenario, the Big Four all would have conference title games. That means eight division winners playing off for four conference titles in leagues that have won national championships in 16 of the last 18 seasons. Given that history, each of those division winners, playing the top schedules in the country, could conceivably be in the running for the national championship.

See where this could be headed?

"That eliminates the ACC, Big East and Mountain West," Dodds said. "That eliminates a lot of football teams, but you're accurate in what you're saying."

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

Again, the Texas Athletic Boss probably doesn't even know C-USA exist and with the addition of UTSA I can understand why...not say'n...juz say'n.

How do the P12, B1G, B12 and SEC get a playoff enacted without the votes of the other FBS conferences? They constitute 48 of the 120+ FBS schools, and 4 of the 10 members of the group negotiating the new BCS structure. Sure they have negotiating leverage, but short of withdrawing from the NCAA, I don't see how they have the leverage to exclude other conferences from the BCS playoffs.

(05-31-2012 09:27 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 08:33 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:17 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  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."

I wholeheartedly agree with this and I think that it is good advice for people on ALL sides of this issue as it seems to me that EVERYONE has been guilty of wishful thinking. Let's wait until the actual contract is released and detailed for all to see before making any proclamations about anything.

We have no idea if this is good or bad news for the ACC - or the B12 for that matter - and it is riduculous for anyone to presume otherwise.

Having said that, I will say this. I have a difficult time believing that ESPN would injure itself on one contract that it literally just signed and looks to be below market to make what would essentially constitute relatively minimnal gains on another pact. That can't possibly be a net gain for the four-letter network and they are the primary money source through all of this. That is why I have been so skeptical about the B12's "impending raid" of the ACC. It doesn't appear to make financial sense for anyone except the B12. However, I have been wrong before so you never do know. It's just that, through all of the opinions both here and throughout the rest of the blogosphere, I have yet to read a single, detailed case for why that would make sense; and until I do, I'm sticking to my prediction that this smells a lot more like Texas and the B12 last year than it does Texas A&M and the SEC.

As previously stated, the ESPN deal is up after 2015-16. The Big 12 is getting paid one way or another, is part of the Big 4, and offers a football-centric conference in football-centric times. Not sure why this is hard to understand. Maybe the ties that bind FSU & Clemson to the ACC are strong enough to resist this, but don't count on it.

It's quite clear from recent statements in their camps that both FSU and Clemson are more than ready---remains to be seen whether the BIG 12 agrees or not. The playoffs, who can be eligible and how you become eligible will have alot to do with it along with the financial side.

(05-31-2012 09:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 09:12 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:44 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  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.

The Big XII is alive because Texas knew better then to kill the "Golden Goose" and the Pac 12 didn't really want Oklahoma without the Longhorns.

C-USA @ this point is irrelevent...DeLoss Dodds doesn't even acknowledge C-USA in the article...here is what he said about the ACC, BIG EAST & MWC. From the article:

Here's how it would work: If the Big 12 goes to a dozen teams (or 14, or 16) it would reinstall a conference championship game. That would crystallize what the Champions Bowl announcement helped formalize -- that the base of power in college football exists with the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.

"It absolutely does that ...," Dodds said of the bowl that kicks off in 2014. "It puts us in the role of being in the top four."

In that scenario, the Big Four all would have conference title games. That means eight division winners playing off for four conference titles in leagues that have won national championships in 16 of the last 18 seasons. Given that history, each of those division winners, playing the top schedules in the country, could conceivably be in the running for the national championship.

See where this could be headed?

"That eliminates the ACC, Big East and Mountain West," Dodds said. "That eliminates a lot of football teams, but you're accurate in what you're saying."

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

Again, the Texas Athletic Boss probably doesn't even know C-USA exist and with the addition of UTSA I can understand why...not say'n...juz say'n.

How do the P12, B1G, B12 and SEC get a playoff enacted without the votes of the other FBS conferences? They constitute 48 of the 120+ FBS schools, and 4 of the 10 members of the group negotiating the new BCS structure. Sure they have negotiating leverage, but short of withdrawing from the NCAA, I don't see how they have the leverage to exclude other conferences from the BCS playoffs.

$ is leverage. The threat of leaving is leverage. Since when is college football a democracy?

(05-31-2012 09:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 09:12 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:44 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  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.

The Big XII is alive because Texas knew better then to kill the "Golden Goose" and the Pac 12 didn't really want Oklahoma without the Longhorns.

C-USA @ this point is irrelevent...DeLoss Dodds doesn't even acknowledge C-USA in the article...here is what he said about the ACC, BIG EAST & MWC. From the article:

Here's how it would work: If the Big 12 goes to a dozen teams (or 14, or 16) it would reinstall a conference championship game. That would crystallize what the Champions Bowl announcement helped formalize -- that the base of power in college football exists with the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.

"It absolutely does that ...," Dodds said of the bowl that kicks off in 2014. "It puts us in the role of being in the top four."

In that scenario, the Big Four all would have conference title games. That means eight division winners playing off for four conference titles in leagues that have won national championships in 16 of the last 18 seasons. Given that history, each of those division winners, playing the top schedules in the country, could conceivably be in the running for the national championship.

See where this could be headed?

"That eliminates the ACC, Big East and Mountain West," Dodds said. "That eliminates a lot of football teams, but you're accurate in what you're saying."

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

Again, the Texas Athletic Boss probably doesn't even know C-USA exist and with the addition of UTSA I can understand why...not say'n...juz say'n.

How do the P12, B1G, B12 and SEC get a playoff enacted without the votes of the other FBS conferences? They constitute 48 of the 120+ FBS schools, and 4 of the 10 members of the group negotiating the new BCS structure. Sure they have negotiating leverage, but short of withdrawing from the NCAA, I don't see how they have the leverage to exclude other conferences from the BCS playoffs.

They have not only the 4 of them, but Notre Dame as well. So that's 5/11. If they say they'll give the minor conferences a bit more money, it's 7/11- with SBC and MAC agreeing(if not MWC/CUSA as well)

(05-31-2012 09:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 09:12 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:44 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  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.

The Big XII is alive because Texas knew better then to kill the "Golden Goose" and the Pac 12 didn't really want Oklahoma without the Longhorns.

C-USA @ this point is irrelevent...DeLoss Dodds doesn't even acknowledge C-USA in the article...here is what he said about the ACC, BIG EAST & MWC. From the article:

Here's how it would work: If the Big 12 goes to a dozen teams (or 14, or 16) it would reinstall a conference championship game. That would crystallize what the Champions Bowl announcement helped formalize -- that the base of power in college football exists with the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.

"It absolutely does that ...," Dodds said of the bowl that kicks off in 2014. "It puts us in the role of being in the top four."

In that scenario, the Big Four all would have conference title games. That means eight division winners playing off for four conference titles in leagues that have won national championships in 16 of the last 18 seasons. Given that history, each of those division winners, playing the top schedules in the country, could conceivably be in the running for the national championship.

See where this could be headed?

"That eliminates the ACC, Big East and Mountain West," Dodds said. "That eliminates a lot of football teams, but you're accurate in what you're saying."

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

Again, the Texas Athletic Boss probably doesn't even know C-USA exist and with the addition of UTSA I can understand why...not say'n...juz say'n.

How do the P12, B1G, B12 and SEC get a playoff enacted without the votes of the other FBS conferences? They constitute 48 of the 120+ FBS schools, and 4 of the 10 members of the group negotiating the new BCS structure. Sure they have negotiating leverage, but short of withdrawing from the NCAA, I don't see how they have the leverage to exclude other conferences from the BCS playoffs.

We don't really know how the voting works. It is doubtful that anyone who didn't have an AQ has the same vote as those that did. If so then they've been voting all along with the powers that be, so no reason anything will change on that front.

(05-31-2012 08:16 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 08:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  When does it expire?

2015-16 is the final year of the current deal. http://mattsarzsports.com/Football2012/Big12

Not exactly...shortly as I suspected... alot is changing in the TV world and ESPN would have exclusive negotiation in a few years.