(06-01-2012 11:57 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:33 AM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  I think they are being a little to short sighted. They would be kind of crazy to pass on FSU and Clemson which seem to be begging behind close doors.

Possibly. But if the report from Dennis Dodd yesterday is correct that the TV contract payout per school doesn't go up by adding them, that means all that BCS money, bowl money, and NCAA tournament money gets divvied up 12 ways instead of 10 and each school loses money. Plus it adds two more strong teams to the conference which could make it harder for the established teams to get to the playoffs.

But then again, expanding into FL might get more audience for the LHN. Who knows? I guess we'll find out in less than 3 weeks.

That's not what the report meant. It's a FLOOR- they're guaranteed to get at least what the current schools are making now.

When the "unnamed source" from the article says the money is the same whether it's "Appalacian State or Florida State" that tells me there's a ceiling AND a floor. Basically, I think this is more or less a continuation of the deal that the XII signed on from 2011 where they kept the overall contract intact with only 10 members instead of 12 and basically kept the payment for a CCG despite not having a CCG because they moved their schedule to play the final conference games on CCG weekend. In other words, they're already getting paid for a CCG and there escalator to add a 12th and return to having a CCG doesn't add anything to the existing per-school payout.

Why would the Big 12 sign that deal? Especially when they're on the open market in 4 years. Those terms make zero sense on the big 12 side at all.

(06-01-2012 11:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:57 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:33 AM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  I think they are being a little to short sighted. They would be kind of crazy to pass on FSU and Clemson which seem to be begging behind close doors.

Possibly. But if the report from Dennis Dodd yesterday is correct that the TV contract payout per school doesn't go up by adding them, that means all that BCS money, bowl money, and NCAA tournament money gets divvied up 12 ways instead of 10 and each school loses money. Plus it adds two more strong teams to the conference which could make it harder for the established teams to get to the playoffs.

But then again, expanding into FL might get more audience for the LHN. Who knows? I guess we'll find out in less than 3 weeks.

That's not what the report meant. It's a FLOOR- they're guaranteed to get at least what the current schools are making now.

When the "unnamed source" from the article says the money is the same whether it's "Appalacian State or Florida State" that tells me there's a ceiling AND a floor. Basically, I think this is more or less a continuation of the deal that the XII signed on from 2011 where they kept the overall contract intact with only 10 members instead of 12 and basically kept the payment for a CCG despite not having a CCG because they moved their schedule to play the final conference games on CCG weekend. In other words, they're already getting paid for a CCG and there escalator to add a 12th and return to having a CCG doesn't add anything to the existing per-school payout.

Why would the Big 12 sign that deal? Especially when they're on the open market in 4 years. Those terms make zero sense on the big 12 side at all.

Contracts are either undervalued, overvalued, or just right. If the Big XII thinks they are overvalued (relative to market) then they will sign it. Perhaps this is why it has taken so long...

I've seen many different ways of calculating actual fair market value of all conference contracts. Basically, from what I've seen, the Pac-12 is being overpaid, the SEC is (currently) being underpaid, and the Big Ten, Big XII (pending contract), and ACC are all pretty much right on in terms of market value.

No extension of the TV contract means no extension of the GOR. Without that security, nobody joins the B12. If you want that security it will cost you something. That is how a business negotiation works. You think that ISU, KSU, Baylor, and Kansas won't give up some money now to avoid reliving the last 2 years of uncertain hell? I think that security is a lot more important than an extra million a year.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

(06-01-2012 12:06 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  No extension of the TV contract means no extension of the GOR. Without that security, nobody joins the B12. If you want that security it will cost you something. That is how a business negotiation works. You think that ISU, KSU, Baylor, and Kansas won't give up some money now to avoid reliving the last 2 years of uncertain hell? I think that security is a lot more important than an extra million a year.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

Do you really think though Texas or Oklahoma would allow themselves to get boxed in like that though? They're not going to give up the right to look-in to the deal if there's expansion.

(06-01-2012 11:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:57 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:33 AM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  I think they are being a little to short sighted. They would be kind of crazy to pass on FSU and Clemson which seem to be begging behind close doors.

Possibly. But if the report from Dennis Dodd yesterday is correct that the TV contract payout per school doesn't go up by adding them, that means all that BCS money, bowl money, and NCAA tournament money gets divvied up 12 ways instead of 10 and each school loses money. Plus it adds two more strong teams to the conference which could make it harder for the established teams to get to the playoffs.

But then again, expanding into FL might get more audience for the LHN. Who knows? I guess we'll find out in less than 3 weeks.

That's not what the report meant. It's a FLOOR- they're guaranteed to get at least what the current schools are making now.

When the "unnamed source" from the article says the money is the same whether it's "Appalacian State or Florida State" that tells me there's a ceiling AND a floor. Basically, I think this is more or less a continuation of the deal that the XII signed on from 2011 where they kept the overall contract intact with only 10 members instead of 12 and basically kept the payment for a CCG despite not having a CCG because they moved their schedule to play the final conference games on CCG weekend. In other words, they're already getting paid for a CCG and there escalator to add a 12th and return to having a CCG doesn't add anything to the existing per-school payout.

Why would the Big 12 sign that deal? Especially when they're on the open market in 4 years. Those terms make zero sense on the big 12 side at all.

They're not on the open market in 4 years. The deal is to extend with ESPN for 13 years to match the Fox deal signed in 2011.

(06-01-2012 11:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:57 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:33 AM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  I think they are being a little to short sighted. They would be kind of crazy to pass on FSU and Clemson which seem to be begging behind close doors.

Possibly. But if the report from Dennis Dodd yesterday is correct that the TV contract payout per school doesn't go up by adding them, that means all that BCS money, bowl money, and NCAA tournament money gets divvied up 12 ways instead of 10 and each school loses money. Plus it adds two more strong teams to the conference which could make it harder for the established teams to get to the playoffs.

But then again, expanding into FL might get more audience for the LHN. Who knows? I guess we'll find out in less than 3 weeks.

That's not what the report meant. It's a FLOOR- they're guaranteed to get at least what the current schools are making now.

When the "unnamed source" from the article says the money is the same whether it's "Appalacian State or Florida State" that tells me there's a ceiling AND a floor. Basically, I think this is more or less a continuation of the deal that the XII signed on from 2011 where they kept the overall contract intact with only 10 members instead of 12 and basically kept the payment for a CCG despite not having a CCG because they moved their schedule to play the final conference games on CCG weekend. In other words, they're already getting paid for a CCG and there escalator to add a 12th and return to having a CCG doesn't add anything to the existing per-school payout.

Why would the Big 12 sign that deal? Especially when they're on the open market in 4 years. Those terms make zero sense on the big 12 side at all.

Maybe b/c that was what the B12 had to do to keep ALL the contract money (including the CCG), signed by the 12 original schools, some of whom later fled.

(06-01-2012 11:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Exactly what conference commish has been forthright thru this entire expansion process? None of them!

But why would Neinas and the rest of the B12 continue to go so far out of their way to deny the rumors if they are true? I mean they have already covered their arses from a tortious interference claim. What could they possibly gain by continuing to go on record, thus making themsleves more vulnerable to legal action? All it takes is one slip up and you get your pants sued off.

One denial would be plenty for legal purposes and two would absolutely suffice. However 12-15 of them seems a bit excessive to me.

I'd be curious to see if the SEC issued this many denials last year? I don't remember them ever being quite as vehement as the B12 has been over the past few days. We know that the B1G didn't play the game that way. They treated their expansion process like an episode of The Bachelor. The Pac-12 did pretty much the same before adding Colorado and Utah.

Even for PR purposes, why would the B12 be so vehement about not wanting to expand only to turn around and change course? It seems to me like they have created MASSIVE expectations and are now trying to calm everyone back down.

Why not simply say the following:
"We have said all that we are going to say on the matter of expansion and nothing has changed for anyone in any regard. We will have no further comment on this issue unless and until something does change."

That would solve this issue and if they did say that, half of you would use that as "proof" than an expansion announcement is forthcoming any day now because of how "open-ended" it was.

I just don't understand why anyone believes that the B12 folks would continue to go to such extreme lengths to point out why expansion past 10 teams doesn't make sense for the league at this time?

That in itself makes no sense.

The STRONG suspicion from this couch in rainy Pittsburgh is that the B12 - namely Chuck Neinas himself - has been leaking almost all of this information to the media in the hopes that it would further increase his league's television contract. I think he also was hoping to put Texas in a corner by building up massive expansion momentum both inside and outside the B12. As the outgoing commissioner, he could afford to take that risk. I can promise you that Bowlsby won't be nearly so bold or he won't be in that seat for very long.

It almost worked too as Neinas played the media - particularly CBS Sports - like a stradivarius and even hooked a few BOT members along the way.

Think about it. These rumors just kept going and going and going even though they made almost no sense to anyone with critical thinking skills. Leagues simply don't become more valuable by swapping the quartet of Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri for the duo of West Virginia and Texas Christian. That just doesn't make sense and nobody would risk their reputation by reporting it unless a very credible source was fanning those flames. And by credible, I don't mean some blogger in West Virginia; I mean an actual relevant source.

If you accept that premise, now let's examine who would gain the most from such a rumor continuing to circulate? Perhaps a commissioner whose league was in the middle of contract negotiations and was hoping to ink a big money bowl game with the SEC?

I think, from there, everyone else bought into the whole "Where there's smoke there's fire" theory and VROOM, off it took like a runaway train.

Unfortunately for Neinas, ESPN is not run by a bunch of fools and they figured out the game he was playing and told him, "Look buddy, we have already overpaid you for what you do have. We're not giving you more just so that you can ruin a contract we just signed. We can't legally stand in the way of your raiding of the ACC but nor will we help facilitate it. No matter who you add, it is $20 million per team, period."

Also, I'm guessing that Clemson and FSU were basically like, "Show us the money!" When the B12 couldn't do that, because it doesn't exist, the backtracking began. That, to me, is why things appear to be cooling down. I think that's also why over the past few days Deloss Dodds has been so vocal about staying at 10 teams. I think he recognizes that he just survived the onslaught and he's out front again re-claiming his territory and re-asserting his authority.

Only time will tell if I'm right but I have to tell you all signs point in that general direction and I'm pretty confident on this one.

(06-01-2012 10:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Is this the link you were looking for?

http://newsok.com/big-12-will-stick-with...le/3680086

No. That was in yesterday's paper. The article I am referring to is in today's--June 1--paper. Appreciate your help.

Here's the latest, straight from the horses mouth...

By signing away TV rights, Horns offer stability to Big 12

Quote:Is there a gun to the head of Texas or OU to sign or again risk a breakup of the league?

"I don't know," Hargis said, "if it's a gun or it's a handful of money."

It will certainly be more than a handful. After inking a deal with Fox for $1.16 billion, the Big 12 is close to finalizing a contract with ESPN this summer that will pay the league $1.4 billion for a total of $2.56 billion. Those are big hands.

(06-01-2012 12:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 12:06 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  No extension of the TV contract means no extension of the GOR. Without that security, nobody joins the B12. If you want that security it will cost you something. That is how a business negotiation works. You think that ISU, KSU, Baylor, and Kansas won't give up some money now to avoid reliving the last 2 years of uncertain hell? I think that security is a lot more important than an extra million a year.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

Do you really think though Texas or Oklahoma would allow themselves to get boxed in like that though? They're not going to give up the right to look-in to the deal if there's expansion.

Texas is happy at 10 and according to the Oklahoma papers, so is OK and OK St. I'm not sure how that is boxing them in. ESPN is paying the B12 for a championship game they aren't playing. They paid for Texas A&M and Missouri, but ended up with TCU and WVU. Either of those is reason enough to reopen the contract. The B12 isn't the only ones who can trigger a look in. There are composition clauses in every contract and the B12s composition has changed twice now. Don't think for a minute that hasn't been brought up at the negotiation table.

Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

(06-01-2012 12:35 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Even for PR purposes, why would the B12 be so vehement about not wanting to expand only to turn around and change course? It seems to me like they have created MASSIVE expectations and are now trying to calm everyone back down.

That's an interesting take. I take the view that the statements from Neinas can basically interpreted in any way that someone wants to depending on which side that you support.

However, the expectations game is certainly a factor in how much people are willing to talk publicly. Maybe the Big 12 isn't getting the positive feedback from FSU that the bloggers indicate, so they want to make it appear that they simply don't want to expand if FSU says no. Maybe ESPN doesn't want to sign a new contract with the Big 12 unless it gets a firm "yes or no" on whether it wants to expand. (I'd certainly take that position that if I were ESPN - I don't believe for a second that they'd actually agree to an automatic escalator that provide incentive to expand with *anyone* whether it's with Appalachian State or Florida State, and certainly not when expansion, if it were to happen, would occur fairly soon. Why would ESPN sign a new TV contract in June if they legitimately believe that the Big 12 would expand in July? How does that make business sense for either ESPN or the Big 12, which would have tons more leverage if they actually get FSU in the fold as opposed to a hope/promise?)

It's simply not a slam dunk for FSU or Clemson no matter how much the Big 12 partisans want it to be or believe it to be. That doesn't mean that FSU and Clemson going to the Big 12 won't eventually happen, but it is nowhere in the vicinity of an easy choice along the lines of Nebraska going to the Big Ten or Texas A&M going to the SEC.

(06-01-2012 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 12:35 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Even for PR purposes, why would the B12 be so vehement about not wanting to expand only to turn around and change course? It seems to me like they have created MASSIVE expectations and are now trying to calm everyone back down.

That's an interesting take. I take the view that the statements from Neinas can basically interpreted in any way that someone wants to depending on which side that you support.

However, the expectations game is certainly a factor in how much people are willing to talk publicly. Maybe the Big 12 isn't getting the positive feedback from FSU that the bloggers indicate, so they want to make it appear that they simply don't want to expand if FSU says no. Maybe ESPN doesn't want to sign a new contract with the Big 12 unless it gets a firm "yes or no" on whether it wants to expand. (I'd certainly take that position that if I were ESPN - I don't believe for a second that they'd actually agree to an automatic escalator that provide incentive to expand with *anyone* whether it's with Appalachian State or Florida State, and certainly not when expansion, if it were to happen, would occur fairly soon. Why would ESPN sign a new TV contract in June if they legitimately believe that the Big 12 would expand in July? How does that make business sense for either ESPN or the Big 12, which would have tons more leverage if they actually get FSU in the fold as opposed to a hope/promise?)

It's simply not a slam dunk for FSU or Clemson no matter how much the Big 12 partisans want it to be or believe it to be. That doesn't mean that FSU and Clemson going to the Big 12 won't eventually happen, but it is nowhere in the vicinity of an easy choice along the lines of Nebraska going to the Big Ten or Texas A&M going to the SEC.

Agree. Nobody in here who posts is unbiased, including me, but I think if you could find a group of intelligent, unbiased folks to weigh the public statements from the involved parties, which is all we have to go on, it seems to me that they would conclude that nothing more is likely to happen in realignment this year.

Almost everything we've heard publicly, outside the FSU BOT chair's misinformed rant, and the Clemson BOT's statement about being available, has been an attempt to dampen speculation about expansion, not fuel it.

Now, IF the playoff format somehow is constructed to favor the 4 conferences more than it will naturally, and IF ND is somehow denied access, THEN things would change. But so far, that does not seem to be the direction this is headed.

(06-01-2012 10:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:16 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:15 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  An article in the Oklahoman newspaper on realignment quotes Nineas regarding the Big12 position.

Also, Big12 Board of Directors confirm they prefer staying at 10.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn, interested in buying?

I understand where you are coming from....West Virginia is on island and you yearn for company.

There is too much money to make by having a Championship game versus remaining at 10. The only plus side would be that Texas and Oklahoma would not eliminate each other with regards to the new playoff...Plus 1 or 4 team or ????

(06-01-2012 10:30 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Give up the naming rights BIG 12 and BIG 14 and then just maybe...................................................

They also own BIG 16

I might be the only person but i love Big 24 football only league, full merger of current ACC + big 12 with 4 pods of 6 teams, play a 5-1-1-1 format. Get the ncaa to OK 2 game playoff or flexible game

(06-01-2012 01:57 PM)WVMntneer Wrote:  There is too much money to make by having a Championship game versus remaining at 10. The only plus side would be that Texas and Oklahoma would not eliminate each other with regards to the new playoff...Plus 1 or 4 team or ????

I think you're right that the money is there for the conference championship game.

However, remember the history of the Big 12 before 9 months ago. The conference was very fractured around North/South divisional lines and part of the allure of having a 10-team conference for the "little guys" was that power (both on-the-field and off-the-field) wouldn't be concentrated in the South with Texas and Oklahoma. UT and OU is going to be asking for/demanding the exact same alignment (only with TCU being swapped in for A&M and WVU and the 2 additions being swapped in for Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri), which the other schools may not be in rush to do at this point. Now, if FSU is truly a viable expansion candidate, I think that view is shortsighted, but when you've gone through some deep fissures for the past 15 years, it's not easily forgotten.

Expansion is done for a while. Only question is.. How long is a while?

(06-01-2012 06:54 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Expansion is done for a while. Only question is.. How long is a while?

2014 .... when the Big East adds #14 in time for the 2015 season.

Quote:Post: #1Nienas: Why doesn't anyone believe us when we keep telling them we're happy with 10

Q. How can you tell if a college president or conference commish is lying about conference expansion?
A. Their lips are moving.

Quite frankly, college football fans on message boards have been more accurate, and the leading indicators of conference movement. Finding a rumor on a message board that makes sense means much more to me than something a PR flack says. College presidents have lied and lied again. No one believes them because they have been compulsively dishonest. Their lack of credibility is of their own making.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!