(06-22-2014 08:29 AM)Knightbengal Wrote: (06-22-2014 08:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (06-22-2014 07:40 AM)Knightbengal Wrote: (06-22-2014 06:56 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (06-22-2014 04:45 AM)templefootballfan Wrote: Okla St is out of control, and by the time Pac moves to 16
Pickens will have passed away, And Okla St political pull will be gone
New Mexico will be #4
Espn poneyed up for B-12 to keep inventory away from Fox & better time slots
ESPN agenda might change next time
you are saying that OkState is "out of control".....well let me know the next time an OkState head coach is beating up one of his assistants
and UNM will be lucky to still be in D1-A football if and when the PAC 12 expands again
and Texas and OU and anyone else would have no interest in the PAC 12 if the PAC 12 was saying that UNM was part of the package instead of a current conference mate
I agree Texas has no interest in the PAC. I do think you are basing some of your arguments on decisions that were being made to keep the b12 together. Mack said he was told they would be in the PAC on Monday and then the deal came through on Saturday. They signed a very long contract and a lot of things have changed. The market discussion surrounds long term survival by justifying increases in pay compared to other conferences. If there is a gap overtures will no longer fall on deaf ears.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
if ESPN and or Fox or both did not value the the Big 12 as it is now they would have moved to make changes already
some are saying that "wait until these media contracts are over"......well that is just silly because these media contracts run right until they are over
in other words if ESPN and Fox have some concerns about the value of the Big 12 in 12 years from now when these media contracts run out why in the hell would they not have concerns about the value of the Big 12 in 8 years from now when they are going to be paying a ton of money on these media contracts.....and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that
Fox signed with the Big 12 when they were a 10 team league with MU and A&M and when that broke up the deal with Fox was for a league with at least 10 teams so Fox had a chance to possibly get out of the deal and they didn't they accepted TCU and WVU as replacements for MU and A&M
ESPN had an agreement with the Big 12 until 2015-16 and instead of letting that run out they decided to renegotiate it early in 2012.......and then some say "well that was to keep Fox out, but wait until 12 years from now
what a stupid thought because ESPN had the Big 12 tied up until the middle of 2 years from NOW......so ESPN had no concerns this year or even next year much less last year or in 2012 about "Fox getting in there" and if ESPN had even the slightest concerns about the Big 12 declining in value 12 years from now wouldn't they at least wait until 2015 or partially into 2016 to even see how the new Big 12 was doing before approaching the Big 12 to work a deal before "Fox got in there"
ESPN especially had PLENTY of time to wait back in 2012 when they renegotiated early with the Big 12 so worrying about "Fox getting in there" was not an issue then
and if Fox had a worry about the Big 12 as a 10 team conference with A&M and MU well they didn't show it because they signed that deal willingly and if Fox had a concern about adding WVU and TCU to replace MU and A&M they had a very good chance to try and address that when MU and A&M left and the Big 12 did not have 10 teams and the Big 12 was talking with ESPN and Fox about who they think would be the best teams to add
so sure in 12 years from now the Big 12 could have no value, but if that was a concern why did ESPN redo the Big 12 contract several years early when they had no reason to need to and they had the Big 12 under contract for several more years so there was no chance of "Fox getting in there" at least until ESPN could have gotten a small grip on how the Big 12 would be with the current alignment.....and ESPN forwent the chance to even see how the Big 12 in their current alignment would do before they renegotiated early by several years for a new Big 12 deal
so the idea that in 12 years suddenly the Big 12 will go from ending a contract with FOX and ESPN where they are getting big money to being worthless seems silly to believe because if they were to fall off in value like that it would not happen at the end of a period of time just because TV contracts were up.......it would happen over the life of those contracts and the end of those contracts when they are paying the most would be when ESPN and Fox would be losing the most and ESPN especially had the chance to at least wait until 2015-16 to see how things played out before the signed a long term contract with the Big 12 only to possibly see it lose them more and more money as it nears the end
and Bob Bowlsby (believe him or don't believe him) has said that the Big 12 contracts have escalators in them as the mature
and then there is the fact that ESPN also signed a long term deal with the SEC SEC SEC and Big 12 for the Sugar Bowl for 80 million per year......so again if ESPN had concerns about the declining value of the Big 12 why would they sign a long term deal for 80 million per year with the SEC SEC SEC and Big 12 when they could have signed that deal with the ACC and the SEC and the ACC would have taken that deal unless they are stupid because instead of a deal for 80 million per year divided equally between two fixed conferences for their champions less those that play in the access bowl to meet the ACC signed a 27.5 million deal to meet the next highest team that does not go to the Sugar or Rose Bowl in the Orange Bowl or ND (when there is a chance that the team going to the Orange Bowl could have already played ND in the regular season)
so if ESPN was worried about the long term value of the Big 12 they sure did not show it by renegotiating a contract several years early with no need to and also signing a long term bowl agreement when others were available for that deal and they could have tried to get the Big 12 into a 27.5 million dollar deal to meet the team from the SEC SEC SEC, PAC 12 or Big 10 that does not go to the playoffs or the Sugar or Rose Bowl or ND
but ESPN did none of those things they handed a large amount of money to the Big 12 not one time, but two times for long term deals
All reasonable points and thank you for responding with such a well thought out post. However fox needs content for fs1. They were not going to let the conf fall apart. Same things go for espn. The reason the b12s payout is what it is is because it is ten schools. I am not saying it will be of less value I am saying that it may stay stagnant. If it does will the sec etc be happy with that. The bar was vastly different in 2011 than it is now. The question is strategic. Expansion will be on the table in 2016 IMO as this is the first look in. The question will be the same. Will the value be more with two additional schools. As I have said many factors such as ccg autonomy etc will impact that. By that time it should be settled and we could see what it all looks like. Nobody is moving until then IMO. It wouldn't make sense to do so and I don't think espn would want to. Remember there is an AAC look in as well. What better way to undervalue an existing product than to take away tv markets?
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
I have not seen any reports that the Big 12 contracts have a "look in" and I tend to buy into what Neal Pilson the former president of CBS sports said about "look ins" back when discussing the SEC SEC SEC and A&M and MU
the first thing he basically said was that media companies are not stupid and they are not going to sign a long term contract with guaranteed payouts and then turn around and give the party they signed that deal with a huge opening to try and renegotiate and ask for big new money
that puts all the burden of payment on the media company and it puts no burden of performance over the life of the contract on the conference and if the media company did sign a good deal for themselves it takes most of that reward away potentially while if the signed a bad deal for themselves they are pretty much stuck with it
"look ins" as most believe they are to be are a losing proposition across the board for media companies and they just don't do those things
then another time he commented that A&M in particular and MU as well were not really top tier teams and their value to an SEC SEC SEC media partner was limited......limited because of their overall performance on the field and limited because at some point you only have so many hours in the day to show football games when viewers will be watching and as you add more "content" for the same amount of time the value decreases dramatically......and even if A&M and MU were top teams the SEC SEC SEC and their media partners CBS and ESPN are already paying for Ole' Miss, MSU, KU type football content and paying top prices for it so adding more top content (if it was top content) and paying big new money for it means you are just over paying more for content you already have rights to
and even if one wanted to question Neal Pilson former president of CBS sports and his knowledge of how those things go it is unquestionable that as of today CBS has not renegotiated their contract with the SEC SEC SEC and ESPN has reached an agreement on an SEC SEC SEC network network network, but for some strange reason even though most believe there was a "look in" done at that time the SEC SEC SEC has been uncharacteristically silent on any new money they got for their tier 2 deal with ESPN IF they did get any new money for it....and since the SEC SEC SEC is the leader in talking about media contract value that leads me to believe their "look in" with ESPN was of little or no value up front and it was wrapped into some part of the SEC SEC SEC network network network
on the other hand for the AAC I do believe they actually do have a "look in" because that was publicly discussed immediately upon completion of their contract because the AAC of course had been going through a difficult process, there were questions of the value of the contract and they wanted to publicly state that the were willing to sign a deal now for an amount some feel is low and take their chances to prove themselves and have the opportunity to earn more if they prove they deserve it.....I think that was a wise move on their part and I hope it works out for them, but we will see
so really as of now, the PAC 12 is into a tier 1 and 2 deal that ends in 2023-24 and then their network and so far their network has payed out little money of significance and not near what the wild projections were for it and even the money it has paid out has ????s surrounding it because many of the PAC 12 teams had to buy back media rights to get that network started and they are still paying significant money yearly to buy off those rights.....so the PAC 12 as of now appears to not be a lure for Big 12 teams based on money unless the PAC 12 network turns it around fast and really starts to show a LARGE profit
the SEC SEC SEC is in the middle of deals with CBS and ESPN for tier 1 and tier 2 that end in 2023-24 and as of today there has been nothing to suggest that CBS has paid even a dollar more and there have been no reports of credible new dollars from ESPN for their tier 2 deal only reports of ESPN forming the SEC SEC SEC network network network and many people on the WWW speculating with no proof what so ever that the SEC SEC SEC got some more tier 2 money and then there have been a lot of very wild and unrealistic projections for what the SEC SEC SEC network network network will pay out up to 30 million per team and then there have been much more realistic projections from others all the way down to 1.5 million to 2 million per team per year
so the SEC SEC SEC at that rate does not appear to be a major threat to take TOP Big 12 schools because Texas and OU are there already and probably ahead of that and I am not sure Texas would go there anyway
we know that with the addition of NU to the Big 10 that the Big 10 payouts have DECLINED per team so the idea that adding Maryland and Rutgers and their anemic fan bases will suddenly bump the Big 10 network to huge new dollars when the addition of NU with their massively loyal fan base actually decreases payouts makes the Big 10 "owning the Maryland and NJ/NY markets" and the money predictions highly suspect
and then of course the Big 10 has a first tier deal coming due in 2016-17 along with some basketball and their CCG that have all 3 been sold by the piece (the football, basketball and then the football CCG)......many seem to think that it is a total Big 10 renegotiation including the BTN as well, but the BTN deal goes to 2031-32 and the Big 10 is half owner of it so it is not being renegotiated which again I think few people understand
and based on the current performance of the BTN and the reduced per team payout for adding NU and the wildly inflated PAC 12 network projections that never materialized I am highly skeptical of the BTN getting huge new cable money for Rutgers and Maryland to significantly increase the BTN portion of the conference payout especially with the two new teams
and the Big 10 deals currently are 100 million for the football with ESPN, 12 million from CBS for the basketball and 24.17 million per year from Fox for the CCG for a total of 136,17 million per year
I can see that increasing some, but not a great deal and that is because I think that CCGs are proving to not be all that popular with the fans especially live fans and that has been proven by both the PAC 12 with their on campus format and the Big 10 with their neutral site format because both of those conferences had attendance for their CCGs all years that were lower than the lowest average attendance of each participant that year much less the two of them combined
and I also think that the 3 "properties" on offer will be packaged as one instead of sold individually and it was the Big 10 that was able to take advantage of selling those properties individually as sports programming was booming and as the Big 10 added a CCG after they had a football contract....and I personally feel that we are now in a time when sports programming is leveling off in value instead of climbing even higher
so I feel the combination of those properties being sold as a package and the fact that sports networks are getting tapped out means that the Big 10 might get more money than before, but not massively more money and not near the money that will have them paying out 40 million per team in just a year or two from now
so again the Big 10 might continue to be the leader in conference payouts, but I think their advantage is wildly exaggerated by those that do not understand what the Big 10 will be soon renegotiating and by those that still believe the PAC 12 network will be paying out 10-15 million per team in a year or two and the SEC SEC SEC network network network will be paying out 20-30 million per team in a year or two
and I do not see the ACC as a threat to take any Big 12 teams and their 3 tier media deal end sin 2026-27 and I have seen nothing credible about any "look in" for them or even the phantom 2 million from ESPN for NOT starting an ACc Acc acc network netwo,,, netw..
so only the Big 10 would be a POSSIBLE threat to take a Big 12 team over the next few years and I could be well wrong, but I find even that to be highly suspect especially a top team like UT or OU (if they would take OU)
and I find the likelihood of any other conference to be even more remote as I also find the likelihood that the Big 12 has a "look in" in a year or two for adding teams and getting any appreciable new money for doing so to be remote
/
Step 1 Of B12 Expansion?
