New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129306111" data-attributes="member: 1459051">No, I perfectly understand the comments. You don't. David Boren explained this himself in his comments.What this means is, if each school gets $20 million now, then by expanding they still get $20 million. No change.Now, here is what you don't understand. That is not encouraging the Big 12 to expand. Why? Because everybody else that expands gets more money. For example, when the ACC expanded with Pitt and Syracuse, the payout went from $13 million to $17 million. The payout increased. Even for mediocre teams like Pitt and Syracuse it increased.The whole point of expanding is to increase the payout. All the other conferences get to increase their payouts when they expand. The Big 12 doesn't. They only get the same payout for expanding. When everybody else gets an increase from expansion, that encourages expansion. When the payout only stays the same, that's not encouraging expansion. If the networks wanted to encourage the Big 12 to expand, then they wouldn't have put in this restrictive clause. They would have let the Big 12 increase their payout like all the other conferences.Regarding the issue of contract law, no sorry, I'm not conceding anything. You aren't going to be able to get around that clause. ESPN and Fox aren't going to remove it. You are just trying to argue on a theoretical point to deflect attention  away from the reality that the clause exists and you just didn't know about it.</blockquote>

Name

Top Bottom