Expansion

[Buckaineer]

Buck, that was just rude and unnecessary. Period. And for the record, the current GOR contract is with a joint venture of ESPN/FoxSports.

You may have misinterpreted what I said or how I said it. It wasn't directed towards you or intended to be rude, just a statement. Not sure what you mean regarding the GOR being a joint venture of ESPN and FOX.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

You may have misinterpreted what I said or how I said it. It wasn't directed towards you or intended to be rude, just a statement. Not sure what you mean regarding the GOR being a joint venture of ESPN and FOX.

Because the broadcast rights for the Big 12 are currently with ESPN and FoxSports. Most games are on some channel of ESPN and others are on FoxSports. Dish Network channel 150.

 

[Buckaineer]

Because the broadcast rights for the Big 12 are currently with ESPN and FoxSports. Most games are on some channel of ESPN and others are on FoxSports. Dish Network channel 150.

Yes, I agree the grant of rights is not only with ESPN, its embedded in the tv contract with FOX AND ESPN. The BIG 12 also has a grant of rights for the "Champions Bowl"--which is played as the Sugar Bowl.

 

[topdecktiger]

Because the broadcast rights for the Big 12 are currently with ESPN and FoxSports. Most games are on some channel of ESPN and others are on FoxSports. Dish Network channel 150.

That's not what the GOR is. The GOR is between the schools and the conference. ESPN and Fox don't have anything to do with it.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Yes, I agree the grant of rights is not only with ESPN, its embedded in the tv contract with FOX AND ESPN. The BIG 12 also has a grant of rights for the "Champions Bowl"--which is played as the Sugar Bowl.

Yes, my only point was that when it comes to merging the LHN with a B12N, all of these entities must come to agreement, including IMG. I'm not saying it can't be done, but each has to realize some advantage to going along with it. Money is of course the great persuader.

 

[Buckaineer]

Yes, my only point was that when it comes to merging the LHN with a B12N, all of these entities must come to agreement, including IMG. I'm not saying it can't be done, but each has to realize some advantage to going along with it. Money is of course the great persuader.

From Boren's comments he seems very pleased with the way such discussion has gone so far. Everyone is listening and researching the matter and no one is closing the door on any possibilities. If it weren't possible then the various parties would not be doing the diligent studies and examination--it would have stopped immediately in its tracks. That everything is progressing towards decisions this summer is very good sign.

 

[Buckaineer]

That's not what the GOR is. The GOR is between the schools and the conference. ESPN and Fox don't have anything to do with it.

Again the gors are embedded in the tv contracts. That's why no one can see them and like the tv contracts for the various conferences, they aren't subject to freedom of information requests. I'm certain the next thing you'll do is present the false document that floated around posing as a BIG 12 grant of rights, but its a phony document. All public documents available from the BIG 12 are on their website--and voila--no GOR agreements to be found, because all of that is private info with the tv contracts which also aren't publicly available.

 

[Buckaineer]

More from Boren on OU's relationship with Texas:

Starting with the OU/Texas relationship. Boren said the entire demeanor of the Big 12 board room has improved.

“Every year, since what we went through not too long ago, the Pac-12 and all the things that happened, the turmoil of other schools leaving the conference, it’s taken awhile for things to kind of settle down,” Boren said. “For people to feel comfortable around the table. I think we’re really getting there. For all the rumors, are we knocking heads with Texas or somebody, I have a very cordial relationship with the president of Texas, the new president (Gregory Fenves), relatively new president, very sharp individual. They have a new athletics director (Mike Perrin). It’s kind of a new regime, although probably my past spats with them have been exaggerated.

“It’s very interesting. A lot of times, the issues are semi-academic. Oklahoma and Texas more often than not are alike in the Big 12. We’re not always at opposite ends of things. We more than likely are in agreement. But I think the cordiality of all of it is getting better. Trust, confidence in each other is getting better.”
http://newsok.com/how-david-boren-f...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The article goes into detail on what the conference is looking at now. Very good info.

 

[MSC_rivals460432]

Feels like we're back in the Big East with Bowlsby leading the way. Please get us out of this nightmare!!!

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Steve, I understand Buck's point of origin here and he is an excellent researcher that backs up his beliefs and predictions with data that appears to corroborate his viewpoint. You seem to be the 'show me' skeptic as far as the future of the Big 12. I understand your points and many of them are well taken. But what I'm not sure about is your core belief in this matter. Do you believe the Big 12 will simply sit on their hands and do nothing until the buzzards arrive in 2025 to feast upon a dead conference? I'm sure it doesn't matter to you what I think, but I believe others here share my curiosity. What do you believe is actually going to happen to the Big 12 based upon the facts and circumstances as you see them?

WOW my core beliefs? I am going to give you way more than you asked for. My expansion beliefs are outlined in the ramblings below. I apologize in advance for miss spellings and grammar issues.

1. Foremost in my thinking the BIG12 has been and remains the most dysfunctional P5 conference. It took Chuck Neinas (maybe the only person the entire conference knew and respected) to save it from itself.
   • Regardless of the kumbaya talks, it still has factions, like Boren, who are willing to air the conference dirty laundry in public. Some on this board think that is a good thing. I happen to think it adds to the instability of the conference.
   • One of the driving factors programs left the BIG12, was the heavy hand Texas wielded plus the additional reveune they make above and beyond other conference members. The LHN and Texas continues that trend
   • Before the ACC grant of rights, the BIG12 had an opportunity to add FSU and Clemson. Texas was totally against it, and used their influence to prevent expansion So instead of adding two eastern powers that would have given the BIG12 2 great conference football division, we are stuck with the possibility of adding the likes of UC, UCONN and UCF.
   • The BIG12 is the only conference that does not include all T1,T2, T3 rights into TV contracts or networks. Again this gives Texas a much greater advantage than any other program and I believe is a causes for resentment if not now then down the road
2. Everyone understand that the TV contacts money for tier 1 and 2 stays the same regardless who is added. The problem is the rest revenue split money is will go down.
   • I can not remember where I read it, but it was stated the only reason the TV $$ stayed the same, was it automatically included the addition of CCG.
   • Assuming the above is correct adding a 10 team CCG brings 2.5 to 3 million per program. Assuming it is not correct there is still a 1/4 of a million reduction in payout.
   • Splitting the CFP money 10 ways instead of 12 adds another 1.3 million per program
   • The BIG12 gets far more teams percentage wise (70%) and as many or more (7) into the dance than any other conference. It isn't likely the number of programs would raise to more than 7 programs a year Despite what Buck thinks. Splitting NCAA BB money 10 was instead of 12 brings more money per program.
   • Adding teams may add more bowl games, but of the lessor variety. It isn't likely the bowls revenue increases above expenses enough to keep the bowl revenue the same.
3. Will the BIG12 sit on their hands and do nothing?
   • No I think they will take a vote, I just don't know what outcome of that vote would be.
   • A 'No' vote does not mean they did nothing, it just means a super majority was not in favor of adding G5 programs.
   • A super majority vote is not relevant if Texas is not willing to give up the LHN.
   • What will Texas demand in order to give up the LHN? If the demand is more revenue for the life then the conference will disintegrate eventually anyway and expansion is not relevant.
   • Last year I believed, if the BIG12 could hold a 10 team CCG, they would stay put for 3-4 years and see what transpired. That opinion has changed a bit with everything hinging on the research and LHN solution
   • Unlike others (not to pick on Buck), I don’t believe it is a slam dunk the BIG12 network is going to bring in enough money to offset other loss of revenue. In just a few short years, we have seen a major Paradigm shift in network TV. Every year ESPN is losing more and more revenue due to cord cutting. Many of the current contracts were signed before the issue became prevalent and is causing the losses. Disney is forcing ESPN to cut 100’s of millions of dollars from its budget. I have to believe Fox is having the same problem. So where is all this BIG12 network revenue going to come from?
   • Assuming revenue figures come back positive, and there is a super majority vote for expansion, there still needs to be a reasonable solution to LHN. Maybe ESPN will help pay Texas off to shut it down
   • Even if the numbers come back positive, ESPN, FOX, or other provider partners have to agree to terms on BIG12N before expansion takes place. You can’t rely on the word of ESPN they will help create a network. Before signing the GOR the ACC went down that path, and now they might not get a real network until the new contracts are signed in 2027.

With all that said, I don’t know what will happen. My dream scenario , is to wait until the ACC contacts nears the end, the BIG poach UNC, GT, UVA, and or DUKE, and help pick of the pieces. That is if the BIG12 does not implode beforehand without expansion.

 

[crazedstatefan]

Greetings Mountaineers. Like you all, I spend too much time thinking about the Big 12 and realignment, considering I am not paid to be doing that. I sent the below email to your President this morning. Thought you all might be interested in the idea.

"I am an Iowa State alum and Cyclone fan who appreciates the huge importance of strengthening and solidifying the Big 12. I think David Boren is right to focus on the Longhorn Network as both a problem and opportunity for the Big 12. It makes sense to me that Texas might be open to changes to the Longhorn Network given the market challenges that network has encountered, as long as Texas is kept financially whole. I'd like to suggest an idea on how the Big 12 could leverage the Longhorn Network, and get West Virginia some neighbors in the Big 12 --

With the Longhorn Network, the Big 12 has an existing, functioning network but lacks population (and cable subscribers) across its territory. The ACC has a ton of population in its territory but lacks a network with any cable deals or infrastructure. I think there is an opportunity for collaboration here.

The solution is an alliance - the Big 24. The ACC would contribute Pitt and Louisville to the Big 12. The Big 12 would contribute Longhorn Network to the ACC. Each conference would be merged for marketing purposes into the Big 24. The Big 24 would be divided into a 12 team Central Division (consisting of the existing Big 12 teams plus Pitt and Louisville) and a 12 team Atlantic Division (consisting of the existing ACC teams minus Pitt and Louisville). After Texas gets a guaranteed $15M in payments from Big 24 Network, remaining Big 24 Network payments would be split equally between all Big 24 schools. However, each division of the Big 24 would keep its existing championships, scheduling arrangements, media and bowl rights deals, and other sources of revenue intact. Thus, except for Big 24 Network payments, revenues would not be shared across divisions. Longer term, an opportunity would exist in 2025 to negotiate Tier 1 and 2 deals as one entity with networks and participate in other profit sharing as agreed. The Pac 12 could be invited to join the alliance in 2025 too, which would add a 12 Pacific Division.

Perhaps a Big 24 Alliance is a pipe dream. But an alliance as I've described could really solidify the long term futures of both conferences, and get West Virginia some neighbors in the conference. Thanks."

 

[topdecktiger]

Again the gors are embedded in the tv contracts. That's why no one can see them and like the tv contracts for the various conferences, they aren't subject to freedom of information requests. I'm certain the next thing you'll do is present the false document that floated around posing as a BIG 12 grant of rights, but its a phony document. All public documents available from the BIG 12 are on their website--and voila--no GOR agreements to be found, because all of that is private info with the tv contracts which also aren't publicly available.

The GORs are not in the TV contracts. You don't understand what they are. The GORs are an agreement between the conference and the individual schools. They bind the rights of the individual schools to the conference. You just made up this idea about the GOR on your own. You don't have anything to base this on.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

WOW my core beliefs? I am going to give you way more than you asked for. My expansion beliefs are outlined in the ramblings below. I apologize in advance for miss spellings and grammar issues.

1. Foremost in my thinking the BIG12 has been and remains the most dysfunctional P5 conference. It took Chuck Neinas (maybe the only person the entire conference knew and respected) to save it from itself.
   • Regardless of the kumbaya talks, it still has factions, like Boren, who are willing to air the conference dirty laundry in public. Some on this board think that is a good thing. I happen to think it adds to the instability of the conference.
   • One of the driving factors programs left the BIG12, was the heavy hand Texas wielded plus the additional reveune they make above and beyond other conference members. The LHN and Texas continues that trend
   • Before the ACC grant of rights, the BIG12 had an opportunity to add FSU and Clemson. Texas was totally against it, and used their influence to prevent expansion So instead of adding two eastern powers that would have given the BIG12 2 great conference football division, we are stuck with the possibility of adding the likes of UC, UCONN and UCF.
   • The BIG12 is the only conference that does not include all T1,T2, T3 rights into TV contracts or networks. Again this gives Texas a much greater advantage than any other program and I believe is a causes for resentment if not now then down the road
2. Everyone understand that the TV contacts money for tier 1 and 2 stays the same regardless who is added. The problem is the rest revenue split money is will go down.
   • I can not remember where I read it, but it was stated the only reason the TV $$ stayed the same, was it automatically included the addition of CCG.
   • Assuming the above is correct adding a 10 team CCG brings 2.5 to 3 million per program. Assuming it is not correct there is still a 1/4 of a million reduction in payout.
   • Splitting the CFP money 10 ways instead of 12 adds another 1.3 million per program
   • The BIG12 gets far more teams percentage wise (70%) and as many or more (7) into the dance than any other conference. It isn't likely the number of programs would raise to more than 7 programs a year Despite what Buck thinks. Splitting NCAA BB money 10 was instead of 12 brings more money per program.
   • Adding teams may add more bowl games, but of the lessor variety. It isn't likely the bowls revenue increases above expenses enough to keep the bowl revenue the same.
3. Will the BIG12 sit on their hands and do nothing?
   • No I think they will take a vote, I just don't know what outcome of that vote would be.
   • A 'No' vote does not mean they did nothing, it just means a super majority was not in favor of adding G5 programs.
   • A super majority vote is not relevant if Texas is not willing to give up the LHN.
   • What will Texas demand in order to give up the LHN? If the demand is more revenue for the life then the conference will disintegrate eventually anyway and expansion is not relevant.
   • Last year I believed, if the BIG12 could hold a 10 team CCG, they would stay put for 3-4 years and see what transpired. That opinion has changed a bit with everything hinging on the research and LHN solution
   • Unlike others (not to pick on Buck), I don’t believe it is a slam dunk the BIG12 network is going to bring in enough money to offset other loss of revenue. In just a few short years, we have seen a major Paradigm shift in network TV. Every year ESPN is losing more and more revenue due to cord cutting. Many of the current contracts were signed before the issue became prevalent and is causing the losses. Disney is forcing ESPN to cut 100’s of millions of dollars from its budget. I have to believe Fox is having the same problem. So where is all this BIG12 network revenue going to come from?
   • Assuming revenue figures come back positive, and there is a super majority vote for expansion, there still needs to be a reasonable solution to LHN. Maybe ESPN will help pay Texas off to shut it down
   • Even if the numbers come back positive, ESPN, FOX, or other provider partners have to agree to terms on BIG12N before expansion takes place. You can’t rely on the word of ESPN they will help create a network. Before signing the GOR the ACC went down that path, and now they might not get a real network until the new contracts are signed in 2027.

With all that said, I don’t know what will happen. My dream scenario , is to wait until the ACC contacts nears the end, the BIG poach UNC, GT, UVA, and or DUKE, and help pick of the pieces. That is if the BIG12 does not implode beforehand without expansion.

Thank you, Steve. I understand you much better now. Buck and you differ in several areas that are not conducive to reaching a consensus, but I believe you would both like to see the Big 12 succeed. He is much more optimistic than you and I guess I'm somewhere in between. I am prone to believe the exact words of Big 12 officials including team presidents, choosing not to guess what they really meant. I understand that both of you adamantly believe in your own conclusions.

I believe whatever happens will be strongly influenced by data received by the networks own consultants, possibly more so than those hired by the Big 12. I'm still optimistic that sometime in late Spring or early Summer an announcement regarding any changes will be made when we least expect it. I cannot even guess what that might be, but it would have to be something that practically guarantees more money for the broadcasters.

I appreciate all of the research and analysis that everyone here invests when arguing a serious viewpoint. ESPN's verbal promises to the ACC prove that if an agreement is not in writing it doesn't exist, much like a verbal commitment by recruits.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The GORs are not in the TV contracts. You don't understand what they are. The GORs are an agreement between the conference and the individual schools. They bind the rights of the individual schools to the conference. You just made up this idea about the GOR on your own. You don't have anything to base this on.

Correct, GOR rights is to the conference not to the networks. However, the TV networks insisted on the GOR before agreeing to the massive new TV deal

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Thank you, Steve. I understand you much better now. Buck and you differ in several areas that are not conducive to reaching a consensus, but I believe you would both like to see the Big 12 succeed. He is much more optimistic than you and I guess I'm somewhere in between. I am prone to believe the exact words of Big 12 officials including team presidents, choosing not to guess what they really meant. I understand that both of you adamantly believe in your own conclusions.

I believe whatever happens will be strongly influenced by data received by the networks own consultants, possibly more so than those hired by the Big 12. I'm still optimistic that sometime in late Spring or early Summer an announcement regarding any changes will be made when we least expect it. I cannot even guess what that might be, but it would have to be something that practically guarantees more money for the broadcasters.

I appreciate all of the research and analysis that everyone here invests when arguing a serious viewpoint. ESPN's verbal promises to the ACC prove that if an agreement is not in writing it doesn't exist, much like a verbal commitment by recruits.

I totally agree, data from the networks will far outweigh data from BIG12 hired consultants. In the end, if ESPN, FOX or others don't see enough value in this age of cord cutting, It is not relevant what the consultants think.
Hopefully the BIG12 is smart enough to sign any type of BIG12N deal until any expansion occurs.

 

[Buckaineer]

Once again on the grant of rights from ESPN when the deal was done:

excerpt:
The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox.

The deal is worth $2.6 billion, an average of $200 million per year and worth $20 million per school, industry sources told ESPN.

The package will run through the 2024-25 school year. ABC/ESPN and Fox will share the league's football inventory, while ABC/ESPN will be the exclusive provider for Big 12 men's basketball.

ESPN spokesperson Josh Krulewitz declined comment.

"The stability of the Big 12 Conference is cemented," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "We are positioned with one of the best media rights arrangements in collegiate sports, providing the conference and its members unprecedented revenue growth, and sports programming over two networks."

The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

 

[Rootmaster]

Since it is about more than football.....Cincinnati will be in and a toss up between Connecticut, USF or UCF. Markets. Markets. Markets. Network. Network. Network. A new conference look in 2018.

 

[Buckaineer]

For those still thinking that this is determined by the networks only--the BIG 12 has look-ins and a composition clause:

excerpt from ESPN when contracts were signed:
ESPN:
I haven't seen the physical TV contract the Big 12 just signed with Fox and ABC/ESPN for $2.6 billion over 13 years, but does it give you the flexibility to renegotiate for more money if you were to expand at some point?

BOWLSBY:
Yes. It certainly accomodates that. It also references departures. That's just good business on our part, and good business on the part of Fox and ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55478/part-2-big-12-commish-bob-bowlsby-qa
Which references the composition clause--and this from CBS on the look ins also described below:
excerpt:

There is a pre-determined "look-in" clause in the contract that is boiler plate in most deals. In fact, it was one of the first agreements reached in the contract six months ago. That look-in, though, does not specifically have to deal with expansion.

And while this segment of this article discusses the SEC, this is the same type of situation the BIG 12 is in with their look ins and composition clauses:

excerpt:
I spoke with network officials and major conference officials about the boiler plate workings of college football contracts. Here's the nutshell version:

A "look-in" basically says both parties can talk about adjusting the deal, but there is no obligation to do so on the broadcast partner's part -- in this case, ESPN. "Look-ins" are the 98-pound weaklings of TV contract clauses.

But an "opener" has more meat on its bones. An "opener" means the broadcast partner must negotiate in good faith. And if a deal can't be struck, then the dispute goes to arbitration.

You lost me. What does this have to do with Texas A&M and the SEC?

The SEC can't go on the open market for its next TV contracts until fiscal 2025. That's a long time to watch other conferences make more money than you. According to several conference officials familiar with such deals, the SEC's best chance of getting more money added to its existing deals (which looked great to the SEC back then, but less great now) is to meet the requirements of its "opener." I haven't seen the contract, but here's guessing the SEC would have to add two more teams to the conference to trigger those good-faith negotiations.

In the business, they're also called "conference composition clauses." If the number of SEC members changes, then so could the existing deal. And one way the SEC changes is if it adds, oh, I don't know, maybe Texas A&M and a 14th team to the league.

http://espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...i_gene&page=wojciechowski-110816&sportCat=ncf

So the end result of all of this is the BIG 12 has tv contracts that guarantee increases to at least pro rata for expansion, its not something that can be denied--only increases above that are in question or debatable:

Both Boren and Bowlsby have confirmed that.

 

[Buckaineer]

Since it is about more than football.....Cincinnati will be in and a toss up between Connecticut, USF or UCF. Markets. Markets. Markets. Network. Network. Network. A new conference look in 2018.

Because academics are of prime concern its very possible UC and UConn would win out. They are the tops in the academic categories and research categories.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Buck, you certainly do your research! I still believe UC and USF receive invites before the year is over. It's all about the TV, the Benjamins and the commitment to football. The lack of a commitment to football hurts UConn big time. JMHO

 

[topdecktiger]

Once again on the grant of rights from ESPN when the deal was done:

excerpt:
The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox.

The deal is worth $2.6 billion, an average of $200 million per year and worth $20 million per school, industry sources told ESPN.

The package will run through the 2024-25 school year. ABC/ESPN and Fox will share the league's football inventory, while ABC/ESPN will be the exclusive provider for Big 12 men's basketball.

ESPN spokesperson Josh Krulewitz declined comment.

"The stability of the Big 12 Conference is cemented," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "We are positioned with one of the best media rights arrangements in collegiate sports, providing the conference and its members unprecedented revenue growth, and sports programming over two networks."

The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

Thank you for proving my point. It says:

if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

The rights remain with the Big 12, not ESPN or Fox.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

For those still thinking that this is determined by the networks only--the BIG 12 has look-ins and a composition clause:

excerpt from ESPN when contracts were signed:
ESPN:
I haven't seen the physical TV contract the Big 12 just signed with Fox and ABC/ESPN for $2.6 billion over 13 years, but does it give you the flexibility to renegotiate for more money if you were to expand at some point?

BOWLSBY:
Yes. It certainly accomodates that. It also references departures. That's just good business on our part, and good business on the part of Fox and ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/55478/part-2-big-12-commish-bob-bowlsby-qa
Which references the composition clause--and this from CBS on the look ins also described below:
excerpt:

There is a pre-determined "look-in" clause in the contract that is boiler plate in most deals. In fact, it was one of the first agreements reached in the contract six months ago. That look-in, though, does not specifically have to deal with expansion.

And while this segment of this article discusses the SEC, this is the same type of situation the BIG 12 is in with their look ins and composition clauses:

excerpt:
I spoke with network officials and major conference officials about the boiler plate workings of college football contracts. Here's the nutshell version:

A "look-in" basically says both parties can talk about adjusting the deal, but there is no obligation to do so on the broadcast partner's part -- in this case, ESPN. "Look-ins" are the 98-pound weaklings of TV contract clauses.

But an "opener" has more meat on its bones. An "opener" means the broadcast partner must negotiate in good faith. And if a deal can't be struck, then the dispute goes to arbitration.

You lost me. What does this have to do with Texas A&M and the SEC?

The SEC can't go on the open market for its next TV contracts until fiscal 2025. That's a long time to watch other conferences make more money than you. According to several conference officials familiar with such deals, the SEC's best chance of getting more money added to its existing deals (which looked great to the SEC back then, but less great now) is to meet the requirements of its "opener." I haven't seen the contract, but here's guessing the SEC would have to add two more teams to the conference to trigger those good-faith negotiations.

In the business, they're also called "conference composition clauses." If the number of SEC members changes, then so could the existing deal. And one way the SEC changes is if it adds, oh, I don't know, maybe Texas A&M and a 14th team to the league.

http://espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...i_gene&page=wojciechowski-110816&sportCat=ncf

So the end result of all of this is the BIG 12 has tv contracts that guarantee increases to at least pro rata for expansion, its not something that can be denied--only increases above that are in question or debatable:

Both Boren and Bowlsby have confirmed that.

Just adding 2 teams is not always going to bring in more money. If that were the case the BIG and SEC would be at 30 teams. The ACC is past its saturation point. Adding more programs will not more money per program? The SEC added Mizzu and T&M. From a SECN standpoint that was a huge win, however CBS did not give the SEC anything near the market value increase.

ESPN over extended itself on contracts when the money was pouring in. Massive cord cutting has stopped that flow of money. Disney is forcing ESPN to slash 100's of million every for several years. You have to assume Fox sports is in the same position. By adding 2 programs, the BIG12 will get pro rata share but they won't get more.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Because academics are of prime concern its very possible UC and UConn would win out. They are the tops in the academic categories and research categories.

UCONN has the edge academically on both programs, but UC is not going to get a nod over UCF because of academics. No school in the country is growing academically faster than UCF. According to 2015 Washington Monthly review University rankings, UCF is ranked 87th with an admission rate of just under 50%. University of Cincinnati is at 176 with an admission acceptance rate of 76%. US News education has UC slightly ahead of UCF. Looking at where UCF started and where they are now, they have the most potential to raise further in academic standings.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Buck, you certainly do your research! I still believe UC and USF receive invites before the year is over. It's all about the TV, the Benjamins and the commitment to football. The lack of a commitment to football hurts UConn big time. JMHO

I think UCF gets the nod over USF.

• Better academics
• Better faculties,
  • USF doesn't even own their own football stadium
  • UCF basketball arena, is a modern palace compared to USF sundome.

 

[Buckaineer]

In the center for world university rankings, Texas is tops in the BIG 12 at #30. Cincinnati is the next closest at #157.
Looking at just the US and including BIG 12 and candidate rankings in the CWUR-http://cwur.org/2015/


30 Texas
157 Cincinnati
184 Houston
187 Iowa State
190 South Florida
196 Kansas
218 Uconn
350 Oklahoma
353 Kansas State
394 UCF
403 BYU
412 OK State
441 WVU
469 Texas Tech
567 Baylor
746 Memphis

In the Carnegie classification of schools with the highest research activity-these schools fit the bill in and out of conference:

Cincinnati
UCF
Uconn
Houston
South Florida
WVU

Oklahoma

Kansas

Texas Tech

Texas

Kansas State

Iowa State

 

[Buckaineer]

Thank you for proving my point. It says:

if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

The rights remain with the Big 12, not ESPN or Fox.

Please, your point was that the GOR is not related to the TV contract whereas I stated the GORs are embedded in the tv contract. It has never been a question whether or not the media rights would remain with the conference or whether the tv contract would remain.

The TV partners PAY the money that is referenced in the grant of rights agreements.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Again the gors are embedded in the tv contracts. That's why no one can see them and like the tv contracts for the various conferences, they aren't subject to freedom of information requests. I'm certain the next thing you'll do is present the false document that floated around posing as a BIG 12 grant of rights, but its a phony document. All public documents available from the BIG 12 are on their website--and voila--no GOR agreements to be found, because all of that is private info with the tv contracts which also aren't publicly available.

That is interesting. I am not saying you are wrong, but I would have assumed any agreement a public institution like WVU enters into is subjected to FOIA. For example WVU's contract with IMG (a TV deal) was subjected to FOIA. Beyond it being impeded in ESPN/FOX agreements why/how would GOR be treated differently.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

That is interesting. I am not saying you are wrong, but I would have assumed any agreement a public institution like WVU enters into is subjected to FOIA. For example WVU's contract with IMG (a TV deal) was subjected to FOIA. Beyond it being impeded in ESPN/FOX agreements why/how would GOR be treated differently.

I think you're right, Steve. But as far as the broadcast contract you're going after the wrong entity. The overall broadcast agreement between the Big 12 Conference and the networks would have to be subject to FOIA and I would guess has been received by those requesting it.

What is not subject to FOIA are the specific agreements between the broadcast partners regarding the Big 12. Wouldn't that be where you hide the details you don't want known? Am I on the right track here?

 

[Buckaineer]

The BIG 12 is a Delaware corporation and not subject to FOIA requests. The contracts are between the corporation and the business entities that are the network partners.

Other conferences are structured similarly-notice we've never seen the actual tv contracts of any conference--just some general pay info when tax documents which are public are released.

WVU's IMG contract (or any other schools for that matter) isn't in public release I don't believe, just some of the details about it. Have to read more to see exactly how its structured (West Virginia Media Holdings handles the tv portion and are not subject to FOIA requests I don't believe) but have never seen the actual contract, just reports of some of the details.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The BIG 12 is a Delaware corporation and not subject to FOIA requests. The contracts are between the corporation and the business entities that are the network partners.

WVU's IMG contract isn't in public release I don't believe, just some of the details about it. Have to read more to see exactly how its structured (West Virginia Media Holdings handles the tv portion and are not subject to FOIA requests I don't believe) but have never seen the actual contract, just reports of some of the details.

I am not a lawyer and I am probably wrong, but WVU signed the GOR, and therefore should be available via FOIA through WVU.

 

[Buckaineer]

I am not a lawyer and I am probably wrong, but WVU signed the GOR, and therefore should be available via FOIA through WVU.

Grant of rights aren't subject to an FOIA and neither are the tv contracts--or else we would have every conferences tv contract online along with the grant of rights of the ACC, Pac 12 and Big 10 along with whatever agreements the SEC has. We'd also see the BTN agreement, Pac network agreements and the SEC network agreement.

Not sure legally how its set up or what things fall under FOIA requests but those things do not.

The Big 12 Conference Board of Directors are the officials that approved the grant of rights.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I am not a lawyer and I am probably wrong, but WVU signed the GOR, and therefore should be available via FOIA through WVU.

I've read the WVU/IMG contract in a pdf file after someone made a FOIA request to the university. I'll try to find it.

 

[Buckaineer]

I've read the WVU/IMG contract in a pdf file after someone made a FOIA request to the university. I'll try to find it.

Would like to see that. I know some of the WV papers referenced seeing the IMG offer previously and listed the details during the court case.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Would like to see that. I know some of the WV papers referenced seeing the IMG offer previously and listed the details during the court case.

It was either the Charleston Gazette or Allan Taylor of MetroNews. I wrote an article about it for B/R and linked to it. (I used to write and edit) I have a lunch date but will have a link to the contract this afternoon.

 

[jtGoldenKnights]

Since it is about more than football.....Cincinnati will be in and a toss up between Connecticut, USF or UCF. Markets. Markets. Markets. Network. Network. Network. A new conference look in 2018.

Being my family is WVU alums, and I'm a UCF alum, I would love UCF to be in the Big12 (not anti WVU I root for them). I feel UCF's potential and tv market raises eyebrows. Also the 2nd biggest school in the nation that has had it highs and lows. 0-12 did not help them at all this season but moving up 2 conferences in 10 years, winning the c-usa or American 3 times and winning the Fiesta proves they can recruit and win in Florida. I understand the Big12 is a different beast but at the same time Florida has stellar recruits. Also having Big12 teams travel, and gain tv exposer, in Florida will just help in recruiting for everyone. I hate how its SEC dominate down here be nice for the Big12 to push them aside some. Obviously I am pro UCF. Go Knights! Go EERS!

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Would like to see that. I know some of the WV papers referenced seeing the IMG offer previously and listed the details during the court case.

Buck, I apologize, I can no longer access the link to the actual contract http://www.dailymail.com/mediafiles/document/2013/07/24/WVU-IMG-Deal_I130724192609.pdf, only a summary of the details. Cassaza has it, but is unlikely to give it up. The contract was definitely supplied to the former Charleston Daily Mail as a result of a FOIA request.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Buck, I apologize, I can no longer access the link to the actual contract http://www.dailymail.com/mediafiles/document/2013/07/24/WVU-IMG-Deal_I130724192609.pdf, only a summary of the details. Cassaza has it, but is unlikely to give it up. The contract was definitely supplied to the former Charleston Daily Mail as a result of a FOIA request.

All Charleston Daily Mail links died when they completed the merger with Gazette.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

All Charleston Daily Mail links died when they completed the merger with Gazette.

I wonder if Keenan or Vernon might have it.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers_rivals]

On the championship game (or lack thereof) Bowlsby says this:

excerpt:
The 13th data point has not gone away as a concern, with CFP selection committee chairman Jeff Long saying that Michigan State's win over Iowa in the Big Ten title game "was significant" in the rankings.

"We have fewer data points," Bowlsby said in an interview this week. "We have 12 and if you play a championship game you have 13 games. It seems to me we have to acknowledge we're somewhat at a disadvantage and that some years we can overcome the disadvantage and some years, perhaps, we won't be able to."

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...-game-hurt-big-12-2015-still-looms-conference

Well, if beating the 4th best team (maybe) in the Big 10 was "significant," the selection committee sure got that one wrong. Hell, there were 5 or 6 teams in the Big 12 that would have beaten Iowa.

I still think the Big 12 has the best model. Every team plays every team, in football and (twice) in basketball. Indeed, a true champion.

Iowa got into the title game because of who it did NOT play. Same thing in SEC, ACC and Pac-12. The schedule determines the playoff teams, and not head to head against everyone.

In basketball, Big 12 schedule against 5 or 6 ranked teams -- twice -- is a perfect crucible to prepare for March Madness. Racking up victories against the weak willies of your conference hardly prepares you for OOC, bowl games or March Madness.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Well, if beating the 4th best team (maybe) in the Big 10 was "significant," the selection committee sure got that one wrong. Hell, there were 5 or 6 teams in the Big 12 that would have beaten Iowa.

I still think the Big 12 has the best model. Every team plays every team, in football and (twice) in basketball. Indeed, a true champion.

Iowa got into the title game because of who it did NOT play. Same thing in SEC, ACC and Pac-12. The schedule determines the playoff teams, and not head to head against everyone.

In basketball, Big 12 schedule against 5 or 6 ranked teams -- twice -- is a perfect crucible to prepare for March Madness. Racking up victories against the weak willies of your conference hardly prepares you for OOC, bowl games or March Madness.

I see it your way, but the playoff selection committee doesn't. When the game effectively belongs to them you have to take advantage of their rules. What else can you do?