(06-29-2012 10:18 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 08:37 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 08:02 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  There is no way losing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri and Colorado, then adding TCU and WVU will increase the TV contract as much as some are claiming.

Why is the contract not signed? Maybe it won't be that high unless they can get ND, FSU or others.

The report the SBJ released was for 10 schools.

Here is how the money works for the Big 12-

Old fox extension (signed 2007) was crap. 1.67 mm per school and a couple of years later the BTN reset the market and the SEC tier 2 got 5 times the amount on the SEC's way to 17.2mm per school. ESPN's deal payed us 5mm per school (60mm split 12 ways) and SEC's CBS deal payed them 6mm per school. Not hard to see which tv deal held us up.

2010 defections happen as a result of Mizzou opening their mouth about the Big Ten (which made CU look, Pac reaches out to UT-OU-OSU-TT-ATM, which caused NU to reach out to Delany, etc)

Fox and ESPN promise to pay their full amounts for the remaining ten as they realize that (a) Fox underpaid BIG time and (b) CU added little actual value in a pro state and underperforming fb & mbb.

From a 2010 article- http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...for-big-12
"Despite losing two teams, the Big 12 retains much of its revenue-generating capacity, according to the report, because Colorado was an underperformer. The league lost only 8.6 percent of its value with Nebraska's departure."

So looking back to prior to the 2007 extension- the Big 12 was getting roughly 90% of what the SEC had. Losing 8.6% of your value really didn't hurt it enough to devalue it like you assume has happened.

So what effect did losing A&M and MU have? With A&M you lost a program that didn't lose you much if any in league footprint but does lose value in cross promotion as they would watch other Big 12 games because A&M was here.

With MU... they add tv sets to the footprint but other than getting preferential local coverage slots on regional coverage maps they were in a word... meh. We don't have a league network to charge subscriber fees for so that footprint matters less than it would for the B1G.

So where do TCU and WVU fit in? TCU gets us a BCS buster media darling that will likely be good more often than A&M was. They lack the rivalry with UT that the aggies have but other than that one game it's pretty equal. Due to their BCS buster history they actually rate better nationally than the aggies when the opposite is true regionally. We lost a little value here but not a ton since our four schools deliver pretty much all of Texas with UT doing the heavy lifting.

So how does WVU compare to Mizzou? WVU has a better football brand with their recent BCS bowl games and has much more national attention. The SEC took Mizzou due to the tv footprint for their new network which WVU doesn't help with very much. WVU is better for a Tier 1 and 2 contract, MU helps much more with tier 3. The Big 12 has no tier 3 network so it was a beneficial trade.

The end result is the Big 12 still has over 90% of it's original value which historically has payed out more than the ACC. CU & MU were not heavyweight losses, UT-TT-TCU-BU helps minimize the A&M hit, and NU is the only serious loss and we had an 8.6% valuation on them.

So the league is still very valuable. Much of the payout increase was the Fox deal simply catching up with the market at large when it jumped from 1.66 to 9mm per school annually. After that having an ESPN deal signed 5 years ago that paid 5mm per school jump to 10mm when it has the first pick of games from a league sure to have teams competing for titles every year is not far fetched at all.

It isn't that WVU and TCU are worth the whole increase- it's that the league is finally being paid the fair market rate.

Good post however: TAMU and Mizzou>>>TCU or WVU in national drawing power. The SEC not stoopid.

Um no. TAMU and Mizzou tv market size > WVU and TCU, but not national drawing power. Not surprised an ACC fan would have trouble with this concept.

Hate to break this to you but Pitt is a much higher National Draw than WVU.

(06-29-2012 10:20 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:18 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 08:37 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 08:02 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  There is no way losing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri and Colorado, then adding TCU and WVU will increase the TV contract as much as some are claiming.

Why is the contract not signed? Maybe it won't be that high unless they can get ND, FSU or others.

The report the SBJ released was for 10 schools.

Here is how the money works for the Big 12-

Old fox extension (signed 2007) was crap. 1.67 mm per school and a couple of years later the BTN reset the market and the SEC tier 2 got 5 times the amount on the SEC's way to 17.2mm per school. ESPN's deal payed us 5mm per school (60mm split 12 ways) and SEC's CBS deal payed them 6mm per school. Not hard to see which tv deal held us up.

2010 defections happen as a result of Mizzou opening their mouth about the Big Ten (which made CU look, Pac reaches out to UT-OU-OSU-TT-ATM, which caused NU to reach out to Delany, etc)

Fox and ESPN promise to pay their full amounts for the remaining ten as they realize that (a) Fox underpaid BIG time and (b) CU added little actual value in a pro state and underperforming fb & mbb.

From a 2010 article- http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...for-big-12
"Despite losing two teams, the Big 12 retains much of its revenue-generating capacity, according to the report, because Colorado was an underperformer. The league lost only 8.6 percent of its value with Nebraska's departure."

So looking back to prior to the 2007 extension- the Big 12 was getting roughly 90% of what the SEC had. Losing 8.6% of your value really didn't hurt it enough to devalue it like you assume has happened.

So what effect did losing A&M and MU have? With A&M you lost a program that didn't lose you much if any in league footprint but does lose value in cross promotion as they would watch other Big 12 games because A&M was here.

With MU... they add tv sets to the footprint but other than getting preferential local coverage slots on regional coverage maps they were in a word... meh. We don't have a league network to charge subscriber fees for so that footprint matters less than it would for the B1G.

So where do TCU and WVU fit in? TCU gets us a BCS buster media darling that will likely be good more often than A&M was. They lack the rivalry with UT that the aggies have but other than that one game it's pretty equal. Due to their BCS buster history they actually rate better nationally than the aggies when the opposite is true regionally. We lost a little value here but not a ton since our four schools deliver pretty much all of Texas with UT doing the heavy lifting.

So how does WVU compare to Mizzou? WVU has a better football brand with their recent BCS bowl games and has much more national attention. The SEC took Mizzou due to the tv footprint for their new network which WVU doesn't help with very much. WVU is better for a Tier 1 and 2 contract, MU helps much more with tier 3. The Big 12 has no tier 3 network so it was a beneficial trade.

The end result is the Big 12 still has over 90% of it's original value which historically has payed out more than the ACC. CU & MU were not heavyweight losses, UT-TT-TCU-BU helps minimize the A&M hit, and NU is the only serious loss and we had an 8.6% valuation on them.

So the league is still very valuable. Much of the payout increase was the Fox deal simply catching up with the market at large when it jumped from 1.66 to 9mm per school annually. After that having an ESPN deal signed 5 years ago that paid 5mm per school jump to 10mm when it has the first pick of games from a league sure to have teams competing for titles every year is not far fetched at all.

It isn't that WVU and TCU are worth the whole increase- it's that the league is finally being paid the fair market rate.

Good post however: TAMU and Mizzou>>>TCU or WVU in national drawing power. The SEC not stoopid.

Um no. TAMU and Mizzou tv market size > WVU and TCU, but not national drawing power. Not surprised an ACC fan would have trouble with this concept.

Hate to break this to you but Pitt is a much higher National Draw than WVU.

I believe that is true on the same planet that Tulane & UL are in the Big 12, unfortunately for you, that planet is not earth.

(06-29-2012 10:20 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but Pitt is a much higher National Draw than WVU.

If Pitt would ever sell out their stadium, I might believe this. But we shall see how much the nation values Pitt once they enter the Big XII, without their main long time rival...

(06-29-2012 10:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:20 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but Pitt is a much higher National Draw than WVU.

If Pitt would ever sell out their stadium, I might believe this. But we shall see how much the nation values Pitt once they enter the Big XII, without their main long time rival...

I bet curtis will come back with some avg attendance numbers for Pitt now, which will be funny because, 1) Pitt counts tix sold, not butts in seats like WVU, and 2) Pitt sells the majority of their tix for peanuts or gives them away to the local homeless shelters (still counting as sold because of the charitable deduction, also see the $99/season ticket special going on now and last year's $0.01 Stubhub prices for an idea of the value of a Pitt ticket).

And what does home attendance have to do with National TV draw?

This is a way too popular WVU stance. Means absolutely nothing.

WVU should not be to hard on PITT. MPS im sure reduced capacity some years ago. Plus PITT does have to compete in a pro market which they have done well. Yes I too have been hard on PITT when it comes to attendance but the fact is they are in a pro market. They have several national titles in football to boast about even though its been awhile.

(06-29-2012 10:43 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  And what does home attendance have to do with National TV draw?

This is a way too popular WVU stance. Means absolutely nothing.

The TV ratings of the games in the upcoming season should tell us something. Don't you think?

Want to guess which team gets watched by more of the nation?

(06-29-2012 10:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:43 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  And what does home attendance have to do with National TV draw?

This is a way too popular WVU stance. Means absolutely nothing.

The TV ratings of the games in the upcoming season should tell us something. Don't you think?

Want to guess which team gets watched by more of the nation?

Let's wait until Pitt gets in the ACC. The Pitt Schedule this year is horrible with the loss of TCU and WVU, that are replaced with Gardner Webb and Temple.

And yes, the Pitt-WVU game helped both schools in TV ratings.

(06-29-2012 10:40 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:20 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but Pitt is a much higher National Draw than WVU.

If Pitt would ever sell out their stadium, I might believe this. But we shall see how much the nation values Pitt once they enter the Big XII, without their main long time rival...

I bet curtis will come back with some avg attendance numbers for Pitt now, which will be funny because, 1) Pitt counts tix sold, not butts in seats like WVU, and 2) Pitt sells the majority of their tix for peanuts or gives them away to the local homeless shelters (still counting as sold because of the charitable deduction, also see the $99/season ticket special going on now and last year's $0.01 Stubhub prices for an idea of the value of a Pitt ticket).

SMH at this ignorant statement...

(06-29-2012 11:04 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:40 AM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 10:20 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but Pitt is a much higher National Draw than WVU.

If Pitt would ever sell out their stadium, I might believe this. But we shall see how much the nation values Pitt once they enter the Big XII, without their main long time rival...

I bet curtis will come back with some avg attendance numbers for Pitt now, which will be funny because, 1) Pitt counts tix sold, not butts in seats like WVU, and 2) Pitt sells the majority of their tix for peanuts or gives them away to the local homeless shelters (still counting as sold because of the charitable deduction, also see the $99/season ticket special going on now and last year's $0.01 Stubhub prices for an idea of the value of a Pitt ticket).

SMH at this ignorant statement...

Truth hurts. I live here, I'm not ignorant of Pitt's ticketing tomfoolery.

When Pitt gets back to winning, there will be no problem selling tickets.

(06-29-2012 11:06 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  When Pitt gets back to winning, there will be no problem selling tickets.

We've been waiting 30 years, shouldn't be much longer then...

Pitt should be in good shape if they keep Chryst for the long haul. So should WVU if Holgorsen doesn't get drunk and pee on a coed or something.

(06-29-2012 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Pitt should be in good shape if they keep Chryst for the long haul. So should WVU if Holgorsen doesn't get drunk and pee on a coed or something.

Haha, true.

If Holgorsen gets drunk, he'll probably be with Huggs. So he can crash at Bobby's place...

Hey, I love the Pitt-WVU rivalry. I hope it can continue in the future. How many heated rivalries are there now days.

(06-29-2012 12:02 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Hey, I love the Pitt-WVU rivalry. I hope it can continue in the future. How many heated rivalries are there now days.

I love the BYB as well. Totally a kick in the nads this is going away.

I hope Pitt is able to rebuild their program in the ACC, especially now that we have scheduled against them. We love to play against schools in your area for recruiting purposes.

Still though, I would have to say WVU is more likely the bigger national draw. I know I personally would tune in a WVU game before a Pitt game unless it is the Iowa vs Pitt game.

WVU had some spectacular games last year and its looking to be even better this year for them. They have a fun offense to watch. Their defense.....well their defense makes games exciting too.

I think WVU's defense is going to surprise people, He1nous. The Mountaineers have speed all over. It's not just on offense...