(12-30-2015 01:26 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  To be fair to Louisville's sweetheart deal...UConn Student Fees and State Money subsidized (non allocated revenue) the heck out of UConn's numbers.

Would someone define "sweatheart" deal to me? Because if you pay more to your city for a publicly financed arena for 22 college games , than all but one NBA team (and more than all when naming rights are accounted for), and more than 18 NBA teams COMBINED, I am not sure the term "sweatheart" deal applies. But maybe that is just me?


What's that? Someone was repeating what someone else stated and never bothered to look into themselves? Too bad.

Corbett my eyes are bleeding...LOL

I'm not an accountant...just going by common knowledge that UL rcvd a good deal. The City of Louisville/Jefferson County is a motivated partner. Good for you guys...

The city gets 20 nights a year of 20k folks descending on the area...to capture taxes

(12-30-2015 01:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:58 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  For this reason BYU seems like a no brainer and to give WVU a rival bring in Temple who plays in the Linc and averaged 45,000 this season.

The distance between Morgantown and Philadelphia is 308 miles. The distance between Morgantown and Cincinnati is 309 miles. However, WVU has traditionally been a Mid Atlantic oriented school so something like Temple should/would appeal more to the alums than Cincinnati. Temple is a larger TV market than Cincinnati too.

Using last night's box score to make 20 year decisions is a bad idea.

(12-30-2015 07:58 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 03:15 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  One argument I would make though is, they can't play with 11 teams, as it would require them to go back to an 8 game conference schedule. So with that, I can see the problem.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...but why would they have to go back to 8 game conference schedule?

Two divisions of 6 each...

You can't have two divisions of 6 each if there are 11 teams total.

9 in conference games (per the TV contract) requires 10, 12, 14 (etc.) teams. 11 or 13 teams can play 10 games, or 8 games, but not 9 games.

Yup. It is just mathematically impossible to play 9 conference games with 11 teams, unless one team plays ten conference games. Basically just take the number of teams and multiply them by the number of games played, and divide in half and that is how many conferences there are total league-wide. If your number is not a whole number, you have a problem.

(12-30-2015 12:21 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 09:03 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is not what they told them. They said West Virginia adds the mos t value (keeping in mind Fox only owned the Big 12 cable football contract). And ever after that, there was STILL a debate. It was more or less the biggest compliment UofL could get, that the Big 12's secondary TV partner demanded another team, and several Big 12 (actually at the time a simple majority) schools STILL wanted them, despite the warnings from Fox.

If I am not mistaken, that situation was a large part of what helped UofL get in the ACC, the full overall value that the school brought even past just football, and how Oklahoma and several Big 12 schools still wanted Louisville despite the preverbiol gun to their head to take WVU.

I took your word and Jurich's word last time, but can you show me where the majority of Big12 schools wanted Louisville. All of the factual information I read indicated that the Big12 asked the involved TV networks and were told Louisville added no value.

I never saw anything indicating the majority of Big12 schools wanted Louisville. I do recall that Louisville fans posted on these boards a lot of unfounded and even ridiculous stuff.

I don't really know what you want from me, in regards to something that happened 4 years ago, on a topic that is near impossible to get contemporary info on, unless you already had the info bookmarked.. But I can answer your question with a riddle. The Big 12 was talking to Louisville first before WVU came into the picture. This is a known fact. After both were evaluated, the TV Network (Fox) who had the most at stake (ESPN was neither gaining nor losing a team, plus carried their other sports) told them, much like they did with TCU, that the addition needed to be WVU or the TV contract might have to be reviewed for renegotiation. Taking all of that into consideration, why did it then take the Big 12 3-4 days AFTER being told to take WVU, to make that decision?

No that is not the proof you want (again most of it simply comes from offline conversations, but with Big 12 expansion in the news steadily for the last 5 years, looking for that info is just a waste of time), but that helps paint the picture I am referring to. Some teams STILL had to be convinced to change their mind. I think you can find quotes from Oklahoma's president then and now stating something along those lines, but it's not something I care enough about to try to find, knowing how deep I'd have to look to find anything that is not either about current realignment, possible realignment, or something unrelated.

It is water under the bridge, but it seems some Louisville fans still make claims that are not correct. Louisville was certainly on the Bgi12's radar, however Boren is the only one I recall saying they preferred Louisville. As I recall, it was Louisville and West Virginia and maybe some other names were be thrown around and in a couple of days West Virginia got the invite. Then it came out that the Networks had advised the Big12 that Louisville did not add value and West Virginia was chosen.

To answer your question, I do not think it is unusual for a conference to take 3-4 days make a decision of this nature. I disagree that it was because some teams had to be convinced to change their mind. I have never seen any indication that happened.

The Louisville fan's post that I responded to, said that is was on record that the Big12 AD's were shocked that Louisville was not invited. That is just an example of incorrect info posted by some Louisville fans. BTW I do not include you as one of those fans,

I agree that it is not worth rehashing. I just wish Louisvile fans would let it die.

(12-30-2015 02:36 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Corbett my eyes are bleeding...LOL

I'm not an accountant...just going by common knowledge that UL rcvd a good deal. The City of Louisville/Jefferson County is a motivated partner. Good for you guys...

The city gets 20 nights a year of 20k folks descending on the area...to capture taxes

I can't make it format well on this page. I tried to group columns together that were similar sized, but it would take a lot of formatting to do. Sorry about that.

But to that point, it is not "common knowledge." It was commonly reported. Big difference As someone who used to work in that area, it always appalled me to hear that, because you will find ZERO NBA or NHL teams that would sign up for that deal. Not even a little bit. A sweetheart deal is one that is almost a giveaway. That is not the case here. It was called "sweetheart" by people who have absolutely no context to compare it to (and in the loudest two voice's cases, not only had no context, but a clear agenda to undermine it). That is what is commonly reported. I don't lack the context, and do understand it. So know it if full of ****. How do I know? Because when I was working on an arena deal many years ago where we tried to lure two NBA teams (different city, not Louisville) for a new arena we were going to build (it was never built), I helped put together the proposal package. Okay, well I had some small parts in it, and I saw the entire report. My name appears nowhere on the report, as my parts were minor. But let me just tell you, our deal required no rent to be paid by the tenant, gave them near complete control of the revenues from the arena, and additional income streams from adjacent buildings. We STILL did not have the best deal.

The people who called it sweatheart assumed that because it allowed the university to make a lot of money, and it did not cover the entire debt service, it was sweatheart. But that is not how I works. Generally your primary tenant pays next to nothing in these deals, and the other events pay the debt service. UofL actually pays a fair rent for the dates used. Compared to professional teams, they pay well more than that. Hard to see from the format, but of the 19 NBA arenas built with at least 50% public money, the rent of 14 of paid to the city combined is less that what UofL pays to the city for YUM (I do not have details on NHL teams, only NBA, though I imagine they pay a little more than NBA teams since most are secondary tenants, but nowhere near this amount). * The only part that was a sweetheart deal, was the clause UofL put in about first claim to dates, that more or less meant if an NBA team were to come to Louisville, they would have to negotiate with UofL. Some call it a poison pill, but from UofL's perspective, it was to ensure that if a team came, they don't get to claim revenue from luxury suites and premium seating from their games, and to make it clear they are keeping the revenue from their own events. I can understand why proponents of an NBA team might think that is UofL being vindictive, but all you have to do is look at how revenue is split in other cities who have an NBA/NHL team who shares with a college team, and see why it was done. It was to protect their own money.


Back to YUM specifically, the problem of course when it opened, was the state got involved and wanted the KY State Fair Board to operate it (in exchange for issuing the bonds the city had to pay off), since the state owns the fair board, and they owned other venues who could be harmed by it (Freedom Hall, Louisville Gardens, Commonwealth Convention Center, Broadbent Arena, etc). So what they did was try to book the other venues first, then book YUM, and tried to book it with the same type of events Freedom Hall had, as opposed to the new events available with a state of the art facility. Instead of competing with Indianapolis, St. Louis, Memphis, and Nashville for events in new state of the art facilities, they were trying to book events that normally chose older venues like those in Lexington and Cincinnati. . It was laughably bad. The result was Freedom Hall had record revenue (they no longer had to reserve dates for UofL), and YUM was sitting empty because the operators had no clue what they were doing. So of course it was reported that YUM was struggling, and it was because of UofL's "sweetheart" deal. Then again, those who had no context, were asking for UofL to pay more, because they though it was UofL's fault. I actually sent UofL this spreadsheet (it has a lot more details on it) to use as ammo, which most of the information is sourced by a study from Marquette University. Note I have no idea if they used it or not, but I know Kenny Klein (Sports and information director) was very appreciative of it.

Later the City stepped in, and said we are hiring someone else to operate it, since we pay the bills. They took over management of the facility, and hired professionals to run the show. Almost as soon as that happened, YUM become profitable, and is booked solid.

Anyway sorry to go on a a tangent, but I always get annoyed when people read a headline, repeat it as though it is fact, and never look into it. I would imagine as a Syracuse fan, you know what I am talking about. Either people can be blind, or they truly don't understand how professional sports leagues fleece them. And the sad part is, the NBA (and NHL), for as bad as it looks, their buildings nearly always pay for themselves, because they cost less, and are more useful year round than the other two. Can't say the same for NFL and MLB stadiums.


*Only Houston pays more, but they pay $200k for the right to own the naming rights, and when you account for the $4.7 million per year they get for it, they pay a net rent of less than one million dollars, meaning UofL pays more to their city than all NBA teams. In fairness I will also note that in some of the larger markets, the teams had to pay for and built their own arenas, and while they had infrastructure contributions, and probably some debt service contributions, they mostly pay their own bonds, but also keep the revenue, and own the arena. There were also a couple of arenas where the government paid for the arena's in full, then gave complete ownership over the NBA team owner, basically for free. And others were the city/state built the arena, pay the debt on it, and allow the NBA teams to keep all of the profits. THESE are sweetheart deals. Paying fair rent that allows you to make a lot of money as well, is not.

(12-30-2015 03:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It is water under the bridge, but it seems some Louisville fans still make claims that are not correct. Louisville was certainly on the Bgi12's radar, however Boren is the only one I recall saying they preferred Louisville. As I recall, it was Louisville and West Virginia and maybe some other names were be thrown around and in a couple of days West Virginia got the invite. Then it came out that the Networks had advised the Big12 that Louisville did not add value and West Virginia was chosen.

To answer your question, I do not think it is unusual for a conference to take 3-4 days make a decision of this nature. I disagree that it was because some teams had to be convinced to change their mind. I have never seen any indication that happened.

The Louisville fan's post that I responded to, said that is was on record that the Big12 AD's were shocked that Louisville was not invited. That is just an example of incorrect info posted by some Louisville fans. BTW I do not include you as one of those fans,

I agree that it is not worth rehashing. I just wish Louisvile fans would let it die.

For the record, remember it was not a Louisville fan who brought it up initially: he just responded to someone else’s post. And it is not about letting it die, it is, as Pervis pointed out, correcting the record. Louisville and the Big 12 were talking LONG before WVU was. That is what they dispute, and is really the proof in the pudding. I don’t know about AD’s being surprised, because by that point it was pretty clear what had to happen, but I think saying some or most had a different preference, even at that point, is probably valid.

Now to wrap this up, while it definitely worked out for UofL's benefit, UofL was the team most preferred, and I say that in large part based on the timeline of activities combined with Boren's quotes. The part of the timeline most of them who recant this story never understand, is UofL was never in line to be the tenth team added after TCU. This is where I think most of the confusion comes from, and what makes it hard for some to understand the differences. . When they were in talks, Missouri and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12: Louisville was a team they wanted to add to get back to 12 (the other team was just as much in the air, but they had wanted Pitt who said no, and BYU at that time was believed to be the other leading candidate). At the time the powers at Louisville were lukewarm to the idea (people forget how close, to the outside looking in anyway, it looked like the Big 12 was going to collapse), and the Big East was looking to be in good standing with the (then) expected windfall of a new TV deal. Between that, a conference that covers the geographical footprint most desired, a number fo closer teams, and history, I just don’t think they wanted to make that move. Now, to further show the point, at that time, WVU was still demanding the Big East expand, and when they were not getting what they wanted, were trying to get into the ACC, and later the SEC at that time. WVU and the Big 12 were not on each other’s radar.
If you are looking for a contemporary validation of this, I am almost positive Frank the Tank’s website had this, because he was the first one to ever mention West Virginia as a possibility to the Big 12. At that point, much like UConn to the ACC in 2012 when MD left was thought to be, it was a foregone conclusion Louisville was going to the Big 12. The annoying part is when WVU fans, who have never let the truth get in the way of a good story (note as a group, not individually), constantly say that Mitch McConnell tried to steal their bid, by doing back channel negotiating, when the complete opposite is true.

West Virginia was most certainly the late entry. I can remember the first time I had heard WVU was even involved, was one of the posts Frank the Tank made, and he pointed out that WVU had made some late overtures, and had become a player. We were all like "whaaaaattt?” I mean it is absolute fact. Louisville and the Big 12 had been talking for months, and WVU was actually the one who came in late. Now I do not fault them for that, as UofL more or less did the same thing to UConn with the ACC bid: that is just good business. But it was always laughable when they recreate this idea that the Big 12 approached them, and then UofL tried to snake their bid. It was completely the other way around.
Now this is where I leave what we know happened, and add my opinion on things. As an observer, a few things changed, that altered both Louisville’s position as it relates to the Big 12, AND what the Big 12 needed in a new team. Syracuse and Pitt left to go to the ACC, which made TCU nervous about the future of the Big East, and they quickly took Texas A&M's spot in the Big 12 when offered , at the approval of Fox. Granted they probably take it anyway once offered even if Pitt and Cuse stayed, but that;s the order it happened. TCU was a necessity, both because they could replace Texas A&M the next season, and because TV (and probably other conference members) necessitated another TX team. That they were the hottest team outside the BCS certainly did not hurt.
Missouri and West Virginia were competing for the last spot in the SEC (WVU at this point was not in conversations with the Big 12). This is where you can derive who was the preferred team. The Big 12 never reached out to WVU: WVU came to them. Likewise the Big 12 had reached out to Louisville many months before. But when Missouri left, a lot of things changed. The Big 12 had just lost its three largest non-Texas TV markets. Many thought the Big 12 was going to lose its new TV contract. That TV contract was the ONLY thing holding it together at that point. They had to do whatever it took to keep it. Fox was going to allow them to keep it if they had a say in the next team, and they wanted West Virginia. To many of the AD’s and presidents, I believe based on comments and actions, Louisville was a better fit. But that was for long term, future years. Now the immediate was critical. There was no debate as to who the immediate best option was. That was WVU. They were hot off a BCS game, had been to three BCS games in the past 5 or 6 years, and were a legit contender every year. On top of that, TV told them who to take. However even after that, again this is my observation, the teams that had been trying to add Louisville, they were not ready to just change over because someone else told them to. And it took a few days of convincing. This scenario is why I bring up the 3-4 day part. At that point, WVU should have been rubber stamped in, based on the TV part alone. And they still weren’t. That was why I mentioned it.

So when UofL fans say they were the preferred team, I mean if the conference is talking to one program for 3-4 months about joining, reaches out to you to do so, as compared to another who was also available in the same situation, who they never contracted, that is pretty much the answer to the question. If the Presidents had wanted WVU more, they would have been the first team they reached out to.

Now this part is important: I will not say that Louisville was the team most desired at the moment WVU was added, because the TV pressures forced their hand. That would be career suicide. But I think it is fair to say, based on 3-4 months of activities, if they had their choice, they would have taken Louisville first.

ZZZZZ

(12-30-2015 04:56 PM)constance Wrote:  ZZZZZ

^^This^^

There was never any assumption by Big 12 fans that UL was coming. And there was an article several months after the fact that said the controversy was never about WVU vs. UL. WVU was in. It was about negotiating Missouri's exit deal and about figuring out if they could add UL as an 11th without adding a 12th.

(12-30-2015 01:23 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:35 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  I'm of the mind that the ACC needs to be proactive with one more expansion for aggressiveness and protection and go after UConn & WVU. We don't want the B-12 to get too comfy, and we need to block the Big-10 from trying to claim the NE

TV networks mean a lot to the B1G. When you see what they've done, it's astounding. They took the coast. Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland.

Somehow, the ACC took Pitt, Syracuse and BC. Good schools, Cuse in particular has a lot of support locally and in NYC (though by good support in NY that means basically 1% of the population) but what do they give you? Central NY (I live in Buffalo and no one here cares about Syracuse), Western PA (which actually favors PSU over Pitt), and a small street corner (Coolidge) in Newton, MA.

I think you are being very disingenuous regarding Syracuse support in Buffalo, by saying that no one cares about Syracuse in Buffalo. I live in Rochester and for about 10 years I worked as a manufactures rep and my territory included Buffalo. I used to be in Buffalo at least twice a week. There are a lot of SU fans in Buffalo. I would regularly see folks wearing Syracuse hats and jerseys. Just this past September, I was in Buffalo on my way to Atlanta for a funeral, and I stopped at the Cracker Barrel off the Thruway on Transit Rd. They had a section for Buffalo Bills and a Section for Buffalo Sabres and a section for Syracuse Orange. Nothing else, No jets, or Giants or University of Buffalo gear no Conesus.

(12-30-2015 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 12:22 PM)TempleOwlsRising Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 11:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 10:25 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  Most people on this board know more about realignment than the majority of local sportswriters. They are interested in the sports side and realignment is more of the business side. They just don't pay attention. Its amazing how much incorrect information they will state as fact. There are a few who have some idea. The San Jose writer knows the Pac 12 issues. The Orlando paper has some good articles. Kirk Bohls of Austin, well, most Texas fans think he's clueless about everything, but he is definitely about realignment issues.

With your comments about Temple and still bringing up 20 years ago, you would fit right in with the sportswriters you mention above.

Temple's attendance is a fact. You just don't like it. That makes Temple a huge risk. This was the probably the first year Temple has been over 30,000. The previous best in the last 20 years was 28,859 in 2007. What happens if Temple gets a bad coach and goes back to 2 and 3 win seasons? Do they go back to sub 10k average attendance like they had in those Big East days?

To be upfront, I don't think Temple is a good fit for the Big12. But let's assume for a second that wasn't my opinion.

I think the reason Temple would be considered by the Big12 is because of the Philly market -- having Texas, Oklahoma, etc playing every other year in the corridor between NYC and DC is extremely valuable -- if it weren't, the Big10 wouldn't have added Maryland and Rutgers to try to get a chunk of those areas. If the Big12 ever wants to have its own channel (and that's IF), having the Philly market would be a profitable add. Also playing in Philly is good for both football and basketball recruiting.

That said, there are plenty of reasons not to add Temple. But I do believe Temple is one of the only remaining non-P5 schools that could eventually be profitable for a P5. It's location has so much value -- and if Temple continues to build its football program, it will make a steal for either the ACC or Big12.

I don't think the Philadelphia market makes much sense as an isolated addition to the Big 12. WVU owns their state. Temple is merely a piece of a pro market in an entirely different region than WVU or most of the Big 12. Might at some point make sense for the ACC, but not the Big 12. Much like UConn makes no sense for the Big 12, but might at some point for the Big 10 or ACC.

That depends on the strategy the Big12 takes. If the Big12 wants to create its own channel then nabbing a couple big markets with lots of affiliates is key. That would make Temple very valuable since not only is Philly one of the largest TV markets but one of the most expensive/profitable in terms of ad revenue. Ratings aren't created equal -- that's why you see so many TV shows that intentionally appeal to the east and west coasts as the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and California coasts are MUCH more profitable than the middle of the country. This concept was one of the driving decisions for the Big10s eastward expansion.

That said, I don't think Temple makes sense for the Big12. The only way I could see it making sense is if the Big12 opted to expand strongly to the east and took UConn, Temple, Cinci, and Memphis. That is a move that could make sense if the Big12 wanted to start up its on TV channel, but outside of that, it's not feasible.

(12-30-2015 01:23 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:35 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  I'm of the mind that the ACC needs to be proactive with one more expansion for aggressiveness and protection and go after UConn & WVU. We don't want the B-12 to get too comfy, and we need to block the Big-10 from trying to claim the NE

TV networks mean a lot to the B1G. When you see what they've done, it's astounding. They took the coast. Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland.

Somehow, the ACC took Pitt, Syracuse and BC. Good schools, Cuse in particular has a lot of support locally and in NYC (though by good support in NY that means basically 1% of the population) but what do they give you? Central NY (I live in Buffalo and no one here cares about Syracuse), Western PA (which actually favors PSU over Pitt), and a small street corner (Coolidge) in Newton, MA.

Compare that to 80% of the state of Maryland, 80% of New Jersey, and 80% of Pennsylvania.

The ACC somehow got locked out of the east coast. The only real estate remaining for the ACC is the state of Connecticut and 1% of NYC (UConn related).

This is probably a good reason why ESPN doesn't want to have the ACC network get off the ground. Massachusetts isn't paying for it. New York isn't going to pay for it. And I question whether anyone outside of Western PA will pay for it. Meanwhile, the BTN has locked down all of PA, all of NJ, and all of Maryland.

Where does the UConn controlling 1% of NYC stat come from? I've never understood that.

Just for note, Temple probably has an equal number of our alumni in NYC as UConn. The rest of our alumni are in NJ, Philly, and DC.

(12-30-2015 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was never any assumption by Big 12 fans that UL was coming. And there was an article several months after the fact that said the controversy was never about WVU vs. UL. WVU was in. It was about negotiating Missouri's exit deal and about figuring out if they could add UL as an 11th without adding a 12th.

Hance says otherwise:

quit while your ahead

Plenty of articles out there talking about UofL being vetted by the Big 12.
Don't make me dig up where several Big 12 Presidents/personnel thought/assumed it was Louisville joining the Big 12

(12-30-2015 08:27 PM)TempleOwlsRising Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 01:23 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:35 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  I'm of the mind that the ACC needs to be proactive with one more expansion for aggressiveness and protection and go after UConn & WVU. We don't want the B-12 to get too comfy, and we need to block the Big-10 from trying to claim the NE

TV networks mean a lot to the B1G. When you see what they've done, it's astounding. They took the coast. Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland.

Somehow, the ACC took Pitt, Syracuse and BC. Good schools, Cuse in particular has a lot of support locally and in NYC (though by good support in NY that means basically 1% of the population) but what do they give you? Central NY (I live in Buffalo and no one here cares about Syracuse), Western PA (which actually favors PSU over Pitt), and a small street corner (Coolidge) in Newton, MA.

Compare that to 80% of the state of Maryland, 80% of New Jersey, and 80% of Pennsylvania.

The ACC somehow got locked out of the east coast. The only real estate remaining for the ACC is the state of Connecticut and 1% of NYC (UConn related).

This is probably a good reason why ESPN doesn't want to have the ACC network get off the ground. Massachusetts isn't paying for it. New York isn't going to pay for it. And I question whether anyone outside of Western PA will pay for it. Meanwhile, the BTN has locked down all of PA, all of NJ, and all of Maryland.

Where does the UConn controlling 1% of NYC stat come from? I've never understood that.

Just for note, Temple probably has an equal number of our alumni in NYC as UConn. The rest of our alumni are in NJ, Philly, and DC.

Seriously doubt that Temple has as many alums in New York as UConn. 1/3rd of the state practically works and commutes in NYC. UConn used to own MSG in the BE days. There are 100k+ alums in the city. The 1% I'm referring to is just looking at the ratings and seeing that UConn is typically the most popular team with Syracuse in bball, while Notre Dame and Penn State are the 2 in football. Even the UConn women bball team has been known to pull 4.5 ratings in NYC. And on Sportschannel NY, the women preempt the Syracuse men at times.

Have you ever actually taken a look at the NYC DMA? It includes 1/3rd of Conn. and about 1 million TV homes, which also happen to be the richest demographics in the country.

When SNY bought the rights to UConn tier 1 sports, they raised the per month price from $1.45 to $2.60 per subscriber, they were picked up by 3 additional cable systems to cover the entire state, and they moved off the sports package onto BASIC cable at channel 27 on the biggest systems. This is the major reason why UConn used to make 2x in licensing money as anyone in the old Big East. UConn was at $25m a year. While UConn only received a small chunk of that huge bump in monthly fees from SNY ($2m a year) the shows were produced by IMG who then paid UConn for the licensing rights. And that deal was $10+m.

(12-31-2015 01:04 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  There was never any assumption by Big 12 fans that UL was coming. And there was an article several months after the fact that said the controversy was never about WVU vs. UL. WVU was in. It was about negotiating Missouri's exit deal and about figuring out if they could add UL as an 11th without adding a 12th.

Hance says otherwise:

quit while your ahead

Plenty of articles out there talking about UofL being vetted by the Big 12.
Don't make me dig up where several Big 12 Presidents/personnel thought/assumed it was Louisville joining the Big 12

So AFTER WVU was assumed to be in, Texas Tech's Hance said he preferred Louisville. You haven't shown anything.

I don't remember seeing any Big 12 people saying they assumed it was Louisville.