(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

(08-01-2016 10:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ECU fan with a UAB logo wants to talk about smarts? The Big XII isn't the Big East. I know because my school was actually a member of the Big East, ECU fans can't say the same. If you think a conference half made up of basketball schools is the same thing as the Big XII then you aren't very smart. The situations are night and day.

Weakest (stablity-wise) of the power football conferences? Check.

Near-death experience in last round of realignment? Check.

Most valuable members exploring exit strategies? Check.
(PAC-16, Oklahoma chasing PAC membership, plus more-or-less serious UT flirtations all over the map. Compare with Syracuse signing with ACC in 2003 and Pitt, WVU, Rutgers flirting all over the map, plus the pre-nup paving the way for a IA/Non-IA divorce).

Conference leadership taking criticism for doing what had to be done to save what was left of the league for a while? Check. (Hybrid, writing the Fox contract to allow the LHN)

The situations may not be exactly the same, but it's not exactly noon and midnight. Maybe late afternoon vs late twilight? In other words, only a matter of time?

Can we agree that Rutgers never really fit in with the culture of the Big East? Which is part of the reason that Rutgers didn't appreciate the Big East and part of the reason that Rutgers fans bug the heck out of me?

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Fox overbid. They paid more for the B package than ESPN paid for the A package.

Is a Texas based conference without Texas and Oklahoma really that much more valuable than an intact American?outside of TCU what other team has shown that they can win and draw ratings on their own in fball. I think it's possible that espn could decide to put the big12 into the old big East's category and start slowly ripping it apart. I feel like the American is starting to be viewed as a growth stock if the big12 will leave it alone. I actually hope Aresco is having some serious discussions along these lines of thinking with them. I've seen this movie before and the big12's a dead conference walking. Espn could hold the AAC together with roughly the same extra money the big12 wants, just throw in a contract bowl and a gor. 13.5mil per with yearly bumps and big12 leftovers

(08-01-2016 11:28 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Fox overbid. They paid more for the B package than ESPN paid for the A package.

1. Fox kinda has to overbid, because having your games on ESPN (or OTA) vs any other basic cable channel is worth something to the schools.
2. Fox got the A package--the CCG, first pick of games. But the split is very close to 50-50. Each week, Fox and ESPN alternate picks. Fox has first pick of what week they pick first, so they can grab the #1 game every year. But I think that's mostly a fig leaf to cover the fact that Fox has to pay more than ESPN for the same package (barring the CCG).

When Keith Olbermann left ESPN the first time, he had ticked off the people who run the network so much that one of ESPN's execs said, "He didn't just burn his bridges here. He napalmed them."

Adding more schools to the Big 12 and expecting ESPN and Fox to "pay up" without getting the networks' blessing as to which schools to add and how many... that would be the Big 12 napalming its bridges to ESPN and Fox.

And as a practical matter, if the Big 12 is going to fully exploit whatever loophole it has to get more money by expanding, then ESPN and Fox can search through the contract and find whatever loopholes would irritate the Big 12. For example, if the contract gives ESPN and Fox the right to choose the starting times for the games they televise, without any early or late limits on starting times, then they could start all of those Big 12 games at 11 am Central time or 9:30 pm Central time. Once the bridges have been burned, or napalmed, then everybody's spirit of cooperation goes away.

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Difference is Michigan and Ohio State were never flirting with other conferences as an escape route.

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Yeah well, tell me when the B12 is as valuable, has as market reach, and is perceived as strong of a football conference as the B10.

(08-01-2016 11:39 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Yeah well, tell me when the B12 is as valuable, has as market reach, and is perceived as strong of a football conference as the B10.

No comparison. Other than two teams that are comparatively valuable (OU and UT), that's it. Big12 has to play ball with their network partners, the B1G doesnt, not as long as someone else is courting them. Who else is courting the Big12?

(08-01-2016 10:54 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, I don't know what leg ESPN/Fox would have to stand on quite frankly here.

Diminished value. It could be argued that by making the suggested additions that the net effect would be the diminishing of value in the Big 12.

while anything can be argued legally it would be extremely difficult for the networks to claim this and actually win it

1. as I stated before the sports business article is factually incorrect the media partners did not "help the Big 12 out in 2010"

the Fox deal was for 10 teams and was signed when it was known the Big 12 might lose more members

It is in-fact true that when the Big 12 lost Colorado and Nebraska, ESPN AND Fox specifically went out of their way to make it known they would still pay the Big 12 the same amount of money they were previously making, even though they lost two teams and a championship game. That was a Big Deal because it allowed Beebe the flexibility to keep the conference afloat until the new contracts were signed. A year or so later they inked the new deal with Fox, and then reworked the (then) ABC deal to make them concurrent, and THOSE contracts were always for a ten team conference (with individual third tier rights withheld for each team).

Now it is wrong to infer that the CURRENT contracts made those same concessions, as they were for a ten team conference, however that is not what was stated. He said the networks helped them out in their time of need, and they did. Had it not been for the them holding the contracts steady, which actually gave the Big 12 more money per team, the Beebe Plan never would have gotten off the ground.

If you have some time you can google and find the information, but with so much new material on the subject in the last year, it would take a while to fish through it.

(08-01-2016 11:32 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Is a Texas based conference without Texas and Oklahoma really that much more valuable than an intact American?outside of TCU what other team has shown that they can win and draw ratings on their own in fball. I think it's possible that espn could decide to put the big12 into the old big East's category and start slowly ripping it apart. I feel like the American is starting to be viewed as a growth stock if the big12 will leave it alone. I actually hope Aresco is having some serious discussions along these lines of thinking with them. I've seen this movie before and the big12's a dead conference walking. Espn could hold the AAC together with roughly the same extra money the big12 wants, just throw in a contract bowl and a gor. 13.5mil per with yearly bumps and big12 leftovers

That conference is still stronger on the field than the AAC. And I say that assuming that in the near future both Baylor and Kansas State will likely revert to their form from ten years ago, leaving TCU and OK State to carry the load. But your question isn't whether they would be stronger, but rather would they be more valuable.

Even then, I would say probably, but not by so much that it would matter a whole lot. I could see somebody paying $50-60 million a year for that Big XII ($6-8 million per school). That's no where near P5 money.

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Yep, ESPN gave a low ball offer and the rest is history.

For this go around it was ESPN trying to pay as little as possible but had to pay up in order to get the rights. Otherwise it would have gone to NBC.

That is for a major conference though and not G5 adds so that is the difference.

(08-01-2016 11:52 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:39 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:17 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:11 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

Once again ESPN didn't/couldn't do anything to the B1G who walked out of a meeting with ESPN then called up Fox and set up the BTN, signed the CCG away to Fox and now made Fox it's #1 partner in this new tv deal.

Yeah well, tell me when the B12 is as valuable, has as market reach, and is perceived as strong of a football conference as the B10.

No comparison. Other than two teams that are comparatively valuable (OU and UT), that's it. Big12 has to play ball with their network partners, the B1G doesnt, not as long as someone else is courting them. Who else is courting the Big12?

I am not sure if the two are comparable. The Big Ten was just playing the game, negotiating for the best deal. The Big 12 did akin to what the SEC did in terms of exploiting the CCG rule, in terms of using a clause for something it was probably not intended for. Without any of us having seen the contract, my guess is during negotiations that clause was put in with the understanding that the networks and league would mutually approve of the teams added, and at some point some of that language was removed or altered from the contract to basically include anyone: the theory was probably that the Big 12 would not seriously consider adding anyone we otherwise wouldn't agree to. Apparently at some point, those positions have changed.

I think also, just a guess, several of the schools in contention were looked at differently then than they are now, because of the P5/G5 separation. 5 years ago, did Cincinnati and UConn (or USF for that matter) really seem on an entirely different plane than WVU, Rutgers, TCU, or Louisville? Or even Pitt and Syracuse? They seemed somewhat comparable at least on the surface. The Big East was looked down upon as a power conference as a whole, but the individual schools were each considered to be okay. That is why 8 of them are now in power conferences and it is not an issue. But now that gap is so wide, the schools that are left, who were considered for both the ACC and Big 12 at one point, now generate this type of response from the networks.

That damn label is killing some of these teams and programs.

Wedge,

Like bullet pointed out in #39 -- is adding Cincy, Houston and BYU really any worse than adding Syracuse, Rutgers or Utah to those contracts??

Something can be worked out. They're not just going to flush valuable, money-making product down the toilet for the next nine years. Compromise, people.

(08-01-2016 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wedge,

Like bullet pointed out in #39 -- is adding Cincy, Houston and BYU really any worse than adding Syracuse, Rutgers or Utah to those contracts??

Something can be worked out. They're not just going to flush valuable, money-making product down the toilet for the next nine years. Compromise, people.

I think UC, Houston and BYU are probably okay. The AAC contract places four teams in a "Group A," being Houston, UConn, UC and Temple. The issue might be team #4. My guess is the networks want UConn as #4 or only 2 adds.

Exercise your options Big 12. They have no idea what the future holds relative to another TV deal years from now
or if teams depart as the GOR expiration approaches.

(08-01-2016 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ECU fan with a UAB logo wants to talk about smarts? The Big XII isn't the Big East. I know because my school was actually a member of the Big East, ECU fans can't say the same. If you think a conference half made up of basketball schools is the same thing as the Big XII then you aren't very smart. The situations are night and day.

Weakest (stablity-wise) of the power football conferences? Check.

Near-death experience in last round of realignment? Check.

Most valuable members exploring exit strategies? Check.
(PAC-16, Oklahoma chasing PAC membership, plus more-or-less serious UT flirtations all over the map. Compare with Syracuse signing with ACC in 2003 and Pitt, WVU, Rutgers flirting all over the map, plus the pre-nup paving the way for a IA/Non-IA divorce).

Conference leadership taking criticism for doing what had to be done to save what was left of the league for a while? Check. (Hybrid, writing the Fox contract to allow the LHN)

The situations may not be exactly the same, but it's not exactly noon and midnight. Maybe late afternoon vs late twilight? In other words, only a matter of time?

Can we agree that Rutgers never really fit in with the culture of the Big East? Which is part of the reason that Rutgers didn't appreciate the Big East and part of the reason that Rutgers fans bug the heck out of me?

No; Miami, Virginia Tech and WVU didn't fit the culture of the Big East. We appreciated the Big East, we weren't the ones out there publicly lobbying to join the ACC like every other school. We at least had some class when dealing with the deterioration of the Fb side of the conference. Remember how Cuse & Pitt did it? Trangesse found out about it from a reporter the day Dave Gavitt died. After they both told the conference they were trying to keep everyone together, AFTER Pitt led the charge to turn down the ESPN deal. Louisville and WVU openly fighting for a spot in the Big XII. Lousville and UConn fighting for a spot in the ACC. Cuse trying to leave in 2003 and getting screwed out of that spot by VT.

Us not being great in sports doesn't mean we didn't fit and that we didn't appreciate the conference. Being a St. John's fan you'd know what it's like struggling athletically.

(08-01-2016 12:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ECU fan with a UAB logo wants to talk about smarts? The Big XII isn't the Big East. I know because my school was actually a member of the Big East, ECU fans can't say the same. If you think a conference half made up of basketball schools is the same thing as the Big XII then you aren't very smart. The situations are night and day.

Weakest (stablity-wise) of the power football conferences? Check.

Near-death experience in last round of realignment? Check.

Most valuable members exploring exit strategies? Check.
(PAC-16, Oklahoma chasing PAC membership, plus more-or-less serious UT flirtations all over the map. Compare with Syracuse signing with ACC in 2003 and Pitt, WVU, Rutgers flirting all over the map, plus the pre-nup paving the way for a IA/Non-IA divorce).

Conference leadership taking criticism for doing what had to be done to save what was left of the league for a while? Check. (Hybrid, writing the Fox contract to allow the LHN)

The situations may not be exactly the same, but it's not exactly noon and midnight. Maybe late afternoon vs late twilight? In other words, only a matter of time?

Can we agree that Rutgers never really fit in with the culture of the Big East? Which is part of the reason that Rutgers didn't appreciate the Big East and part of the reason that Rutgers fans bug the heck out of me?

No; Miami, Virginia Tech and WVU didn't fit the culture of the Big East. We appreciated the Big East, we weren't the ones out there publicly lobbying to join the ACC like every other school. We at least had some class when dealing with the deterioration of the Fb side of the conference. Remember how Cuse & Pitt did it? Trangesse found out about it from a reporter the day Dave Gavitt died. After they both told the conference they were trying to keep everyone together, AFTER Pitt led the charge to turn down the ESPN deal. Louisville and WVU openly fighting for a spot in the Big XII. Lousville and UConn fighting for a spot in the ACC. Cuse trying to leave in 2003 and getting screwed out of that spot by VT.

Us not being great in sports doesn't mean we didn't fit and that we didn't appreciate the conference. Being a St. John's fan you'd know what it's like struggling athletically.

Pitt sent an internal letter to the Big East membership a year prior to the ACC invite to inform the Big East and its members that they would be exploring options to leave given the opportunity. Everyone knew what was up. Heck, Pitt was actively engaged in talks with the B12...trying to take WVU and RU/Louisville with it as a package, for weeks prior to when the ACC invite came. The timing of the official ACC invite was out of the blue, but not the idea that the football schools would bolt at the first reasonable opportunity, thanks largely to the internal rift caused by the Villanova fiasco. Everyone knew the conference was going to loose membership if other BCS conferences expanded. But until then, you work to make it as good as possible, which is why Pitt brought TCU on board.

Rutgers had been talking to other conferences for years, and to both Pitt and WVU about leaving. It was out lobbying to leave, just like everyone else. And Pitt actually lobbied for the ACC to take Rutgers and WVU once Pitt got its invite.

Well Ken D are they better on the field because of something they accomplished in their own right or because of the p5 label. Right now Memphis and UH have top25 recruiting classes. The Florida twins practically recruit on a p5 level also and you can't overlook temple. From a TV execs point of view is a big12 without Texas and Oklahoma and small markets more valuable than the American? From a bball point of view is the AAC as good with Memphis, Cincinnati, Uconn, SMU, Temple, and a rising Houston as oklst, kstate,ttech,istate,Kansas?

(08-01-2016 11:32 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Is a Texas based conference without Texas and Oklahoma really that much more valuable than an intact American?outside of TCU what other team has shown that they can win and draw ratings on their own in fball. I think it's possible that espn could decide to put the big12 into the old big East's category and start slowly ripping it apart. I feel like the American is starting to be viewed as a growth stock if the big12 will leave it alone. I actually hope Aresco is having some serious discussions along these lines of thinking with them. I've seen this movie before and the big12's a dead conference walking. Espn could hold the AAC together with roughly the same extra money the big12 wants, just throw in a contract bowl and a gor. 13.5mil per with yearly bumps and big12 leftovers

ESPN isn;t the only player in the game anymore. ESPN controls the ACC and SEC. Thats it! OU and UT could easily end up in the B1G or Pac and those could easily end up firmly in Fox's control. Their deals run out before the Big XII's. ESPN isn;t going to make the AAC a P5 conference just to save few bucks. You give those guys waaaaaay too much credit and power.