The Big 12/Bowlsby tried working with ESPN last year to start a new TV contract early but ESPN wouldn't negotiate it. Right after that the whole OU/Texas announcement came out... These TV deals almost always get renegotiated a year or two out...
Big 12/ Pac 12 Merger (keep all the teams)
- Thread starter HawaiiClone
- Start date
The Big 12/Bowlsby tried working with ESPN last year to start a new TV contract early but ESPN wouldn't negotiate it. Right after that the whole OU/Texas announcement came out... These TV deals almost always get renegotiated a year or two out...
The ASU president and his band of ass-kissers are a unique breed. I can see him poo pooing the B12, even though he spent time at ISU. They fancy themselves as above nearly everyone.
I haven't heard anything of the sort, however, aside from here.
Everyone is on board with the 'mountain 4' have we actually seen that all 4 keep payouts same or improve them?
I haven't heard anything of the sort, however, aside from here.
Everyone is on board with the 'mountain 4' have we actually seen that all 4 keep payouts same or improve them?
The negotiations start early, but the existing contract stays in place.
That's why the Big10 is finalizing their contract this summer and it will go in effect when their current agreement ends June 30, 2023.
Bowlsby was trying to get ahead of the the Big10 negotiations. Little did he know what was going on behind the scenes with Texas/OU & ESPN. But if ESPN had been interested, it would have been an extension to the current contract which ends June 30, 2025.
Maybe he deliberately took the names of ISU and Cincy as both football programs got hugely sucessful in recent years which he cannot digest and hates the fact that Matt Campbell and Luke Fickell chose to stay and build their respected programs.
I say somewhat close, at least when coming as a group they would. As a single school no. But by coming as a group of 4+ it would essentially eliminate the Pac from contention for media $ thus increasing the value of said schools.
Arizona is probably the least valuable of the 4 corners but taking them as a package is probably ok, especially with the slight bump their Basketball would give. Being in a somewhat regional area with the 4 corners and our other SW schools helps too.
Wazzu, OrSt, Cal, and Stan dont have a lot of positives to give any kind of bump. And their value is just too low to be worth taking as well as their adversity to any attachment to any Big 12 or really any other conferences East of the Rockies.
I think value wise its:
- Oregon
- Washington
- Utah
- Stanford...but has other issues
- Arizona St
- Colorado
- Arizona
- Washington St
- Cal
- Oregon St
Stanford and AZst are probably about equal in value, but Stan obviously have much more academic value, but has a host of other issues as far as political and social issues that make them not want to associate with anyone.
Colorado and Arizona are probably also about equal, and probably below the value of the Big 12 but get a bump as a package, etc. That makes them equal or close to it.
Wazzu, cal and Oregon st are all well below in value, with wazzu bein slightly ahead of the bottom 2.
At least that is my opinion, which I think has stayed mostly the same although I think I have given Stanford a bump in value recently. Stanford could go up and down for me in perception, somedays I think they are more valuable others not so much. Today I give them a bump.
New members dont get full revenue. The new 4 wont get full share for a set number of years, they gradually are brought up to full share. I read how long somewhere, but cant remember where. There was a article about it, where someone was questioning could the Pac schools be added at full share now and not anger the 4 other recent adds considering they dont get a full share for X number of years.
Yeah I'm wee aware with how that works but they will eventually be full share embers. The Big 12 isn't going back to not sharing revenue.
The theorizing here is all great. At the end of the day, I’m preparing to simply expect the unexpected. The final conference realignment will likely not be any of our theories. But I hope ISU is able to continue to show that it can compete with the best.
Perhaps another question to ponder is, what product could remaining teams from the Big 12, Pac 10, ACC create to rival the SEC and B10? Talent will simply not be equal. Just spitballing. Maybe some type of internal championship or cross-conference ranking for new bowl games? Transformation is typically major- let’s get out of thinking that a 3rd conference is the ideal end-state. It would still be competing for that 3rd or 4th CFP spot if that still even exists as it does today. Maybe there’s a completely new strategy that creates a just as entertaining and competitive product. I don’t know guys. What could the unexpected look like?
Well, depends on what you mean. Our unequal revenue was because of our 3rd tier. Our 3rd tier is still negotiated separately. Although 8 of the schools have a deal with ESPN+, it is still separate. I am not sure that the 4 new adds have that agreement, and I cant remember off the top of my head when that contract ends. It will depend on our new contract if they roll tier 3 into the rest of the media rights or keep them separate on how those are handled.
Otherwise, the new members will have a partial share for a set number of years as agreed upon. Whether that changes with any new adds we will see.
Sure, but a P2 team at 10-2 probably would be selected over a 11-1 Big 12, or a 12-0 MWC team. We Might get an automatic conference champion under current environment, but almost all other non-P2 teams have to go undefeated to be even under consideration.
If the Big12 adds Pac12 schools, my bet is they will negotiate a full share. If the 4 that joined last summer aren't happy, so be it. The Big12 leadership would be silly not to offer Utah, ASU, etc. full shares. Especially, if their coming on board is accretive to Big12 TV $/school/year.
If the elitists at Utah need a full share immediately to pretend they are still better than BYU then we should do it. It’s in our best interests. I also don’t care if it runs Houston or UCF the wrong way. They agreed to a deal last year; we are making a different deal this year. No one is going back on whatever deals were signed.
If Houston and UCF have a problem with it, I'm happy to let them back out of the deal and stay where they are.
Plus it's different....P12 teams coming from a different contract than the AAC teams in terms of $. New4 are all getting a big increase so even the initial amount is an increase
That is one thing I am not going to speculate on. I personally dont care how those types of deals work out, as long as they do. Those things are why those people get the big bucks to work out.
Someone may know exactly what the arrangement is for those added last year, in how long they have to wait for full share etc.
Honestly if 6 teams from the Pac come to the big 12, would they call it a merger, similar to when the SWC merged with the Big 8? That way they could justify giving those full share as merged partners, even though not everyone was merged, as not everyone was merged in the SWC.
In that case they would just call it a merger, and all merged parties get full share, and those added last year would still be new members. I would think that could be the case especially if teams like Stan and Cal do their own thing, and Wazzu and OrSt go to the MWC. As long as there is no longer a PAC 12, and the majority of teams merged with the Big 12.
Screw Utah, here is the deal, take it or leave it. If they think the B10 is going to offer them a slot, let them at it. It's a fool's errand, leave them on the sinking ship.
Agree. The minute we start giving certain members preferential treatment, we return to all the problems which broke the Big 12 apart to begin with.
I would not give just Utah anything above Arizona, ASU, Colorado, but if treating them better than UCF and Houston seals the deal, then I’m cool with it. Last year’s adds will eventually get up to a full share anyway.
So then if Oklahoma and Texas said they'd stay in the Big 12 as long as they receive more than their fair share of the annual media payout, would you be okay with that too?
We've seen what preferential treatment for certain member institutions has done to the Big 12 over the last few decades. The key to long term stability is treating all members equally. Don't need any more Texas type prima Donas in the Big 12.
