Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC

DeereClone

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2009
8,281
9,647
113
- Let OU/Tex walk
- Propose what we offered OU/TEX (1.5 shares immediately), highlight easier path to playoff to (looking for 2 or 4):
  • USC
  • Oregon
  • ND
  • A&M
  • Any other worthy college of your choice
- Fight legal battle to say GOR has been changed with TEX/OU leaving and look to renegotiate TV rights with new teams.

Some school(s) may appreciate what OU/TEX didn't.

The Big 12 as a power conference is over and any of those schools would be fools to join.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,641
6,846
113
62
Why would teams brought into the BIG get a full payout share right away? Nebraska took 7 years to get there. From Daily Nebraskan, May 2017:

"When Nebraska joined the Big Ten in 2011, it received $14 million. From there, it increased to $15.4 million in the second year, then $16.9 million, $18.7 million and $22 million last year, according to the Omaha World-Herald.


Finally, Nebraska will see the full benefits of leaving the Big 12 Conference, but those initial payouts were still an improvement over the Big 12’s $9 million in 2010."

Big 12 teams have already indicated they will take $33-34 million and any team to the BIG would probably get less.
They wouldn't the payout to getting a full share would be 4 to 6 years. Maryland owes the Big 10 140 million they borrowed against their future earnings to pay off the fees to get out of the ACC and to clear up the debt the owed. Its going to be years before Maryland gets a full share.
 

hawkfan

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,508
39
48
Except for the fact that they're all a thousand miles away

That's why you don't add just one school - bring 5 so they have some geographic rivals and shorter trips. The P12 is already massively spread out geographically - no one is driving from Salt Lake City to Eugene. Other than in state rivals they're flying everywhere already. I think football is eventually going to just break away, at which point non-revenue sport travel won't be a factor.

If a conference like the American can make that geography work with 1/7th the budget of the B10, I don't really think geography is an issue.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cyclonehomer

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
61,856
56,497
113
Not exactly sure.
Why would teams brought into the BIG get a full payout share right away? Nebraska took 7 years to get there. From Daily Nebraskan, May 2017:

"When Nebraska joined the Big Ten in 2011, it received $14 million. From there, it increased to $15.4 million in the second year, then $16.9 million, $18.7 million and $22 million last year, according to the Omaha World-Herald.


Finally, Nebraska will see the full benefits of leaving the Big 12 Conference, but those initial payouts were still an improvement over the Big 12’s $9 million in 2010."

Big 12 teams have already indicated they will take $33-34 million and any team to the BIG would probably get less.
Or they take around their current amount from now until a few years into the new contract which is supposed to jump.
 

Rods79

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2006
3,536
1,220
113
Des Moines
No, because the PAC12 is already underpaid on a per team basis - adding the 8 least valuable properties of the B12 to the P12 ends up losing money for all their existing membership.

Per the Dennis Dodd's report, he indicated that the B12 less Texas/OU could be valued as little as $9M per school. Let's be generous and assume double that at $18M per school - the PAC currently gets paid 33M per school:



Again, FOX owns the PAC inventory right now at 100%. Why would they have any interest letting half of their other cash cows team up with the B1G where ESPN currently has a minor foothold? They’re giving their content away, and as so giving up being relevant in college football rights if that is the case.
 

cycloneworld

Facebook Knows All
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 20, 2006
27,856
16,482
113
Urbandale, IA
No, because the PAC12 is already underpaid on a per team basis - adding the 8 least valuable properties of the B12 to the P12 ends up losing money for all their existing membership.

Per the Dennis Dodd's report, he indicated that the B12 less Texas/OU could be valued as little as $9M per school. Let's be generous and assume double that at $18M per school - the PAC currently gets paid 33M per school:



This is why the Big 10 or even PAC 12 doesn’t make sense to me. If some of these leftovers only add $15-$20 million, why does either of those conferences add anyone? It’s basically what the Big 12 found out a few years ago when looking at Cinci and others.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,796
57,989
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
That's why you don't add just one school - bring 5 so they have some geographic rivals and shorter trips. The P12 is already massively spread out geographically - no one is driving from Salt Lake City to Eugene. Other than in state rivals they're flying everywhere already. I think football is eventually going to just break away, at which point non-revenue sport travel won't be a factor.

If a conference like the American can make that geography work with 1/7th the budget of the B10, I don't really think geography is an issue.

I'm still not buying it.
 

CydeOut

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2009
1,743
93
48
Kansas
The Big 12 as a power conference is over and any of those schools would be fools to join.

The Big 12 went from being something our commish didn't worry about to over in a matter of 2 weeks only because TEX and OU are leaving, and nobody is really sure why...who's to say 2 other power brands wouldn't appreciate 1.5 shares, a powerful voice in conference affairs, and likely the easiest path to the college football playoff? It only seems over from an emotional standpoint, if the Big 12 can think long-term and attract value (big brands), why couldn't it be saved? If it's about money, Big 12 has the 3rd highest payouts among the Power 5. A more powerful voice in conference happenings and the best route to the CFB Playoff rests there as well (No Bama, No Clemson, No Ohio St, and now no OU...it doesn't get easier than that).
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Cloneon

hawkfan

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,508
39
48
Again, FOX owns the PAC inventory right now at 100%. Why would they have any interest letting half of their other cash cows team up with the B1G where ESPN currently has a minor foothold? They’re giving their content away, and as so giving up being relevant in college football rights if that is the case.

Because they're now broadcasting ASU vs. Stanford in a terrible time slot and making no money on it, but having to pay Stanford/ASU $33M each for their rights. Even the dregs of the B10 have much stronger TV draws than the lower end of the P12 and now they can pair the better parts of the P12 with the better time slots of the B1G.

Once you nuke the PAC12 and they, as an example merge with the B12, you're now paying the "remnants" conference a much lower per team share because it's based on the idea that the entire conference has no prime TV draws.

And, by the way, the B1G rights come up for bid in 3 years and I'm guessing, based on what ESPN is rumored to be spending on the SEC, they won't be that interested in the B1G - it will likely be Fox and some combo of CBS/NBC.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,641
6,846
113
62
No, because the PAC12 is already underpaid on a per team basis - adding the 8 least valuable properties of the B12 to the P12 ends up losing money for all their existing membership.

Per the Dennis Dodd's report, he indicated that the B12 less Texas/OU could be valued as little as $9M per school. Let's be generous and assume double that at $18M per school - the PAC currently gets paid 33M per school:


The problem with the Pac 12 network is that it is not making the money they thought it would because they have been unable to get in on Direct TV, I am not sure if it is on Dish or not.
You also have the problem that football to much of the West is really not a huge sports fanwise, by bringing in the 4 Big 12 teams, you increase the amounts of butts in the seats. The last full season 2019, ISU ranked 21st in attendence, that would be right behind EIU which was 20th.

I get the go big or go home idea, but wouldn't it be easier and better for Fox and the Pac 12 to have Fox purchase half the network, and then have 2 leagues to use to fight the SEC/ACC combo that ESPN has instead of one Super league in the Big 10?
 

hawkfan

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,508
39
48
It's an inventory/consistency problem - no conference outside the SEC offers any network great games every single week to put on tier 1, Fox would love to own that, an expansion to 20 makes that much more likely.
 

CydeOut

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2009
1,743
93
48
Kansas
This is the truth. We need to get another offer. I hope JP can pull off the Big 10

I think if we're holding out hope for Big 10 or even Pac-12, we're wishing pretty hard.

If the safety net is we end up in AAC and ISU has to expend all of its energy to make one other outcome happen, where do you want that energy to go? What exactly are we selling to the BIG or Pac-12?

At least by trying to nab a non-Bama/Clemson/Ohio St and convincing them they can now be the elite of our conference with a 1.5 share, power, and a clear path to the playoff, you are selling at least something they want.
 

Rods79

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2006
3,536
1,220
113
Des Moines
Because they're now broadcasting ASU vs. Stanford in a terrible time slot and making no money on it, but having to pay Stanford/ASU $33M each for their rights. Even the dregs of the B10 have much stronger TV draws than the lower end of the P12 and now they can pair the better parts of the P12 with the better time slots of the B1G.

Once you nuke the PAC12 and they, as an example merge with the B12, you're now paying the "remnants" conference a much lower per team share because it's based on the idea that the entire conference has no prime TV draws.

And, by the way, the B1G rights come up for bid in 3 years and I'm guessing, based on what ESPN is rumored to be spending on the SEC, they won't be that interested in the B1G - it will likely be Fox and some combo of CBS/NBC.

I wouldn’t think it was wise in ANY scenario to ditch brands and inventory, and hell media markets for that matter on such a risky proposition that would blow up college football. This is not likely to be that bold with the spider-web or legality, who’s tied to who, inner conference voting.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,704
54,897
113
LA LA Land
I think you to the B1G is a no brainer.

I don't see any good outcomes for my school. We should fit with the Pac 12, Competitive in almost everything.... 3 NY6 Bowls, 2 B12 championships and a close title game loss in the last 8 years, MBB and WBB National Championships, Good Baseball which P12 likes. Ranked higher by USN&WR than every non-California member except UW. Allegedly on track to be R1/T1 by 2024....

but alas, Stanford will never allow it.

We are going to end up in an improved but still minor league AAC.

On field football performance does seem to be a total afterthought outside of Oklahoma/Texas. Rutgers, Maryland and even KU somehow thought of as better football additions to a conference than Baylor, TCU, and OK State (I still can't bring my self to call ISU football success until it lasts longer, don't want to jinx it).

WVU is another school that has been unwanted in all of this in spite of pretty consistent football program all the way back to the early 90s. They also have had very consistent hoops success but hoops seems to only be valued for a true blue blood...and we saw Louisville wasn't even wanted by the desperate Big 12 last round despite hoops credentials.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron