*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[cycloneworld]

The 6-year media rights idea is a decent starting point for an exit penalty, but it does not seem sufficient to really deter the two big $$$ schools, which are the schools the conference really needs to anchor the TV deals.

Just picking a number for a talking point, say the TV money is $20 million/yr. That would put ISU AD revenue somewhere around $60 million/yr. There is likely no way ISU could afford to leave even a year early, so the deterrent works for a school with revenue like ISU.

A school like UT, on the other hand is a different story. With AD revenue of around $150 million, they could easily swallow a $20 million/year penalty, and they could do it for several years if need be, and still be ok. OU AD revenue would probably be around $110 million with the TV $$$ figure above, and they too could probably stomach a year or two of lost TV money if they really wanted to go.

IMO, the only really meaningful exit penalty that would equally effect all schools would be based on a percentage of AD revenue. Any team that wants to leave pays the conference 30% of their AD revenue for two years, or some such thing.

I will be shocked (but happy) if the conference adopts any type of exit penalty that really deters UT or OU from leaving.

The way I understand it is if Texas were to leave for the PAC-12 within 6 years, the Big 12 would still retain the TV rights to show football and basketball games and collect the revenue. There is no conference out there that would take anyone from the Big 12 because of this which is why signing away media rights to the Big 12 is even more iron clad than any amount of exit penalties.

 

[jbhtexas]

The way I understand it is if Texas were to leave for the PAC-12 within 6 years, the Big 12 would still retain the TV rights to show football and basketball games and collect the revenue. There is no conference out there that would take anyone from the Big 12 because of this which is why signing away media rights to the Big 12 is even more iron clad than any amount of exit penalties.

I guess I don't understand how the media rights penalty deters another conference from taking a Big 12 school. The other conference's existing TV deal would be based on the exiting teams prior to the Big 12 school joining. Nothing will really be affected for the other conference, except that games involving the defecting Big 12 school would/could be shown on a different network. UT/OU have the money to reimburse their new conference for lost revenue (UT moreso than OU). And it's could only be for a year or two (unless the penalty is on some kind of rolling renewal where it is always 6 years). Those two schools have the advantage of generating most of their revenue outside of TV contracts.

I agree that this would be a sufficient deterrent for the other 7 schools. But UT and OU have the means, if they really wanted to go, to get around the media penalty and come out OK.

 

[MaccloNe]

There are three groups that want the B12 to fail- ESPN, MU and Squawks.

 

[State43]

There are three groups that want the B12 to fail- ESPN, MU and Squawks.

You should add
Nebraska, A$M & now apparently OU. ********!

 

[jbhtexas]

There are three groups that want the B12 to fail- ESPN, MU and Squawks.

Need to add NU to that list. They so badly want to say, "I told you so. Weren't we smart for leaving."

 

[Cyclonepride]

The college world needs to come to grips with this statement attributed to Chuck Neinas:

The current BCS structure is set to expire after the 2014 season and, as a result, new ideas about how major college football determines a national champion are about to be brought up, he said.

Superconferences seem to be an expression of concern that the current structure will not be renewed and schools anticipate some kind of tournament structured like a mini March Madness built on conference play-offs and champions. If that is to be, then we need to move in that direction-soon. The NCAA could yet have a role in influencing the NC format. There are alternative ways of playoffs linked to the BCS model. This really ought to be openly discussed rather than cloak and dagger realignment we've seen.

Sounds like they're basically trying to make sure that the big players keep a stranglehold on the power structure, and keep putting the screws to everyone else, in whatever new system develops.

 

[CloneAbuse]

I guess I don't understand how the media rights penalty deters another conference from taking a Big 12 school. The other conference's existing TV deal would be based on the exiting teams prior to the Big 12 school joining. Nothing will really be affected for the other conference, except that games involving the defecting Big 12 school would/could be shown on a different network. UT/OU have the money to reimburse their new conference for lost revenue (UT moreso than OU). And it's would only be for a year or two. Those two schools have the advantage of generating most of their revenue outside of TV contracts.

I agree that this would be a sufficient deterrent for the other 7 schools. But UT and OU have the means, if they really wanted to go, to get around the media penalty and come out OK.

You're right, it's not really a deterrent to Texas, and likely soon to be OU, because if they chose to leave and had their own networks (tier 3) they could negotiate with the new conference to show their games on their own networks initially. Therefore, not allowing the Big XII any revenue as no tier 1/2 would be shown from the new conference until our tier 1/2 rights expired. They'd assure the new conference that they'd share the revenue in the interim from their tier 3 rights only to the point that their Big XII tier 1/2 had expired. It really only ties the have-nots to the conference.

 

[CycloneErik]

I guess I don't understand how the media rights penalty deters another conference from taking a Big 12 school. The other conference's existing TV deal would be based on the exiting teams prior to the Big 12 school joining. Nothing will really be affected for the other conference, except that games involving the defecting Big 12 school would/could be shown on a different network. UT/OU have the money to reimburse their new conference for lost revenue (UT moreso than OU). And it's could only be for a year or two (unless the penaly is on some kind of rolling renewal where it is always 6 years). Those two schools have the advantage of generating most of their revenue outside of TV contracts.

I agree that this would be a sufficient deterrent for the other 7 schools. But UT and OU have the means, if they really wanted to go, to get around the media penalty and come out OK.

Interesting point. On the other hand, wouldn't it cost the member schools of the new conference money? Am I wrong in thinking that there would be a TV share for the former Big 12 school in the new conference, and that share would go to the Big 12?

Now, I have no doubt that the new conference could put into a contract that the new school receives almost nothing from TV money for the first few years, until the Grant of Rights expired. That might be a handy way to work around it. Everyone benefits from the new school while the new school doesn't gain.

Even though OU and Texas could absorb that kind of it, doesn't their obsessive drive for revenues suggest that they don't want any part of a revenue decrease, no matter how temporary?

 

[RayShimley]

The 6-year media rights idea is a decent starting point for an exit penalty, but it does not seem sufficient to really deter the two big $$$ schools, which are the schools the conference really needs to anchor the TV deals.

Just picking a number for a talking point, say the TV money is $20 million/yr. That would put ISU AD revenue somewhere around $60 million/yr. There is likely no way ISU could afford to leave even a year early, so the deterrent works for a school with revenue like ISU.

A school like UT, on the other hand is a different story. With AD revenue of around $150 million, they could easily swallow a $20 million/year penalty, and they could do it for several years if need be, and still be ok. OU AD revenue would probably be around $110 million with the TV $$$ figure above, and they too could probably stomach a year or two of lost TV money if they really wanted to go.

IMO, the only really meaningful exit penalty that would equally effect all schools would be based on a percentage of AD revenue. Any team that wants to leave pays the conference 30% of their AD revenue for two years, or some such thing.

I will be shocked (but happy) if the conference adopts any type of exit penalty that really deters UT or OU from leaving.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think there is anyway any school in any conference is ever going to sign over any percentage of its AD revenue to a conference, that is just unrealistic. They could extend the TV rights to say, 10 years, instead of 6 to make it a bigger deterrent, but what it really comes down to is fostering an atmosphere where schools don't want to leave. The Big Ten doesn't have to get tOSU to sign over a portion of their AD revenue in order to keep them in the conference and they are in a similar situation to UT and OU, money-wise.

This solution will lock down the other 7 schools, cough cough Mizzou, from always having a foot out the door, and equal revenue sharing will decrease the stryfe between OU/UT and the rest of the conference as well as make the B12 more attractive for TAMU's potential replacement.

The only thing I am uncertain of is what is going to happen with B12 third tier rights. Will the other 8 form a conference network without UT? Will they try and strongarm UT into getting rid of their LHN? Is that something that can even be put to a vote among the conference affiliates?

 

[RayShimley]

You're right, it's not really a deterrent to Texas, and likely soon to be OU, because if they chose to leave and had their own networks (tier 3) they could negotiate with the new conference to show their games on their own networks initially. Therefore, not allowing the Big XII any revenue as no tier 1/2 would be shown from the new conference until our tier 1/2 rights expired. They'd assure the new conference that they'd share the revenue in the interim from their tier 3 rights only to the point that their Big XII tier 1/2 had expired. It really only ties the have-nots to the conference.

They could not do this, that's the whole point of signing over their media rights. The B12 would still have the right to broadcast their games within the framework of the B12's TV contract, regardless of what conference they were to leave for.

 

[Arkansas Cyclone]

Media stirring **** up and trying to create to breathe life into the storyline again. It's over for now. Take it to the bank.

Completely agree. I listened to Jack Harry (local NBC sports anchor) here in KC and he painted the biggest doom and gloom scenario I'd ever heard as a result of that conference call. Nothing that he reported was even remotely close to the truth.

 

[CloneAbuse]

They could not do this, that's the whole point of signing over their media rights. The B12 would still have the right to broadcast their games within the framework of the B12's TV contract, regardless of what conference they were to leave for.

Depends on how the rights are defined. They'd have to agree that the Big XII holds all rights to their media content, not just Tier 1/2 rights.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

They could not do this, that's the whole point of signing over their media rights. The B12 would still have the right to broadcast their games within the framework of the B12's TV contract, regardless of what conference they were to leave for.

Exactly.

 

[Stormin]

If the conference owns the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights of ALL teams, then that means those teams games could NOT be televised in their new conference if they left early. So NO revenue and more importantly NO exposure on TV. That would kill recruiting for even the big schools like OU and Texas. They would own only their Tier 3 rights. A team like Texas with their LHN could benefit some but if they went to Pac 12, would the Pac 12 want to give Texas the Tier 3 game of USC-Texas?? And would they want to give a team like Texas an equal share of TV revenue even though NONE of their FB and BB games would be allowed on TV??

IMO, Texas needs to make some concessions on the LHN. The conference can restrict what they show on that network. And how much demand do you think there will be for a bunch of non-revenue sports of only Texas on that network. ESPN will have effectively flushed $300 million down the toilet for basically nothing.

 

[RayShimley]

Depends on how the rights are defined. They'd have to agree that the Big XII holds all rights to their media content, not just Tier 1/2 rights.

Tier 1/2 rights is defined by the carriers of the TV contracts, not the schools or conferences. I.e., ABC/ESPN decides if they want a game and thus make it a Tier 1 game. If they don't want it then Fox gets a chance to broadcast it, making it a Tier 2 game. If they don't want it, then it goes to the schools Tier 3 rights.

Does that clear things up?

 

[jbhtexas]

but what it really comes down to is fostering an atmosphere where schools don't want to leave. The Big Ten doesn't have to get tOSU to sign over a portion of their AD revenue in order to keep them in the conference and they are in a similar situation to UT and OU, money-wise.

Your bolded statement is the key, and IMO accomplishing that will require at least a couple of things: 1) UT controlling their greed and ambition, and 2) everybody else controlling their jealousy of what UT has. OU is kind of in both groups.

The Big Ten is a little different in that they are much more top-heavy revenue wise than the Big 12. They have more big $$$$ AD revenue schools, and the gap between tOSU and the rest is not as gaping as the gap between UT and the rest in the Big 12.

 

[MaccloNe]

Your bolded statement is the key, and IMO accomplishing that will require at least a couple of things: 1) UT controlling their greed and ambition, and 2) everybody else controlling their jealousy of what UT has. OU is kind of in both groups.

The Big Ten is a little different in that they are much more top-heavy revenue wise than the Big 12. They have more big $$$$ AD revenue schools, and the gap between tOSU and the rest is not as gaping as the gap between UT and the rest in the Big 12.

And they don't have to deal with Texass.

 

[CloneAbuse]

Tier 1/2 rights is defined by the carriers of the TV contracts, not the schools or conferences. I.e., ABC/ESPN decides if they want a game and thus make it a Tier 1 game. If they don't want it then Fox gets a chance to broadcast it, making it a Tier 2 game. If they don't want it, then it goes to the schools Tier 3 rights.

Does that clear things up?

Well, I don't see it as that cut and dried. Texas is negotiating with member schools now for rights to show conference football games on LHN (Kansas). Entrance into a new conference could be set up in a way that has specific rights assigned, with a complete sharing of those tier 3 rights in the interim, to avoid allowing the Big XII (and their media partners) access to that content. It would be an intricate agreement with a new conference, but not impossible.

 

[Wesley]

At least Florida and Georgia have networks that use their third tier rights for about 10 million I think. Interestingly enough, Florida's also shows HS games if I'm not mistaken. The difference is that the Sunshine network and I don't know the ownership but I don't think Florida actually owns it.

UT LHN is $300M for 20 years or $15M a year. Then $5M of that goes to education, so the hoopla is about $10M a year. Seems it is more about strutting your feathers than anything. OU is just upset they are not worth as much due to being in Oklahoma.

Wonder if the B1G network came aboiut after infighting over third tier rights????

 

[jbhtexas]

If the conference owns the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights of ALL teams, then that means those teams games could NOT be televised in their new conference if they left early. So NO revenue and more importantly NO exposure on TV. That would kill recruiting for even the big schools like OU and Texas.

So, let's say that UT goes to the Pac-12, and the Big 12 comes to own the rights to UT-USC game (among many others). Say that ABC has the Tier 1 deal with the Big 12 and wants to show that game. Why would ABC, as the holder of the Big 12 Tier 1 contract, not be allowed to show that game? Why would ABC pay the Big 12 for the game if they can't show it? I don't agree with your assertion that there would be no exposure for the defecting team. If UT reimbursed the Pac-12, I'm not sure why they would object to the showing the game.