Big 12 TV partners push back on expansion

[whaler11]

Don't attack me if you can't keep up. I am not suggesting that anyone would turn down the Big 12 for the AAC. I am saying there is a window of time right now where the AAC may be able to craft a better deal before the Big 12 cuts a deal for mountains of more money without expanding, and we lose a sliver of leverage that the AAC happens to have for a short period of time.

I have no idea what ESPN will pay the AAC next time around. ESPN is smart enough to realize that if the AAC doesn't get subsistence revenue, it is not going to be worth putting on TV. ESPN may decide it doesn't care.

Nobody would take the AAC's calls right now.

First, you can't even define the AAC membership.

Second, the rights fees for filler programming is going down.

Third, nobody but ESPN even has the capacity to televise AAC games.

The AAC isn't any worse at half the TV contract. There are always going to be programs in the AAC that can outrecruit the Sun Belt and MAC. The scholarship limits guarantee there will be leagues as good as the AAC and MVC.

They don't get any better at 3 times the money and they don't get any worse at half the contract. The difference between 1 and 6 million doesn't impact the quality of the football teams in any way.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nobody would take the AAC's calls right now.

First, you can't even define the AAC membership.

Second, the rights fees for filler programming is going down.

Third, nobody but ESPN even has the capacity to televise AAC games.

The AAC isn't any worse at half the TV contract. There are always going to be programs in the AAC that can outrecruit the Sun Belt and MAC. The scholarship limits guarantee there will be leagues as good as the AAC and MVC.

They don't get any better at 3 times the money and they don't get any worse at half the contract. The difference between 1 and 6 million doesn't impact the quality of the football teams in any way.

Schools are not going to continue subsidizing money losing athletic programs. There will be no middle ground in football in 10 years. Either a school will be big time or it will be paying it's coach $150k and recruiting using youtube. If no one wants to pay to broadcast AAC football, why bother having it?

 

['dweller]

The Big 12 needs to do what's best for them long term, and not worry about the blowhards at ESPN.

UC/BYU/UCONN/UCF are, in my opinion, the right additions. If Texas politics are going to force UH instead of UCF, so be it. But either way, that's a strong league. These aren't scrub programs today, and P5 membership is only going to make them stronger in the next few years

Those would be my four picks. All four have potential with great markets that could be exploited to "grow with the league" as Bowlsby put it, with the Big 12 legitimacy behind them.

 

[dayooper]

If I'm running the Big 12 I expand to 14. If ESPN and Fox don't like that, maybe they should not have given the Big 10 such a lucrative contract recently. The Big 12 is undervalued, and also ESPN, after telling the Big 12 the market is not there for a cable channel has given one to the ACC (largely because of the "channel clause" that someone was smart enough to have included). Well, the Big 12 was smart enough to have included a "pro rata clause". What, me worry?

How is the Big12 undervalued. They are being paid like a 12 team conference with ten teams. They have an extremely small footprint, oversaturated in one state (Texas), have two schools in two small states (Oklahoma and Kansas) and the little brother in a third small state. Throw in one of the smallest states with very little money and how can you call them undervalued. I don't see it.

 

[whaler11]

Schools are not going to continue subsidizing money losing athletic programs. There will be no middle ground in football in 10 years. Either a school will be big time or it will be paying it's coach $150k and recruiting using youtube. If no one wants to pay to broadcast AAC football, why bother having it?

Well that's a totally different question - and it certainly isn't going to cause anyone to pay the AAC more today.

 

[whaler11]

Protip: Don't listen to anything Bowlsby says. He has as much influence on the outcome as the Dood does.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Well that's a totally different question - and it certainly isn't going to cause anyone to pay the AAC more today.

Unless ESPN wants to broadcast more lumberjack competitions, it may.

 

[whaler11]

Unless ESPN wants to broadcast more lumberjack competitions, it may.

You are going to need one school to actually drop football - instead of what you have which is programs upgrading to FBS.

 

[atom58]

How is the Big12 undervalued. They are being paid like a 12 team conference with ten teams. They have an extremely small footprint, oversaturated in one state (Texas), have two schools in two small states (Oklahoma and Kansas) and the little brother in a third small state. Throw in one of the smallest states with very little money and how can you call them undervalued. I don't see it.

Then I guess you have never heard of Texas or Oklahoma in FB, have you? As far as FB brands go, they can stand against anyone - Michigan and Ohio State, Alabama and LSU, USC and UCLA - and Kansas is an elite BB brand. There are many games in which Oklahoma has been nationally prominent and they will likely always hold that 47 game winning streak. In college FB they are legendary and have beaten Alabama in a number of head to head contests - and no I am no fan of theirs, just stating the obvious. If you are an elite program you are nationally prominent and the size of your state does not matter! TCU and Baylor have become programs with exciting offenses and winning records and WVa had well-known teams in the East for decades. Had their academic standing (165 on that US News ranking but still above Houston and Memphis) and maybe fanbase behavior been different they would likely have become members of any major Eastern or Southeastern conference.

Also, if you want to assign blame, look at Fox who likely overvalued the Big 10 (with Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue and some others) to prop up their marketplace value. They own 51% of the BTN - it was likely an effort to create "panic buying" by ESPN - and if you think ESPN has paid too much for college FB, keep in mind that they paid $15 BILLION for 8 years of NFL Monday night FB with no other bidders in sight! Unbelievable! Don't complain about paying the schools!

 

[uconndogs]

Absolutely amazes me that the B12 went this far down the path without at least vetting this through their media partners. Confirms for me how little I know about the media business.

I would not be surprised if UCONN/State of Conn. are putting some heat on ESPN behind the scenes and ESPN may have said duckK NO! to Memphis and/or Houston. Pure speculation......

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Couple or things:

1) To whalers point, I tend to agree that outside of Texas and Florida State there are no programs that would make a dent for B1G or SEC. The Tier 1 contracts are already through the roof and Oklahoma just doesn't have a big enough population base to justify adding them to a network.

2) I get the feeling that some schools in the Big 12 genuinely wanted a two team expansion with 2 of 3 of the big brands our there: UConn, Cincinnati or BYU. Some of the teams were against expansion all together.

3) When the ACC got its network after the Big 12 was told no, they seemingly had some leverage to float the pro rata based expansion out there adding up to 4 teams. I truly don't believe they ever intended to do this, but let it be known they could.

4) To Flug's point about not getting to 12 unless you go to 14 - I tend to agree with as well. The teams that wanted expansion initially want the national brands, don't want Houston and the team that holds the power in Texas won't expand unless Houston is added. They say this knowing expansion with Houston would never be approved but they get to save face by showing public support.

5) Finally, what I think (and hope) happens here is that the Big 12 doesn't expand but reworks it's deal to give the 10 schools a bump, but also saves Fox and ESPN money.

6) The worst realistic scenario for UConn is that expansion occurs with Cincinnati and Houston. Most of us realize this. At that point I have no idea what we'd do. See if we can join Big East for hoop and have a loose scheduling alliance with some of the AAC teams, BYU and Army?

7) I just want to say that this whole saga beginning with SyraPitt has honestly put such a dampen on my enthusiasm for college sports in general. I still watch every UConn basketball and football game, but this realingnment absurdity has ruined the rest for me. I think schools will enjoy their temporary financial gain but money being equal I bet most would prefer a return to their original set up's with 8 or 9 teams and real rivalries.

/end rant

 

[amory]

7) I just want to say that this whole saga beginning with SyraPitt has honestly put such a dampen on my enthusiasm for college sports in general. I still watch every UConn basketball and football game, but this realingnment absurdity has ruined the rest for me. I think schools will enjoy their temporary financial gain but money being equal I bet most would prefer a return to their original set up's with 8 or 9 teams and real rivalries.

/end rant

For the schools that have gotten into a power conference, I don't think that's true. Any rivalries that were destroyed by realignment can be resumed on the OOC schedule, maybe not every year but often enough to whet everyone's appetite. Syracuse basketball, for example, can still schedule a game with Georgetown or UConn whenever they want to, they kept matchups against Pitt, Louisville, and Notre Dame, and now they get to play high profile games against Duke, UNC, and Virginia every year. For their football program, they're playing FSU, Clemson, etc.

And they're getting big money and a conference network.

They're having their cake and eating it too. Must be great.

If any P5 fan misses their old conference, it's nostalgia. Nothing more.

 

[upstater]

Couple or things:

1) To whalers point, I tend to agree that outside of Texas and Florida State there are no programs that would make a dent for B1G or SEC. The Tier 1 contracts are already through the roof and Oklahoma just doesn't have a big enough population base to justify adding them to a network.

Never said Oklahoma was going to the B1G. There are four other P5 conferences, and Oklahoma is clearly a good candidate, and clearly has assurances elsewhere.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Never said Oklahoma was going to the B1G. There are four other P5 conferences, and Oklahoma is clearly a good candidate, and clearly has assurances elsewhere.

I can't imagine the ACC is an option for Oklahoma. The SEC and B1G are the revenue kings with a similar network model.

So the only option is the Pac. Not sure I buy them being offered a spot in that league given that their network hasn't been successful, they are a geographic outlier and who would be team 14?

 

[dayooper]

Then I guess you have never heard of Texas or Oklahoma in FB, have you? As far as FB brands go, they can stand against anyone - Michigan and Ohio State, Alabama and LSU, USC and UCLA - and Kansas is an elite BB brand. There are many games in which Oklahoma has been nationally prominent and they will likely always hold that 47 game winning streak. In college FB they are legendary and have beaten Alabama in a number of head to head contests - and no I am no fan of theirs, just stating the obvious. If you are an elite program you are nationally prominent and the size of your state does not matter! TCU and Baylor have become programs with exciting offenses and winning records and WVa had well-known teams in the East for decades. Had their academic standing (165 on that US News ranking but still above Houston and Memphis) and maybe fanbase behavior been different they would likely have become members of any major Eastern or Southeastern conference.

Also, if you want to assign blame, look at Fox who likely overvalued the Big 10 (with Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue and some others) to prop up their marketplace value. They own 51% of the BTN - it was likely an effort to create "panic buying" by ESPN - and if you think ESPN has paid too much for college FB, keep in mind that they paid $15 BILLION for 8 years of NFL Monday night FB with no other bidders in sight! Unbelievable! Don't complain about paying the schools!

Of course they have the big three. I have long said that my ideal add to the Big10 would be Oklahama and UConn. That being said, the Big12 is very overvalued. Let's look at what assets they have. Texas and Oklahoma are crowning jewels of the Big12 and they are located in Texas. Kansas is a blueblood in basketball. That's it. No one cares about the other schools nationally. They don't care about Baylor or TCU. Several years ago, when Mike Leach was at Texas Tech, they were really good, BCS good. Leach got fired and Texas Tech is an afterthought. Sounds like what is happening at Baylor. OSU? Been pretty good over the last few years, even getting robbed out of a BCS championship game (they lost a game day after a plane crash killed the girls basketball coach and one of his assistants. It was their only loss of the season). Yet they have no pull nationally.

You rip on Maryland, Rutgers and other Big10 teams, yet you fail to realize why the Big10 got paid what they did. They have a huge alumni base that follows their school where ever they are. They have the flagship schools in five states that have at least 9 million people that reside there. In Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland and Nebraska, they have the only P5 school in the state (the Big12 can only say that about West Virginia). They have the flagship schools in ten states (I'm not including Indiana because of ND, but IU is the technically the flagship). The Big10 has schools in 3 of the top 4 and 14 of the top 50 media markets. The crossover is at a minimum. Only Chicago (Illinois and NW) and Detroit along with Grand Rapids (Michigan and MSU) are covered by more than one Big10 school. The Big12? They have 6 of the top 50 media markets, four of those in Texas alone. Those Texas markets are covered by four schools.

They have football kings in Michigan, Ohio State and, no matter what you think of them, PSU. They also have a top 10 winningest program in Nebraska. They have a basketball blueblood in Indiana, an almost blueblood in MSU and final four teams in Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin and MSU in the past ten years, only missing 3 of those (2016, 2011 and 2006). Big12? Kansas in 2012 and 2008. That's it.

You may say that the Big10 was overpaid, and time may show they were. It was an investment that both Fox and ESPN made. ESPN chose to invest in Texas and the Big12 exists because they did.

 

[4in16]

Of course they have the big three. I have long said that my ideal add to the Big10 would be Oklahama and UConn. That being said, the Big12 is very overvalued. Let's look at what assets they have. Texas and Oklahoma are crowning jewels of the Big12 and they are located in Texas. Kansas is a blueblood in basketball. That's it. No one cares about the other schools nationally. They don't care about Baylor or TCU. Several years ago, when Mike Leach was at Texas Tech, they were really good, BCS good. Leach got fired and Texas Tech is an afterthought. Sounds like what is happening at Baylor. OSU? Been pretty good over the last few years, even getting robbed out of a BCS championship game (they lost a game day after a plane crash killed the girls basketball coach and one of his assistants. It was their only loss of the season). Yet they have no pull nationally.

You rip on Maryland, Rutgers and other Big10 teams, yet you fail to realize why the Big10 got paid what they did. They have a huge alumni base that follows their school where ever they are. They have the flagship schools in five states that have at least 9 million people that reside there. In Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland and Nebraska, they have the only P5 school in the state (the Big12 can only say that about West Virginia). They have the flagship schools in ten states (I'm not including Indiana because of ND, but IU is the technically the flagship). The Big10 has schools in 3 of the top 4 and 14 of the top 50 media markets. The crossover is at a minimum. Only Chicago (Illinois and NW) and Detroit along with Grand Rapids (Michigan and MSU) are covered by more than one Big10 school. The Big12? They have 6 of the top 50 media markets, four of those in Texas alone. Those Texas markets are covered by four schools.

They have football kings in Michigan, Ohio State and, no matter what you think of them, PSU. They also have a top 10 winningest program in Nebraska. They have a basketball blueblood in Indiana, an almost blueblood in MSU and final four teams in Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin and MSU in the past ten years, only missing 3 of those (2016, 2011 and 2006). Big12? Kansas in 2012 and 2008. That's it.

You may say that the Big10 was overpaid, and time may show they were. It was an investment that both Fox and ESPN made. ESPN chose to invest in Texas and the Big12 exists because they did.

Oklahoma is in Texas, eh?

 

[upstater]

I can't imagine the ACC is an option for Oklahoma. The SEC and B1G are the revenue kings with a similar network model.

So the only option is the Pac. Not sure I buy them being offered a spot in that league given that their network hasn't been successful, they are a geographic outlier and who would be team 14?

Oklahoma is a national football brand, which the ACC badly craves.

Why wouldn't they be an option?

Geographic outlier? Uh, you're a UConn fan, right?

So, the Pac12 can go with San Diego State, UNLV, Boise St., or Oklahoma. Which do you think they are choosing?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Oklahoma is a national football brand, which the ACC badly craves.

Why wouldn't they be an option?

Geographic outlier? Uh, you're a UConn fan, right?

So, the Pac12 can go with San Diego State, UNLV, Boise St., or Oklahoma. Which do you think they are choosing?

I don't buy Oklahoma to the ACC for one second. It's way too far for travel to join a comparable league and takes them out of their recruiting territory.

The PAC has never wanted to expand ever since they added Utah and Colorado. There's been no rumors regarding that. To your point, they take Oklahoma and who else? Just stay at 13.

Of course they are a geographic outlier which makes their candidacy less valid. Same reason why we are having a difficult time joining the Big 12.

 

[upstater]

I don't buy Oklahoma to the ACC for one second. It's way too far for travel to join a comparable league and takes them out of their recruiting territory.

The PAC has never wanted to expand ever since they added Utah and Colorado. There's been no rumors regarding that. To your point, they take Oklahoma and who else? Just stay at 13.

Of course they are a geographic outlier which makes their candidacy less valid. Same reason why we are having a difficult time joining the Big 12.

If Oklahoma were available when Louisville and UConn went up for the ACC, both Louisville and UConn would have lost out. We're talking about a conference with 2 credible football teams out of 14. They don't even have a 3rd. Oklahoma would be that 3rd. The ACC would instantly snap them up.

The Pac12 would do well to add another football school as well, and it will eventually need to expand.

As for Oklahoma State and who else, I didn't say Oklahoma is leaving tomorrow. We're talking about 2026. Who knows who else? These are some of the candidates: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., etc.

 

[SubbaBub]

I want to make sure I understand this: So the Big 12 negotiates a contract with Fox and ESPN. They then lose two schools and both media partners tell them that even though they only have 10 members, they'll continue to pay them for 12. Am I to understand that when the Big 12 expands to 12 that Fox & ESPN will then pay the per school price the two teams and then do the same to expand to 14? Why would they do that? Perhaps the pushback from Fox and ESPN is that the Big12 has to float the first two to 12 and THEN get a per school price increase from 12 to 14.

It seems to me that for the longest time everyone said why would the Big 12 expand by two when they would have to reduce the per school payout to do so? The narrative now seems to say that expanding by two or four yields a a perschool payout unless I'm missing something.

At the time UT, OU, TT, and OSU had an offer to join the Pacific 10.

 

[dayooper]

Oklahoma is in Texas, eh?

Yeah, I missed typing centric. Sometimes my brain goes faster than I can type, especially on an iPad.

 

[polycom]

How is the Big12 undervalued. They are being paid like a 12 team conference with ten teams. They have an extremely small footprint, oversaturated in one state (Texas), have two schools in two small states (Oklahoma and Kansas) and the little brother in a third small state. Throw in one of the smallest states with very little money and how can you call them undervalued. I don't see it.

They have football powerhouses. (mic drop)

 

[SubbaBub]

Absolutely amazes me that the B12 went this far down the path without at least vetting this through their media partners. Confirms for me how little I know about the media business.

I would not be surprised if UCONN/State of Conn. are putting some heat on ESPN behind the scenes and ESPN may have said duckK NO! to Memphis and/or Houston. Pure speculation.

Doesn't surprise me at all. These entities are more like a kid's soccer match than a military unit. Everyone running around, doing their own thing, some oblivious to the proceedings.

The other leagues have a defined leadership, communication, and decision making process. Slive in the SEC, Delany in the B1G, the PaC12 has a good commish, even the ACC eventually got its act together.

Who speaks for the XII, certainly not its powerless commissioner, not the presidents, not even Texas, who has to answer to state politicians and still get sign off from other resentful members.

How could it not be a complete mess.

 

[FDNY99]

@whaler11
FOX Continues Support for Big 12 Expansion with G5 Teams

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@whaler11
FOX Continues Support for Big 12 Expansion with G5 Teams

Fox wants expansion, in EST, and they've been talking to Cincinnati and...Memphis?! Not UConn...

Maybe FOX hopes we don't get in P5 so we have to drop down in football and join their sole ownership of Big East hoop..

 

[alexd]

Fox wants expansion, in EST, and they've been talking to Cincinnati and...Memphis?! Not UConn...
..

That's not what the article says.

 

[ninety-nine]

Fox wants expansion, in EST, and they've been talking to Cincinnati and...Memphis?! Not UConn...

Maybe FOX hopes we don't get in P5 so we have to drop down in football and join their sole ownership of Big East hoop..

Memphis is in the Central Time Zone - it's in far western Tennessee. I doubt they'd switch the western half of TN over to EST just to ameliorate FOX football scheduling. ;-)

 

[amory]

Fox wants expansion, in EST, and they've been talking to Cincinnati and...Memphis?! Not UConn...

Maybe FOX hopes we don't get in P5 so we have to drop down in football and join their sole ownership of Big East hoop..

what? where did you read that?

"The league has had discussions with and about Cincinnati and Memphis for months, in addition to Houston, UConn, BYU and others."

 

[Skiblets]

I've taken a lot of shots since my spring game post. I guarantee that Suzys strategy involves Big 10 and ACC. She's not one to only play defense. I have no insights to support. Just instincts Will be an interesting week

 

[Mr. Hand]

Fox wants expansion, in EST, and they've been talking to Cincinnati and...Memphis?! Not UConn...

Maybe FOX hopes we don't get in P5 so we have to drop down in football and join their sole ownership of Big East hoop..

No, Fox hasn't spoken to any schools. The Big 12 has been flirting with Memphis and Houston, which neither Fox or ESPN want (I don't think ESPN wants any expansion).

Fox wants schools in the eastern time zone (UCF, Cincy, UConn).

Texas is the only player here that wants Houston. In this case, I seriously doubt they get their wish.