How little could/should UConn accept from the Big 12? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

How little could/should UConn accept from the Big 12?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
There is no negotiating position for G5 teams wanting into the P5....

The gap between is too vast, the consequences of not making the cut too damning and thus the schools too needy.

Schools will do whatever it takes...take less money? Oh yes indeedy. With a grin on our faces and dancing in the streets.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
416
Reaction Score
2,933
I don't understand this entire thread. The Big12 will select the teams and then lay out the financial terms. This is not an episode of "The Shark Tank" where the teams pitch their wares and the "sharks" make financial proposals. There is no way "financial payouts" will be discussed prior to the expansion teams being selected.

Yes the new teams will receive a drastically reduced initial payout. But it will be far larger than what they are currently making and it will be "fair." If the Big12 is building for the future it needs partners and you don't build a relationship by permanently screwing your partners over. The Big12 has a vested interest in loyalty and insuring their new additions flourish thus helping the conference.

UConn need to get selected and then worry about the terms
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
32,094
Reaction Score
24,544
I don't understand this entire thread. The Big12 will select the teams and then lay out the financial terms. This is not an episode of "The Shark Tank" where the teams pitch their wares and the "sharks" make financial proposals. There is no way "financial payouts" will be discussed prior to the expansion teams being selected.

Yes the new teams will receive a drastically reduced initial payout. But it will be far larger than what they are currently making and it will be "fair." If the Big12 is building for the future it needs partners and you don't build a relationship by permanently screwing your partners over. The Big12 has a vested interest in loyalty and insuring their new additions flourish thus helping the conference.

UConn need to get selected and then worry about the terms

There are several misunderstandings in this thread

1. This is not shark tank, it is a marriage. A shotgun marriage for sure, but a marriage. The party with leverage (XII) does have a material interest in choosing the best candidate not the just the one who will accept the least. This isn't pawn stars either. The XII does not have an unlimited number of options.
2. No one assuming the G5 teams can set terms. The XII will set the terms but, this isn't new ground. Every other P5 conference has brought in new members recently. There is a pool of information available to both sides. This pool sets the parameters of negotiation. If the G5 demand a full share plus the Texas AD welcoming the new members with a curtsy, then ya, the XII will move on. Likewise, if the XII demand the G5 take less than they are making now or not providing a path to equal membership then the G5 schools will not sign on.
3. If the XII doesn't add credible programs, the it dies. Certain people at the XII may or may not realize this, but I guarantee some do. This is the G5 leverage. Is it worth a lot, no. But it is worth being treated with respect and being offered a fair deal in line with past deals and making sure there is something in it for the new members. Just like a FB locker room, relationships and morale matter a lot.

The XII can't be seen as humiliating it's new members. Therefore, the idea that this will be a low bid proposition is completely false.

Assuming the rumor of a 10 year buy in and limited voting rights is true, (it isn't). Then that would not be in line. The correct deal in exchange for a GOR is full vesting at the end of the current agreement. The starting percentage and rate of escalation is negotiable. Whether it be 50%, 50, 50, 75, 75, 75,100; or 33, 33, 50, 50, 75, 75, 100; or some other schedule doesn't really matter. Those are just dollars that neither side had coming before the deal. The relationship will be based on respect and that means a say on future league matters. It's OK to exclude new members on old business or from certain committees, but remember when the ACC took UL. They consulted with Pitt and Cuse, even though they didn't have a formal vote.

Like any new partnership, it is expected that things will go slowly at first. A good negotiator will steer the conversation toward subjects of mutual agreement. When the more difficult subjects come up, both sides are more likely to be amenable to the others needs. It's not certain to work, but it does most of the time.
.
 

huskypantz

All posts from this user are AI-generated
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
7,055
Reaction Score
10,188
One thing I can't comprehend is the idea that the B12 would ask schools to give them a suggested percent share and then they'd use that as criteria for the decision. The solution that makes sense is for the B12 to assign the same share schedule to all schools and let the schools decide whether it would be agreeable and they want to be in the running. And as others have stated, if the B12 is going to handicap schools financially then they're never going to reach full potential.
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
32,094
Reaction Score
24,544
One thing I can't comprehend is the idea that the B12 would ask schools to give them a suggested percent share and then they'd use that as criteria for the decision. The solution that makes sense is for the B12 to assign the same share schedule to all schools and let the schools decide whether it would be agreeable and they want to be in the running. And as others have stated, if the B12 is going to handicap schools financially then they're never going to reach full potential.

I agree this discussion happened before deciding on the schools. If one of the primary goals is a $$ bump for existing members, then they would have discussed a target number knowing how much their current contract generates by adding members. They know what the other P5's are gettting and will make a judgement as to how much of the pro rata increase they want to keep for themselves. This shouldn't be their primary concern, though. There primary concern should fall into two camps. Maximizing their next media rights deal (this is mostly where UT and OU live), so that they are in shouting distance of the BiG and SEC. UT wants to be near the top of all individual schools. OU wants to be close enough. The other group, the L8, wants desperately to assure the survival of the XII as a P5 conference, ideally by keeping UT and OU in the fold and making the CFP every year, but as a backup they want to assure P5 status (and $$$) should UT and OU leave.

I'm sure what they will offer will be acceptable to new members, but I will be watching the vestment terms before deciding if this league has a future.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
"
Since joining the Big 12 prior to the 2012-2013 school year, West Virginia has seen its team travel expenses increase by an average of about $3 million per year. In West Virginia’s first three years in the Big 12, the university’s athletic department spent an average of $7.55 million on team travel. During the previous three years in the Big East, West Virginia’s team travel expenses cost an average of $4.79 million dollars.

Revenue is on the rise as well, however.

During its first three years in the Big 12, West Virginia’s average yearly revenue was $82.36 million dollars. During the previous three years in the Big East, West Virginia’s average yearly revenue was $67.51 million dollars. And the Mountaineers didn’t even receive a full share of the Big 12 money during those first three years, with 2016 as the first year the school will receive a full share since joining the conference after receiving partial shares since becoming a member.

Big 12 move bumps up travel time, costs for West Virginia

 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,125
Reaction Score
15,104
A vesting schedule was always in the cards as there is recent precedent for it within other leagues. However the idea of a "haircut" or excessive skimming off the top was discussed as the pretext for making UT whole in exchange for transition or dissolution from the LHN framework towards a B12 Network. In the absence of that the league does need to treat it's new members as partners. To the extent they devalue them contractually they also devalue the public perception of the league as a whole.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
5,476
Reaction Score
13,065
A vesting schedule was always in the cards as there is recent precedent for it within other leagues. However the idea of a "haircut" or excessive skimming off the top was discussed as the pretext for making UT whole in exchange for transition or dissolution from the LHN framework towards a B12 Network. In the absence of that the league does need to treat it's new members as partners. To the extent they devalue them contractually they also devalue the public perception of the league as a whole.
You're kidding right ?
This is a conference that in all likelihood will not exist when this contract exspires
Short term maximization of current member revenue is the only force driving expansion.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,125
Reaction Score
15,104
You're kidding right ?
This is a conference that in all likelihood will not exist when this contract exspires
Short term maximization of current member revenue is the only force driving expansion.

There's that also. Just pointing out how the original speculation began but we know enough about the B12 not to try to define what a partnership might look like.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,927
Reaction Score
17,124
USA TODAY Sports

(the link above has a table to athletic department revenue by school for years / broken down by category)

Mostly I just don't want to backwards. We will never be a top 20 team in terms of revenue / spending. But we need to be able to spend about where we are now (in the 40-50 range) to be relevant / competitive. Some good stuff in the data.

For instance, even though we are SOOOO much better than Louisville - they have about $30M in ticket revenue v. $10M for us. Our peak was $15M in the data.

They also get more than $20M a year more in "contributions"...

On the rights/licensing - we have historically out-earned them.

The biggest problem we have to date is the lack of financial support from our fanbase, both in the way of ticket sales and donations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
433
Guests online
3,386
Total visitors
3,819

Forum statistics

Threads
155,798
Messages
4,031,994
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom