Non-Key Tweets

[whaler11]

Wow, you are smarter than Delany...

Like Delany didn't know we'd be here now.

Get out.

On the B1G boards, people talked about these numbers ages ago. It was said inside the B1G offices THEN that they were going to $50m. You act like they're surprised. Get a clue.

The idea that you have a clue and I don't is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've ever posted and that's quite a hurdle.

Are you going to share the math on getting Oklahoma into another league or are you just going to keep showing a complete lack of intellegence in every post?

Maybe mix in some reading comprehension when you get the chance.

 

[whaler11]

Sorry I misread hundred, it's late. You ever notice it's almost always the same schools historically who are good at football or basketball. It takes a lot more than just saying we're gonna be a good program and dumping a lot of money into it. There are a bunch of schools that have been dumping a ton of money into these programs without much success on the actual court.

The hypothetical was that college football went away.... seriously you don't think that would alter the basketball landscape? Schools moving their focus from football to basketball?

Schools like Florida, Michigan, Ohio State..... all the athletes in the south and west who were playing football now playing basketball wouldn't benefit LSU, Florida State, Texas...

I mean come on.

 

[IMind]

They might choose to play it halfway and add two schools - getting their increase by withholding most of the money from those two schools. I'd venture those two schools are Houston and Cincinnati - with BYU having a shot to displace them.

What you're saying makes as much sense as anything. One thing that gives me a glimmer of hope is that the guy who wrote the ESPN and Fox are pissed article also had a lot of positive things to say about UConn. If the Big 12 chooses to play it halfway then they might also decide to add the two schools the networks would hate the least BYU and UConn.

One scenario I do see the Big 12 going to 14 is if they look at the long term outlook and say ESPN and Fox might not have the money to give anyone much in 2024 but they have the money now so take it while it's there. There's no telling what market factors will be like then or even if tell same actors will even be around. Contractually obligated money in hand right now maybe a lot more tempting than playing nice with ESPN and Fox and maybe hoping they possibly remember how they didn't expand. ESPN hasn't exactly shown a ton of loyalty to business partners in the past. (Old Big East, AAC, UConn...) I'm sure ESPN would say it was just business... but then again it would be "just business" if the Big 12 took everything from ESPN and Fox they could too.

I know full well neither scenario is terribly likely but at this point in time who the hell knows what the Big 12 is thinking.

 

[whaler11]

What you're saying makes as much sense as anything. One thing that gives me a glimmer of hope is that the guy who wrote the ESPN and Fox are pissed article also had a lot of positive things to say about UConn. If the Big 12 chooses to play it halfway then they might also decide to add the two schools the networks would hate the least BYU and UConn.

One scenario I do see the Big 12 going to 14 is if they look at the long term outlook and say ESPN and Fox might not have the money to give anyone much in 2024 but they have the money now so take it while it's there. There's no telling what market factors will be like then or even if tell same actors will even be around. Contractually obligated money in hand right now maybe a lot more tempting than playing nice with ESPN and Fox and maybe hoping they possibly remember how they didn't expand. ESPN hasn't exactly shown a ton of loyalty to business partners in the past. (Old Big East, AAC, UConn...) I'm sure ESPN would say it was just business... but then again it would be "just business" if the Big 12 took everything from ESPN and Fox they could too.

I know full well neither scenario is terribly likely but at this point in time who the hell knows what the Big 12 is thinking.

If they really have the contractual hammer and use it to add 4 schools they are taking a huge risk.

When their deal runs out:

Unless someone builds a better mousetrap there will downward pressure in the market.

They will have 4 more mouths to feed.

The two whales will spend the rest of the contract setting them up for less next go round.

That's a big leap to ask people who have a fiduciary responsibility to their schools to make.

 

[pepband99]

...
As stupid as they are I don't see them committing the long-term suicide of adding four teams - fighting the pro-rata in the courts and hoping new bidders arrive by the time their deal ends.

you had me, until the "courts" bit. What standing would the B12 TV partners have in fighting something in a contract they signed willingly?

Totally agree with you on poisoning the water for the next negotiations - with one wrinkle. Texas can be a complete free agent in this - they can literally piss EVERYONE off, should they choose. They can harpoon expansion by insisting on Houston, which will anger pretty much everyone but Texas. They can force Houston as 14, which will piss off TV. They have all of the cards.

 

[upstater]

The idea that you have a clue and I don't is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've ever posted and that's quite a hurdle.

Are you going to share the math on getting Oklahoma into another league or are you just going to keep showing a complete lack of intellegence in every post?

Maybe mix in some reading comprehension when you get the chance.

The dumbest thing ever is the idea that Oklahoma cant get into another conference. They clearly know they have invitations. But continue on in idiocy.

 

[SubbaBub]

They say everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. We may have reached that point.

UT had its little plan for domination and new Houston campus, OU and the non-Texas school had a plan to dilute UT's influence, some enterprising, university staffer thought he could extort another $80 from it's media partners.

Well, now daddy is home. ESPN isn't going to be too wild about paying $20M a year each for UCONN and UC when the already own those 2 plus 10 others for 10 cents on the dollar. Fox isn't going to pony up the extra money only to see the league break apart in 6 years.

Neither is going to pay them B1G or SEC money. UT doesn't want to extend a GOR.

Whatever we think we know could have just gone down the tubes. That could be good or bad depending where you think you were previously.

The truly important people will get in a room and decided this. That decision may look nothing like what informed people knew at the time they knew it.

The question is now, what does TV want and can the B12 deliver it. Otherwise, the B12 will grab the available cash and implode.

 

[noeynox]

If they really have the contractual hammer and use it to add 4 schools they are taking a huge risk.

When their deal runs out:

Unless someone builds a better mousetrap there will downward pressure in the market.

They will have 4 more mouths to feed.

The two whales will spend the rest of the contract setting them up for less next go round.

That's a big leap to ask people who have a fiduciary responsibility to their schools to make.

Except the Big 12 just watched ESPN give the ACC network a network deal NO ONE saw coming, and no one could argue ESPN had to give them. Hard to expect the big 12 to now take one for the team here. Perhaps for a sizeable raise the big 12 agrees to not expand, but if days after you're told there is no appetite for a conference network you watch them give a competitor a CN, for rights they already owned, we'll hard to not feel you're being played.

 

[whaler11]

Except the Big 12 just watched ESPN give the ACC network a network deal NO ONE saw coming, and no one could argue ESPN had to give them. Hard to expect the big 12 to now take one for the team here. Perhaps for a sizeable raise the big 12 agrees to not expand, but if days after you're told there is no appetite for a conference network you watch them give a competitor a CN, for rights they already owned, we'll hard to not feel you're being played.

It's not taking one for the team - it's trying to balance the near term
with the long term. You can't make decisions based on the emotions of what they gave the ACC.

 

[whaler11]

The dumbest thing ever is the idea that Oklahoma cant get into another conference. They clearly know they have invitations. But continue on in idiocy.

Again show your math - show the evidence of the invites or pipe down about it - because their actions show the exact opposite to be the case.

This is the kind of nonsense that people spew with no evidence or business case behind it.

 

[methodology]

OU would be welcomed to any conference with open arms probably with a lot of wining and dining also to court them

Oklahoma I think prefers to try to keep the big xii alive and well but not sure how long that will last. They also have to look out for ok st

 

[Excalibur]

OU would be welcomed to any conference with open arms probably with a lot of wining and dining also to court them

I suspect that this is true as OK is a national brand with a significant local following, but I have to admit I don't have any evidence to support my instinct on this. It's been made pretty clear, though, in multiple places, that OK will never be able to separate themselves from OK St., a school that nobody cares about.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Again show your math - show the evidence of the invites or pipe down about it - because their actions show the exact opposite to be the case.

This is the kind of nonsense that people spew with no evidence or business case behind it.

I've read the series of posts you've made since last night and you've gotten too full of yourself. You need to pump the brakes a bit on blowing your own horn. Not too long ago you were sure to the point of shouting posters down about the ACC never getting a network.

You don't know everything.

Show some damn restraint.

 

[Excalibur]

If they really have the contractual hammer and use it to add 4 schools they are taking a huge risk.

When their deal runs out:

Unless someone builds a better mousetrap there will downward pressure in the market.

They will have 4 more mouths to feed.

The two whales will spend the rest of the contract setting them up for less next go round.

That's a big leap to ask people who have a fiduciary responsibility to their schools to make.

There is going to be downward pressure in the market in any event. They may be looking to make whatever they can now, knowing that there will be significantly less water in the trough the next time they come around to drink.

 

[pepband99]

There is going to be downward pressure in the market in any event. They may be looking to make whatever they can now, knowing that there will be significantly less water in the trough the next time they come around to drink.

Bingo. Even the "winners" in this round have to know the gig is up soon enough. If you're not UT, OU, and maybe Kansas in the B12, you would be crazy to not take your $$$ up front now, because there is a bullseye on you come next decade.

 

[Excalibur]

you had me, until the "courts" bit. What standing would the B12 TV partners have in fighting something in a contract they signed willingly?

If ESPN doesn't pay, the Big 12 has to use the courts to get the $$. While the networks, if they don't pony up, run some risks of being assessed treble damages and attorneys' fees under state unfair trade practices statutes, that risk is pretty low. It's always better to be the party with the $$ than the one trying to chase it.

 

[sportsart]

Well you are welcome to go back and read the posts. Good luck finding anyone who has gotten more right than I have.

Oh dear Lord, make him stop!

 

[upstater]

Again show your math - show the evidence of the invites or pipe down about it - because their actions show the exact opposite to be the case.

This is the kind of nonsense that people spew with no evidence or business case behind it.

Evidence: B12 makes more than Pac12

AND, beyond that, you've got no evidence at all. You're just a hypocrite asking for something you yourself can't provide. Your idiocy is all over this thread, and has been for a very long time.

 

[ScottVib]

As stupid as they are I don't see them committing the long-term suicide of adding four teams - fighting the pro-rata in the courts and hoping new bidders arrive by the time their deal ends.

The likelihood of any kind of promise or expected behavior (non-contractual) being honored 9-10 years in the future is slim-to-none. The networks are businesses, they will do what is best for the business (in their judgment, such as it is) at that point in time. It's entirely possible the entire landscape changes by then.

The Big XII needs to do what it feels is in the conferences best interest, but expecting some back room agreement with an executive at a network who may or may not be in the same position and with players that may or may not represent the best future partners in a changing landscape; would be foolish at best. It doesn't mean it's impossible that it happens, but thinking a hand-shake will carry the day a decade down the road is (IMO) a poor bet.

 

[don356]

Oklahoma and Texas(and the rest of the b12) are in a long term deal right now that they have whether or not they like it or not. In today's media world, 8 years is an eternity. Regardless of what the conference does now in terms of membership, the $'s are not really impacted by adding viewers, just teams. These are fickle and ever changing markets. They've got quite a bit of time to develop the content side of it regardless of where they go given the duration of that contract. However, the content is not always based on results on the field. A lot of the b10's success is due to having schools in large rural states whereby there is little else going on except to follow that team. That could change over time with demographics, delivery options etc. Some fan bases will continue to follow if the results on the field are not good, while some will not. It's not a simple decision on whom to go with, but i do think they have limits geographically on how spread out they want to be which in the case of the b12 hurts Uconn.

 

[Exit 4]

The likelihood of any kind of promise or expected behavior (non-contractual) being honored 9-10 years in the future is slim-to-none. The networks are businesses, they will do what is best for the business (in their judgment, such as it is) at that point in time. It's entirely possible the entire landscape changes by then.

The Big XII needs to do what it feels is in the conferences best interest, but expecting some back room agreement with an executive at a network who may or may not be in the same position and with players that may or may not represent the best future partners in a changing landscape; would be foolish at best. It doesn't mean it's impossible that it happens, but thinking a hand-shake will carry the day a decade down the road is (IMO) a poor bet.

bingo

 

[Santini35]

Matt Schonvisky ‏@MattSchonvisky 54s55 seconds ago
"I cannot comment on that" #UConn AD David Benedict when asked if he or Herbst have been to Texas or if Big 12 officials have been to Storrs

 

[Excalibur]

Matt Schonvisky ‏@MattSchonvisky 54s55 seconds ago
"I cannot comment on that" #UConn AD David Benedict when asked if he or Herbst have been to Texas or if Big 12 officials have been to Storrs

Yeah, not commenting is not really not commenting . . .

 

[CL82]

Matt Schonvisky ‏@MattSchonvisky 54s55 seconds ago
"I cannot comment on that" #UConn AD David Benedict when asked if he or Herbst have been to Texas or if Big 12 officials have been to Storrs

Way to go Matt.

 

[dwalks93]

Again show your math - show the evidence of the invites or pipe down about it - because their actions show the exact opposite to be the case.

This is the kind of nonsense that people spew with no evidence or business case behind it.

Ok I'll bite on this one...the math is there.

Currently FOX/ESPN are paying a premium price for 10 Big12 schools of which only a handful are true national players. How many anchors schools would the Big12 need to lose to insure ESPN can start paying AAC rates to the remainder of the Big12? At a minimum I'd say UT needs to go, OU needs to go and a schools like Kansas and maybe even an OSU would insure it.

Here is the math....let's say Big12 teams currently get $30 million per team so $30m x 10 = $300 million. What if ESPN paid the BIG/SEC/ACC an extra $40 million per school to take on UT, OU and Kansas.? That would cost the network $120 million. But then on the next Big12 deal ESPN/Fox only paid the remaining 7 teams $10 million each. The math becomes $120 million for UT/OU/KU + $70 million for the remaining 7 Big12 schools = $190 million. This is opposed to the current $300 million the networks are paying. $300 million > $190 million so it could benefit the BIG/SEC/ACC/PAC to pay above market rates for an OU to insure the BIG12 either implodes or is relegated to the market position of the AAC.

Your argument that the best way to get a deal with ESPN is to keep them happy does not hold water. The BIG got its monster contract when it refused ESPN's initial offer and took the contract to open market. The ACC only got its ACCN when it enacted the $45 million penalty clause and financially compelled ESPN to build a network. The Big12 should take full advantage of the pro-rata clause now. If ESPN made a stupid deal that is on them. No one is saying ESPN should voluntarily pay the AAC more money cause ESPN made a great deal on the AAC.

If destroying/degrading the Big12 benefits ESPN/FOX they will do so and playing nice now won't change that....the math is there. Pittsburgh/Syracuse/Boston College may not be worth $30 million but the money being withheld to the AAC teams make up for the overpay BC is receiving. Paying BC/Pitt/Cuse was the cost of killing the Big East.