Replies: 23
| visibility 1,986
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7962
Joined: 2/27/02
|
Haven't heard anyone talk about this report that the Big 12
May 31, 2012, 4:44 PM
|
|
TV payout may not increase with expansion. That would strongly go against what "the Dude" and others have speculated expansion might bring and maybe why the Big 12 said they weren't interested in expanding at this time. Just something to think about and debate right now I guess.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/31/report-big-12-payout-will-not-go-up-with-expansion/
Report: Big 12 payout may not go up with expansion Posted by Ben Kercheval on May 31, 2012, 1:39 PM EDT Oklahoma quarterback Jones drops back to pass in Dallas, Texas AP
When the Big 12 reaffirmed its “commitment to 10 members” yesterday during spring meetings, it (rightfully so) drew the scoffs of many. Now in our third straight offseason of realignment talk, no one’s sure who to believe anymore.
But as skeptical as many are about the Big 12?s expansion brake-tapping, there could be a rather important detail that actually supports yesterday’s announcement.
The Big 12?s new TV deal is expected to be finalized within the week — it was the “No. 1 priority” of spring meetings, according to the Dallas Morning News — and the payout to each school on a per-year basis could play an important role in expansion talk. Via Dennis Dodd of CBSSports, there’s a clause within the new deal “that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).”
Dodd continues that “one industry source said that number applies whether the Big 12 invites, ‘Appalachian State or Florida State.’”
Where you could see a concession on expansion from UT is if the Big 12 added two (or four) teams that provided such tremendous value to the league’s new TV deal that the annual payout from first and second-tier rights increased significantly.
Take the additions of Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC, for example. The Sports Business Journal reported last week that CBS, the SEC’s first-tier rights holder, “wants to pay a prorated increase to its original contract 15-year deal with the SEC (signed in 2008) – and has balked at paying a significant increase because of the additions of Missouri and Texas A&M.” The value of A&M and Mizzou is in the new SEC Network, the soon-to-be third-tier rights partner, because their additions equal more inventory.
The Big 12 doesn’t have a conference network for third-tier broadcasts, and because of Texas’ Longhorn Network, it won’t. So, if more additions don’t equate to more significant payout per school, where’s the need to expand?
That is all assuming, of course, that Dodd is correct and there is no increase in payout for any additions to the Big 12. Clearly, that goes against realignment intuition, and we’ll find out the actual details sooner than later. How the Big 12 responds, combined with Notre Dame’s place in a four-team playoff, will ultimately have the greatest effect on whether or not the Big 12 stays at 10 members.
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Excellent read Vegas!!
May 31, 2012, 5:00 PM
|
|
This article gives so many reasons why a Clemson move to the Big 12. Not only is it not in the best interest of the member schools it states the move only gurantees a new member a $20 million payout. That's a whole $3 million more than the ACC payout and a whopping 5% increase to the total Athletic Department revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: Haven't heard anyone talk about this report that the Big 12
May 31, 2012, 5:07 PM
|
|
If you really understand what Dodd is saying and not follow Chadd Scott's misinformation (which he backtracked on today) all that means is new members will come in as full members. TCU and WVU are on graduated pay scales. If the Big 12 adds two teams, TCU, WVU, and the 2 new teams will all be full members whether its for 20 million or 25 million. On a side note, the SEC expanded with Tier 3 money in mind (for their network), not for Tier 1 money. They picked states, not quality teams. The Big 12 expanded with Tier 1&2 money in mind (quality teams), not Tier 3 money. This article misses many points.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7962
Joined: 2/27/02
|
I don't follow Chadd Scott and I don't see him referenced in
May 31, 2012, 5:10 PM
|
|
this article so I don't know what you're talking about on that end.
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: I don't follow Chadd Scott and I don't see him referenced in
May 31, 2012, 5:13 PM
|
|
He tweeted the same misinformation about this today. Notice in the article it says "new members will get paid the same". In no way does that infer that the payout won't go up. It means all members will be paid the same. No junior members.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [68436]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115681
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: What's your angle on hanging out on a Clemson site?
May 31, 2012, 5:54 PM
|
|
What direction?
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: What's your angle on hanging out on a Clemson site?
May 31, 2012, 6:03 PM
|
|
Pretty obvious.... so why?
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Re: What's your angle on hanging out on a Clemson site?
May 31, 2012, 6:19 PM
|
|
I wouldnt go that far but it's definitely unusual.... checking out a website to find out the scuttlebutt is fine, but steering the conversation in a certain direction seems out of place to me.
I check out FSU websites all of the time but I don't post anything just read.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: What's your angle on hanging out on a Clemson site?
May 31, 2012, 6:20 PM
|
|
sure you do chicken boy.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [68436]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115681
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
Trying to keep up with Roy?***
May 31, 2012, 6:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: Trying to keep up with Roy?***
May 31, 2012, 6:10 PM
|
|
LOL! Oh Roy. No he's pretty much forgotten about around here. Except when his team of 6 McDonald's All-American's can't even beat one of the least talented KU teams in years. He is just a strange a little man. He seems so afraid that people won't like him and continuously puts his foot in his mouth. Why am I here? I'm interested in what you all are hearing and comparing to what's being said here. Are non-Clemson people not supposed to be here? Didn't mean to offend you 85.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 1487
Joined: 5/23/12
|
No, it's fine that you are here....
May 31, 2012, 6:15 PM
|
|
You just seem to interject a lot of talk more positive to bailing and going to the BigXii....
And where are you? In KS or near SC?
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: No, it's fine that you are here....
May 31, 2012, 6:20 PM
|
|
Either way Clemson decides is fine with me. Clemson is a quality school and the Big 12 should want quality schools if possible. I interject when I see misinformation. I've called out plenty of Big 12 homers on other sites, mainly their misinterpretation of Tier 3 revenue. Especially when they bring up how much Kansas makes off of 3rd tier rights. I've lived in KS since I was 10 and attended KU. Lived in NC from birth to 10. Wasn't a UNC fan, always liked Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23122]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19820
Joined: 1/15/11
|
Didn't York say 13 was the trigger ?
May 31, 2012, 5:09 PM
|
|
If they get the same amount for 12 teams as they do for 10 they'll just wait until they ready to go to 14 teams.
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: Didn't York say 13 was the trigger ?
May 31, 2012, 5:15 PM
|
|
I don't know about any triggers, but the payout has to go up for a 12 team conference. 2 new members = an increase in game inventory. The networks have to pay for it. How much? Nobody knows.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No, he said Clemson and FSU were done deals.
May 31, 2012, 5:19 PM
[ in reply to Didn't York say 13 was the trigger ? ] |
|
..According to his well connected sources at Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [68436]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115681
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4640]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 9550
Joined: 11/4/01
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15760]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17385
Joined: 2/1/99
|
More inventory.
May 31, 2012, 5:39 PM
|
|
"The value of A&M and Mizzou is in the new SEC Network, the soon-to-be third-tier rights partner, because their additions equal more inventory."
There is something unsettling about these esteemed institutions of higher learning and storied and proud sports traditions being referred to as "more inventory." Very belittling. I guess it's how we're seen to television executives. "The product."
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [31]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/26/12
|
Re: More inventory.
May 31, 2012, 5:48 PM
|
|
You have a good point, but the word "inventory" may also mean something else in this context. The proposed SEC Network would get paid much more by the cable subscribers in their footprint than outside its footprint. Texas & Missouri add a lot of TV subscribers. These people may be who is being refered to as "inventory". I don't know, but you are right. Universities are becoming known as money making machines.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1,986
|
|
|