Big XII Expansion

[Aberzombie1892]

The latest from CFN

http://collegefootballnews.com/2016/big ... -should-do

Honestly, it makes sense for the Big 12 to go ahead and pursue the ACC teams that it wants. The Big 12, ACC, and PAC are only going to fall further behind the B10 and the SEC in terms of revenue. That is unavoidable at this point. That being said, adding two random teams that don't add much value to the conference just to reach 12 teams doesn't really make sense for the Big 12. Given that that is the case, it would make sense for the conference to go after 2 of the ACC teams and then maybe two AAC teams. If 2 of Florida State/Clemson/Georgia Tech/Miami are worth adding, then they are certainly worth buying out of the ACC now - the ACC may renew the grant of rights before it expires, and of course the rest of the conference will 100% be on board with doing so since they either (1) don't want to leave (Virginia/UNC), (2) don't like the alternatives (Virginia Tech/NC State), or (3) would be left out of a power conference (virtually everyone else). While the price to poach a team from the ACC may be high, it will certainly be less than Maryland's fee since the rights would be worth less since there are fewer years left in the contract than when Maryland left. Imagine a Big 12 with Cincinnati, Tulane, Florida State, and either Georgia Tech or Clemson with East/West divisions that split up the Texas programs. That would make expansion worth it. The Big 12 adding Tulane and Cincinnati by themselves would be great for us and Cincy, but it would likely spell the doom for the Big 12 due to guaranteed lower revenues for the conference for foreseeable future. Those lower revenues would likely cause Oklahoma to eventually seek sanctuary elsewhere, and, if Oklahoma left, Texas would likely leave too.

[jonathanjoseph]

The latest from CFN

http://collegefootballnews.com/2016/big ... -should-do

Honestly, it makes sense for the Big 12 to go ahead and pursue the ACC teams that it wants. The Big 12, ACC, and PAC are only going to fall further behind the B10 and the SEC in terms of revenue. That is unavoidable at this point. That being said, adding two random teams that don't add much value to the conference just to reach 12 teams doesn't really make sense for the Big 12. Given that that is the case, it would make sense for the conference to go after 2 of the ACC teams and then maybe two AAC teams. If 2 of Florida State/Clemson/Georgia Tech/Miami are worth adding, then they are certainly worth buying out of the ACC now - the ACC may renew the grant of rights before it expires, and of course the rest of the conference will 100% be on board with doing so since they either (1) don't want to leave (Virginia/UNC), (2) don't like the alternatives (Virginia Tech/NC State), or (3) would be left out of a power conference (virtually everyone else). While the price to poach a team from the ACC may be high, it will certainly be less than Maryland's fee since the rights would be worth less since there are fewer years left in the contract than when Maryland left. Imagine a Big 12 with Cincinnati, Tulane, Florida State, and either Georgia Tech or Clemson with East/West divisions that split up the Texas programs. That would make expansion worth it. The Big 12 adding Tulane and Cincinnati by themselves would be great for us and Cincy, but it would likely spell the doom for the Big 12 due to guaranteed lower revenues for the conference for foreseeable future. Those lower revenues would likely cause Oklahoma to eventually seek sanctuary elsewhere, and, if Oklahoma left, Texas would likely leave too.

Why would there be "lower guaranteed revenues for the conference for the foreseeable future"? I'm pretty certain that there is zero chance revenues can go down and almost no chance that they don't go up. The question is whether the additional amount is worth the " brand dilution " suffered by associating with non traditional football powers.

[Aberzombie1892]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

[golfnut69]

Here's a crazy pro active AAC solution....EXPAND !!!! Instead of waiting like a vulture...be a HAWK and go kill something !!! Add Colorado State, or Air Force.... Boise State.... Utah State or BYU.. New Mexico...San Diego State.... San Jose State.... N. Illinois....ahh what the hell, just add the whole Mtn West Conference and the new AAC motto can be "from Sea to Shinning Sea" ...the other AAC motto..."we do not get Heart Attacks, we Give them"...no go out and kik some butt....The Old "Metro Conference" had it right, only to be raided, because it was not pro active

[RobertM320]

Another possibility, if we get our act in gear, would be if the Big XII raids the ACC and we can pick up an invite there. Right now the Big XII has a better in on the Louisiana TV and recruiting market than the ACC does, just due to Texas being next door. I could see the ACC considering the advantages of LA if they were to lose some schools.

[Aberzombie1892]

Another possibility, if we get our act in gear, would be if the Big XII raids the ACC and we can pick up an invite there. Right now the Big XII has a better in on the Louisiana TV and recruiting market than the ACC does, just due to Texas being next door. I could see the ACC considering the advantages of LA if they were to lose some schools.

That's true. If the ACC lost two schools, I would imagine it would go after Houston and Tulane together.

[mbawavefan12]

Another possibility, if we get our act in gear, would be if the Big XII raids the ACC and we can pick up an invite there. Right now the Big XII has a better in on the Louisiana TV and recruiting market than the ACC does, just due to Texas being next door. I could see the ACC considering the advantages of LA if they were to lose some schools.

The new ACC GOR is reported to be $50mm.

I still don't see how any off the current expansion candidates for the B12 will help with their contract or stability. It seems desperate and a clear statement that the B12 is at the bottom of the P5 pecking order. I wouldn't be surprised to see the B12 implode if they expand (ala the Big East). They are in a tough spot unless one of the AAC or MWC teams makes a clear statement that they can be accretive.

[mbawavefan12]

Another possibility, if we get our act in gear, would be if the Big XII raids the ACC and we can pick up an invite there. Right now the Big XII has a better in on the Louisiana TV and recruiting market than the ACC does, just due to Texas being next door. I could see the ACC considering the advantages of LA if they were to lose some schools.

That's true. If the ACC lost two schools, I would imagine it would go after Houston and Tulane together.

Green sungalsses, we have so much work to do from a winning and facility standpoint. Seriously, we were laughed at with the AAC invitation.

[RobertM320]

Green sunglasses, how? My post specifically says IF WE GET OUR ACT IN GEAR. I would have thought it to be understood that would mean LOTS of winning, serious facility upgrades, and growth of fan base.

[mbawavefan12]

Green sunglasses, how? My post specifically says IF WE GET OUR ACT IN GEAR. I would have thought it to be understood that would mean LOTS of winning, serious facility upgrades, and growth of fan base.

I suppose, I guess my point is that we are talking maybe a decade before we "get our act in gear". We just spent $100mm and are still woefully behind the B12 or ACC standards facility wise and nevermind the output on the field or court where we are still laughed at by our fellow AAC members.

I personally just feel there would have to be a cosmic shift for TU to get an invite to a P5 conference. With that said I am giddy with the recent changes, I just feel like there was too much damage done by RD/SC and we will need years to fix it but is that too late, idk?

[jonathanjoseph]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

This is a myth that continues to be repeated enough times to become accepted as truth. It's simply false.

The media rights contracts are on a "per school" basis, and if the conference added 2 schools, the media contract $ would increase pro rata. Further, the addition of additional schools adds the conference championship game, which also increases revenue. It's the per school share of bowl payouts and NCAA tourny payouts that would be smaller on a pro rata basis, but it seems hard to fathom that could result in a net loss per school.

Adding at least two schools would increase gross conference revenue. By how much it might increase net revenue is the question.

[nawlinspete]

Gotta believe that a move to the Big12 or other conference was central to the discussion when Dannen was being interviewed.

Tulane SHOULD clearly state its athletic objectives as clearly as it stated, through President Fitts, its determination to continue to move higher than 41st in the USNWP academic ratings.
Having a stated objective creates internal and external pressure, which is good and SHOULD motivate our fans to sell out each and every FB, MBB and WBB game , sending a clear message to include us as a worthy member.

[jonathanjoseph]

Gotta believe that a move to the Big12 or other conference was central to the discussion when Dannen was being interviewed.

Tulane SHOULD clearly state its athletic objectives as clearly as it stated, through President Fitts, its determination to continue to move higher than 41st in the USNWP academic ratings.
Having a stated objective creates internal and external pressure, which is good and SHOULD motivate our fans to sell out each and every FB, MBB and WBB game , sending a clear message to include us as a worthy member.

Dannen fired the first public shot along these lines yesterday. It's coming.

[Aberzombie1892]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

This is a myth that continues to be repeated enough times to become accepted as truth. It's simply false.

The media rights contracts are on a "per school" basis, and if the conference added 2 schools, the media contract $ would increase pro rata. Further, the addition of additional schools adds the conference championship game, which also increases revenue. It's the per school share of bowl payouts and NCAA tourny payouts that would be smaller on a pro rata basis, but it seems hard to fathom that could result in a net loss per school.

Adding at least two schools would increase gross conference revenue. By how much it might increase net revenue is the question.

Yes and no. Yes, there are built in increases per each additional school, but the conference would have to share the rest of its revenues (NCAA Tourney for one) by splitting them into more pieces. Regardless, they would still take in less per school even though it wouldn't be a dramatic drop off. Less is still less. Moving from 10 splits to 12 splits is pretty significant even if the conference added a championship game.

[ccap05]

The big turd in the punchbowl is going to be the fact that ESPN and the other smaller purchasers of football content are going to drastically decrease their expenditures in the near future. In 3 years, when Tulane may be a decent expansion target and the Big XII, ACC or whoever offers an invite it will simply not be worth as much. I believe that in the very near future you will see Alabama, Michigan, etc. looking to re-do conference rules so that the Vandys of world get less of the conference money. Obviously this will be a destructive long term policy. However, LSU, ALA, Mich, TX etc. have grown accustomed to constantly increasing revenues and constantly increasing shares of the overall college football/basketball revenues which often come at the expense of the common good (the current P5 setup, TX's status within the BIg XII, etc.). The big players in the P5 will not likely worry about Iowa St or Vandy when it comes to protecting revenue streams if the ESPN golden goose stops laying such lovely eggs. How this will effect Tulane is for someone much smarter than me, but it will effect Tulane. I truly believe that an invite to a P5 for a second tier school (which Tulane will be if invited) will not be worth nearly as much in 3-5 years. My best analogy was our Big East invite which seemed like an invite to the big times for about two weeks until the entire situation shifted.

The above said I truly believe that we should be trying for an invite- I simply do not believe it will be worth nearly as much when we get invited as it is now.

[jonathanjoseph]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

This is a myth that continues to be repeated enough times to become accepted as truth. It's simply false.

The media rights contracts are on a "per school" basis, and if the conference added 2 schools, the media contract $ would increase pro rata. Further, the addition of additional schools adds the conference championship game, which also increases revenue. It's the per school share of bowl payouts and NCAA tourny payouts that would be smaller on a pro rata basis, but it seems hard to fathom that could result in a net loss per school.

Adding at least two schools would increase gross conference revenue. By how much it might increase net revenue is the question.

Yes and no. Yes, there are built in increases per each additional school, but the conference would have to share the rest of its revenues (NCAA Tourney for one) by splitting them into more pieces. Regardless, they would still take in less per school even though it wouldn't be a dramatic drop off. Less is still less. Moving from 10 splits to 12 splits is pretty significant even if the conference added a championship game.

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, it isn't "less". The NCAA tournament revenues lost aren't likely to outweigh the conference football championship game, and you could make a mathematic argument that by having additional potential NCAA basketball teams, you are more likely to win NCAA tournament games and thus increase NCAA tournament revenue to split.

It is not less money for any of the universities. It's just undetermined how much more it could represent.

[jonathanjoseph]

The big turd in the punchbowl is going to be the fact that ESPN and the other smaller purchasers of football content are going to drastically decrease their expenditures in the near future. In 3 years, when Tulane may be a decent expansion target and the Big XII, ACC or whoever offers an invite it will simply not be worth as much. I believe that in the very near future you will see Alabama, Michigan, etc. looking to re-do conference rules so that the Vandys of world get less of the conference money. Obviously this will be a destructive long term policy. However, LSU, ALA, Mich, TX etc. have grown accustomed to constantly increasing revenues and constantly increasing shares of the overall college football/basketball revenues which often come at the expense of the common good (the current P5 setup, TX's status within the BIg XII, etc.). The big players in the P5 will not likely worry about Iowa St or Vandy when it comes to protecting revenue streams if the ESPN golden goose stops laying such lovely eggs. How this will effect Tulane is for someone much smarter than me, but it will effect Tulane. I truly believe that an invite to a P5 for a second tier school (which Tulane will be if invited) will not be worth nearly as much in 3-5 years. My best analogy was our Big East invite which seemed like an invite to the big times for about two weeks until the entire situation shifted.

The above said I truly believe that we should be trying for an invite- I simply do not believe it will be worth nearly as much when we get invited as it is now.

I disagree with two of your points above. First, while it's true that ESPN and others will be cutting costs, it's somewhat unlikely that the market for premium content will decline. Ratings for high end college football/live remain strong, while the ratings and value of every other form of TV content continues to decline in value. So it's not clear there will be some massive decline in media rights $.

Even if ESPN boxed itself into a corner (and it's definitely possible), it's a matter of time before Netflix, Amazon, Apple etc become the new bidders. Short of there being a reduction in demand for college football on TV, total revenue shouldn't drop much.

If the imbalances of the conference model are addressed going forward (i.e., Iowa St and Vandy no longer getting equal shares) then it would only open up new opportunities for Tulane or others to create new models. Such a scenario would only create new options for Tulane, not reduce them.

The conference model is the only thing holding up market forces. If that breaks down, supply and demand will determine success, and Dannen is set on creating a product that is in demand.

[DfromCT]

First of all, as of January 14th, the Big 12 has the ability to have a conference championship game with only 10 teams, so long as they play a full round-robin schedule (9 conference games/team). Secondly, as MBA points out, Tulane needs to win, and win regularly for a number of years in order to become attractive enough that the Big 12 isn't laughed at if they ever were to extend an invite to Tulane.

While we can debate UConn's attractiveness what cannot be debated is most of the folks in the NorthEast feel Tulane athletics are a joke, an afterthought, or not even considered. I worked with a former UConn football player whom would constantly tell me "Tulane is on the schedule, at least the Huskies have one win". (Side note: I bet him $100 on this year's game with no points a few days after we hired Fritz. Hope the turn around comes quickly, because Huskies fans think they're going to be another step better year three under Diaco.) Another friend, whom works in the Athletics Department at University of Oregon just laughs whenever I want to discuss Tulane Athletics.

Perception is reality on this subject, and most of the rest of the country perceives Tulane Athletics as a joke. We (posters on this board) all believe that will change with Troy Dannen (and now Coach Fritz) but until it happens, perception will not change.

[mbawavefan12]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

This is a myth that continues to be repeated enough times to become accepted as truth. It's simply false.

The media rights contracts are on a "per school" basis, and if the conference added 2 schools, the media contract $ would increase pro rata. Further, the addition of additional schools adds the conference championship game, which also increases revenue. It's the per school share of bowl payouts and NCAA tourny payouts that would be smaller on a pro rata basis, but it seems hard to fathom that could result in a net loss per school.

Adding at least two schools would increase gross conference revenue. By how much it might increase net revenue is the question.

Yes and no. Yes, there are built in increases per each additional school, but the conference would have to share the rest of its revenues (NCAA Tourney for one) by splitting them into more pieces. Regardless, they would still take in less per school even though it wouldn't be a dramatic drop off. Less is still less. Moving from 10 splits to 12 splits is pretty significant even if the conference added a championship game.

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, it isn't "less". The NCAA tournament revenues lost aren't likely to outweigh the conference football championship game, and you could make a mathematic argument that by having additional potential NCAA basketball teams, you are more likely to win NCAA tournament games and thus increase NCAA tournament revenue to split.

It is not less money for any of the universities. It's just undetermined how much more it could represent.

I don't understand this POV. So espn will have no problem giving out and extra $36mm in the current environment? If it would not dilute the B12's bottom line, why wouldn't they have made the additions years ago? The obvious candidates/markets have been staring them in the face for several years. Are you just trying to make some point thinking TD is reading this site?

Again, they can do the championship game with 10.

[HoustonWave]

Another possibility, if we get our act in gear, would be if the Big XII raids the ACC and we can pick up an invite there. Right now the Big XII has a better in on the Louisiana TV and recruiting market than the ACC does, just due to Texas being next door. I could see the ACC considering the advantages of LA if they were to lose some schools.

The new ACC GOR is reported to be $50mm.

I still don't see how any off the current expansion candidates for the B12 will help with their contract or stability. It seems desperate and a clear statement that the B12 is at the bottom of the P5 pecking order. I wouldn't be surprised to see the B12 implode if they expand (ala the Big East). They are in a tough spot unless one of the AAC or MWC teams makes a clear statement that they can be accretive.

The Big 12 is in a tough spot, and ought to go for broke and go after 2 or 4 of the ACC schools. If that fails, it is likely that OU and UT, and perhaps KU, will leave for greener pastures. At that point the Big 12 will be trying to reconfigure a new conference, and that would likely help Tulane. On the other hand, if the Big 12 succeeds in raiding the ACC, Tulane and Cincy's chances of getting into a rebuilt ACC go up. In short, the worse thing for Tulane, is that the Big 12 compromises its future by adding the likes of Cincy, UConn, or the like. Since nobody seems to believe that Tulane is a serious candidate for a Big 12 invite, then we should hope that the Big 12 tries to raid the ACC--no matter the outcome, our situation will have improved.

[HoustonWave]

First of all, as of January 14th, the Big 12 has the ability to have a conference championship game with only 10 teams, so long as they play a full round-robin schedule (9 conference games/team). Secondly, as MBA points out, Tulane needs to win, and win regularly for a number of years in order to become attractive enough that the Big 12 isn't laughed at if they ever were to extend an invite to Tulane.

While we can debate UConn's attractiveness what cannot be debated is most of the folks in the NorthEast feel Tulane athletics are a joke, an afterthought, or not even considered. I worked with a former UConn football player whom would constantly tell me "Tulane is on the schedule, at least the Huskies have one win". (Side note: I bet him $100 on this year's game with no points a few days after we hired Fritz. Hope the turn around comes quickly, because Huskies fans think they're going to be another step better year three under Diaco.) Another friend, whom works in the Athletics Department at University of Oregon just laughs whenever I want to discuss Tulane Athletics.

Perception is reality on this subject, and most of the rest of the country perceives Tulane Athletics as a joke. We (posters on this board) all believe that will change with Troy Dannen (and now Coach Fritz) but until it happens, perception will not change.

So true. The Cow/Dick act turned Tulane into a standing joke on many levels. As has been said on this board, we have a deep hole to climb out of.

[jonathanjoseph]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

This is a myth that continues to be repeated enough times to become accepted as truth. It's simply false.

The media rights contracts are on a "per school" basis, and if the conference added 2 schools, the media contract $ would increase pro rata. Further, the addition of additional schools adds the conference championship game, which also increases revenue. It's the per school share of bowl payouts and NCAA tourny payouts that would be smaller on a pro rata basis, but it seems hard to fathom that could result in a net loss per school.

Adding at least two schools would increase gross conference revenue. By how much it might increase net revenue is the question.

Yes and no. Yes, there are built in increases per each additional school, but the conference would have to share the rest of its revenues (NCAA Tourney for one) by splitting them into more pieces. Regardless, they would still take in less per school even though it wouldn't be a dramatic drop off. Less is still less. Moving from 10 splits to 12 splits is pretty significant even if the conference added a championship game.

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, it isn't "less". The NCAA tournament revenues lost aren't likely to outweigh the conference football championship game, and you could make a mathematic argument that by having additional potential NCAA basketball teams, you are more likely to win NCAA tournament games and thus increase NCAA tournament revenue to split.

It is not less money for any of the universities. It's just undetermined how much more it could represent.

I don't understand this POV. So espn will have no problem giving out and extra $36mm in the current environment? If it would not dilute the B12's bottom line, why wouldn't they have made the additions years ago? The obvious candidates/markets have been staring them in the face for several years. Are you just trying to make some point thinking TD is reading this site?

Again, they can do the championship game with 10.

It's just as simple as clearing up the facts. My understanding is that the media rights contracts have a pro rata provision. So, yes, ESPN would be on the hook for an additional $36M or whatever the correct number is. You are also not taking into account what ESPN gains, like Big 12 interests in the state of Louisiana, etc.

I'm fairly certain this is the case, but I could be wrong. But I'm certainly not trying to advance any narrative in the hopes of influencing TD. While I was previously definitely trying to fan the flames of discontent while Cowen and Dickson were stealing paychecks (note: they still are), I can now sit back and not worry because I know TD knows exactly what he's doing.

[jonathanjoseph]

Another possibility, if we get our act in gear, would be if the Big XII raids the ACC and we can pick up an invite there. Right now the Big XII has a better in on the Louisiana TV and recruiting market than the ACC does, just due to Texas being next door. I could see the ACC considering the advantages of LA if they were to lose some schools.

The new ACC GOR is reported to be $50mm.

I still don't see how any off the current expansion candidates for the B12 will help with their contract or stability. It seems desperate and a clear statement that the B12 is at the bottom of the P5 pecking order. I wouldn't be surprised to see the B12 implode if they expand (ala the Big East). They are in a tough spot unless one of the AAC or MWC teams makes a clear statement that they can be accretive.

The Big 12 is in a tough spot, and ought to go for broke and go after 2 or 4 of the ACC schools. If that fails, it is likely that OU and UT, and perhaps KU, will leave for greener pastures. At that point the Big 12 will be trying to reconfigure a new conference, and that would likely help Tulane. On the other hand, if the Big 12 succeeds in raiding the ACC, Tulane and Cincy's chances of getting into a rebuilt ACC go up. In short, the worse thing for Tulane, is that the Big 12 compromises its future by adding the likes of Cincy, UConn, or the like. Since nobody seems to believe that Tulane is a serious candidate for a Big 12 invite, then we should hope that the Big 12 tries to raid the ACC--no matter the outcome, are situation will have improved.

That's a solid analysis. Also, there's plenty of reason to hope that, starting with 2016 baseball, 2016 could provide a lot of momentum for Tulane athletics. The fruit's of Dannen's labor are not yet publicly visible.

[mbawavefan12]

It would be guaranteed lower revenues on a per school basis than there already is (lower than SEC and eventually the B10), and we know the Big 12 cares about that since that's the primary reason they haven't expanded so far. Why would Oklahoma hang around if it could make $10-20 million more per year in the SEC? It's true that while the Big 12 is lagging the SEC by about $10M this year, that $10M doesn't take into account B12 third tier rights, but anyone can see that that gap will likely only widen over time.

This is a myth that continues to be repeated enough times to become accepted as truth. It's simply false.

The media rights contracts are on a "per school" basis, and if the conference added 2 schools, the media contract $ would increase pro rata. Further, the addition of additional schools adds the conference championship game, which also increases revenue. It's the per school share of bowl payouts and NCAA tourny payouts that would be smaller on a pro rata basis, but it seems hard to fathom that could result in a net loss per school.

Adding at least two schools would increase gross conference revenue. By how much it might increase net revenue is the question.

Yes and no. Yes, there are built in increases per each additional school, but the conference would have to share the rest of its revenues (NCAA Tourney for one) by splitting them into more pieces. Regardless, they would still take in less per school even though it wouldn't be a dramatic drop off. Less is still less. Moving from 10 splits to 12 splits is pretty significant even if the conference added a championship game.

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, it isn't "less". The NCAA tournament revenues lost aren't likely to outweigh the conference football championship game, and you could make a mathematic argument that by having additional potential NCAA basketball teams, you are more likely to win NCAA tournament games and thus increase NCAA tournament revenue to split.

It is not less money for any of the universities. It's just undetermined how much more it could represent.

I don't understand this POV. So espn will have no problem giving out and extra $36mm in the current environment? If it would not dilute the B12's bottom line, why wouldn't they have made the additions years ago? The obvious candidates/markets have been staring them in the face for several years. Are you just trying to make some point thinking TD is reading this site?

Again, they can do the championship game with 10.

It's just as simple as clearing up the facts. My understanding is that the media rights contracts have a pro rata provision. So, yes, ESPN would be on the hook for an additional $36M or whatever the correct number is. You are also not taking into account what ESPN gains, like Big 12 interests in the state of Louisiana, etc.

I'm fairly certain this is the case, but I could be wrong. But I'm certainly not trying to advance any narrative in the hopes of influencing TD. While I was previously definitely trying to fan the flames of discontent while Cowen and Dickson were stealing paychecks (note: they still are), I can now sit back and not worry because I know TD knows exactly what he's doing.

I have heard similar rumors but it just doesn't add up. Consider this, why would they have made additions years ago if it wouldn't be dilutive and would allow them to host a championship game (before the NCAA approved the ten team deal to host a championship game). At a min it could have an effect on their next contract but also remember that new members don't get a full share of TV revenue for years which also flies in the face of the "reports" that new members will get the same $20mm. I mean ESPN currently pays the American a total of $18mm for THE ENTIRE CONFERENCE!!!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/t ... f59aa.html

Yet we are to believe they are willing to pay $40mm for just two AAC members, seriously?

The fact remains that we need lots of time to get our act together. The best or perhaps most realistic scenario is for the B12 to add two AAC teams then in a few years implode and the remaining members wanting to add good academics and the NOLA market. In the interim, a 24k FBall stadium, 3.6k Bball, bad support assets, bad fanbase and worst of all a bad brand/losing just isn;t going to cut it. Lots of work to do. Personally, I am at the point where I just want to look forward to watching an enjoyable product and am sort of done worrying about re-alignment. I legit could not be more happy with TD and Fritz....EC you are next.

[jonathanjoseph]

I have heard similar rumors but it just doesn't add up. Consider this, why would they have made additions years ago if it wouldn't be dilutive and would allow them to host a championship game (before the NCAA approved the ten team deal to host a championship game). At a min it could have an effect on their next contract but also remember that new members don't get a full share of TV revenue for years which also flies in the face of the "reports" that new members will get the same $20mm. I mean ESPN currently pays the American a total of $18mm for THE ENTIRE CONFERENCE!!!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/t ... f59aa.html

Yet we are to believe they are willing to pay $40mm for just two AAC members, seriously?

The fact remains that we need lots of time to get our act together. The best or perhaps most realistic scenario is for the B12 to add two AAC teams then in a few years implode and the remaining members wanting to add good academics and the NOLA market. In the interim, a 24k FBall stadium, 3.6k Bball, bad support assets, bad fanbase and worst of all a bad brand/losing just isn;t going to cut it. Lots of work to do. Personally, I am at the point where I just want to look forward to watching an enjoyable product and am sort of done worrying about re-alignment. I legit could not be more happy with TD and Fritz....EC you are next.

Why not? I think if the Big 12 could add FSU and Notre Dame they'd do it in a heartbeat. If the options are UConn and Cincy, the brand equity is the issue not the gross revenue.

But yes, if two AAC teams were invited then ESPN would be on the hook. Keep in mind, ESPN was desperate to lock in these rights so it makes sense that the conferences would have the leverage to negotiate a non-dilutive right to expand.