ESPN: Texas Committed Long Term to Big 12

[thebigabd]

AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas officials says they are committed "long-term" to the Big 12.

Texas president William Powers, Jr. said Tuesday that Texas led the way in keeping the foundering league together as the Big Ten and Pac-10 courted several Big 12 schools.

Nebraska (Big Ten) and Colorado (Pac-10) both will be leaving in the next two years.

Powers says there were no new guarantees of big-money television revenue, but a key point for Texas staying put was keeping its media rights.

That keeps Texas on course for possibly launching its own network.

Also Tuesday, the head of the Big 12 said the decision by Texas and other members to stay put was solidified by the knowledge that the league is valuable for television.

Commissioner Dan Beebe says no future TV deals have been reached, and he wouldn't get into specific numbers during a 45-minute conference call Tuesday.

But he said consultants and media companies verified that the Big 12 -- even as a 10-team league -- is in a "tremendous position" to negotiate future TV deals that will be "on par with any in the country."

The league's more lucrative contract with ESPN runs through the 2015-16 academic year, while a deal with Fox is reportedly in its final two years.

The Sports Business Daily reported Tuesday that no new deal has been signed with Fox, but sources said that FSN told Big 12 officials it would increase its annual payout to as much as $130 million to $140 million per year in exchange for rights to televise games, plus add radio, local media, smaller sport TV rights, corporate sponsorships and signage in stadiums and arenas.

It currently pays $20 million, Sports Business Daily reported.

ESPN assured the Big 12 that it would not ask for a lower license fee in its next negotiations, and would not seek a rebate from its current deal.

Missouri governor Jay Nixon said Tuesday that the Big 12 will be a stronger basketball conference without Colorado and Nebraska. He called the departing universities "the two weakest basketball programs" in the Big 12.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5289050

 

[NickZepp]

They also said A&M was the reason they didn't go to the PAC 10. Don't believe a word of it.

 

[Pistolpaden]

How many times do coaches say this (during a coaching search), when they are being courted by other schools. Can't believe a word of it.

 

[thebigabd]

How many times do coaches say this (during a coaching search), when they are being courted by other schools. Can't believe a word of it.

Pisotl,

You just don't like it because you feel like it benefits OU and UT more than OSU. But what you fail to realize is that it would have been more beneficial to USC, Oregon, UT, OU, and UCLA over OSU in the long-run in the Pac-20 deal.

 

[NickZepp]

There is no long term with this deal. There's not even a guarantee of more money right now.

 

[Cheno]

There is no long term with this deal. There's not even a guarantee of more money right now.

Jeez, did you even read the article. Fox Sports currently pays $20 million and said they would go to $130-140 million. That's a more concrete number than we heard from the Pac-16 and you all were clamoring for that.
Do you realize last year the Big 12 got $78 million from it's TV deal and the Pac-10 got $58 million. Lotta good all those extra households did in that contract huh?

 

[Max Power]

Jeez, did you even read the article. Fox Sports currently pays $20 million and said they would go to $130-140 million. That's a more concrete number than we heard from the Pac-16 and you all were clamoring for that.
Do you realize last year the Big 12 got $78 million from it's TV deal and the Pac-10 got $58 million. Lotta good all those extra households did in that contract huh?

I will believe it when I see it since Beebe said there is no new deal in place

 

[Cheno]

I will believe it when I see it since Beebe said there is no new deal in place

Great, where there was/is no Pac-10 super conference deal in place either.
So, I'll stick with the Big 12 whose current contract is $20 million more a year than the Pac-10's despite the Pac-10 being so much more heavily populated with TV sets.
I've said it all along...it's about primetime.....there is a reason you never see a notable Pac-10 conference basketball game on national TV in primetime. Never.

 

[thebigabd]

Great, where there was/is no Pac-10 super conference deal in place either.
So, I'll stick with the Big 12 whose current contract is $20 million more a year than the Pac-10's despite the Pac-10 being so much more heavily populated with TV sets.
I've said it all along...it's about primetime.....there is a reason you never see a notable Pac-10 conference basketball game on national TV in primetime. Never.

Speaking of tv sets.... Gottlieb made a good point yesterday about how college football isnt a big deal in some of their bigger markets on the west coast.

 

[thebigabd]

I will believe it when I see it since Beebe said there is no new deal in place

Why is everyone in disbelief of the proposed TV deal that UT, OU, KU, MU, Tech, OSU, and A&M chose but fully believe in a Pac-16 tv with equally shady numbers?

I think some of you have other motives than the tv money, because there is no reason to believe in one and not the other. In fact, there is less reason to not believe the Big 12 deal because all the schools support it and pledged allegiance to the Big 12.

 

[Cheno]

Why is everyone in disbelief of the proposed TV deal that UT, OU, KU, MU, Tech, OSU, and A&M chose but fully believe in a Pac-16 tv with equally shady numbers?

I think some of you have other motives than the tv money, because there is no reason to believe in one and not the other. In fact, there is less reason to not believe the Big 12 deal because all the schools support it and pledged allegiance to the Big 12.

Big they are just covering their butts cuz they jumped all feet in to a conference that probably wasn't ever going to happen and were bagging on the rest of the teams in the conference.
The Big 12 TV contract was $20 million more than the Pac-10's last year despite having less households yet a select few keep giving the Pac-10 the benefit of the doubt. Why??????

 

[Max Power]

Why is everyone in disbelief of the proposed TV deal that UT, OU, KU, MU, Tech, OSU, and A&M chose but fully believe in a Pac-16 tv with equally shady numbers?

I think some of you have other motives than the tv money, because there is no reason to believe in one and not the other. In fact, there is less reason to not believe the Big 12 deal because all the schools support it and pledged allegiance to the Big 12.

I didn't believe we would make that much in the Pac - 16. I think $140 million a year for the games espn and abc don't want is a lot of money. I find it hard to believe that those games generate that much profit

 

[Pistolpaden]

Pisotl,

You just don't like it because you feel like it benefits OU and UT more than OSU. But what you fail to realize is that it would have been more beneficial to USC, Oregon, UT, OU, and UCLA over OSU in the long-run in the Pac-20 deal.

HAHA BIGABD,

You fail to realize that there is no guaranteed money for OU, UT and A&M. So no I'm not against this deal at all....I just don't think you can believe a word that comes from UT (they've been the best poker/chess players this entire time in order to get their own network) There will be no "LONG TERM COMMITMENT" from UT, I don't care if there is a 18 year TV Contract for the Big XII - 2. Just like when a coach signs a contract extension (it doesn't mean a THING)

I hope that the latest to come out about this is true. No guaranteed money. Split 50% of the TV money between all 10 teams (everyone already gets more because it's split between 10 instead 12, simple math...I know the bigabd doesn't do well with math :woot) The 50% leftover from that is distributed to the teams that are on TV the most or better networks, i.e. ESPN and ABC (national audience)

UT and OU will still get the most but it is more fair than the rumored guaranteed money, which was a complete joke.