So much for the demise of the Big XII

[152219]

Nope. But you do get to share it with deadweight Baylor, kansas, kansas state, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech and West Virginia.

Congrats on what will basically amount to about $400,000 more per school (for a game that will likely end up being revenue neutral like most other bowl games).

Obviously a sign of a healthy conference.

LMFAO, oh how little you know.

The SEC and Big 12 actually OWN this bowl game, unlike the similar model with the Rose Bowl and the Pac12 and Big 10. The revenue both conferences get from this is going to be huge because the bowl revenue will go only to the conferences and they will have a bidding war for its rights from locations and TV networks. I've seen speculation that this bowl game will net each member of the conference between $2-3 million each.

It is quite obvious that losing Missouri and A&M didn't hurt the Big 12 football brand because the contract they have been offered is similar to what the SEC will also get. Neither Mizzou or A&M is a national brand and losing or adding them won't do much when it comes to a national deal like one with ABC/ESPN. The SEC added those two schools has become obvious to me recently. It has nothing to do with wanting to add the two schools for sports purposes, but because the SEC in the future will have a "SEC Network" and they wanted the Texas and Missouri TV markets. Having the markets aren't important for a national deal, but they mean everything when it comes to a conference network.

As for the solid ground the Big 12 is now on, it is quite obvious there are going to be "4 super conferences" and the Big12 was chosen to be #4. The money between the Big 12 and ACC is growing even greater and it is time for any school in the ACC which is interested in big time football and a big monied athletic department to jump ship.

 

[WTSooner]

Isn't boca the poster that said that Big 12 should just stay at 10 teams?

Looks like the conference disagrees. FSU and Clemson will likely make 12, and we may be aiming for 14+ before it's all said and done.

http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/05/fsu-to-the-big-12-it-is-inevitable/

 

[bocabull]

Yes I said staying at 10 teams was better than adding deadweight teams equivalent to Missouri. Obviously adding FSU and the Florida TV market is not adding dead weight. Clemson I'm not so sure. I might prefer Georgia Tech over them.

By adding the Florida market the Big XII will generate as much revenues as the SEC and split with fewer teams. I will not be surprised to see somebody from the SEC talking to the Big XII about switching. Would be hilarious if the Big XII pulled both FSU and UF. That 12 team conference would dwarf SEC revenues.

It's going to be funny the day Iowa State collects a bigger check than Missouri. It will happen.

 

[DenverSooner]

Nope. But you do get to share it with deadweight Baylor, kansas, kansas state, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech and West Virginia.

Congrats on what will basically amount to about $400,000 more per school (for a game that will likely end up being revenue neutral like most other bowl games).

Obviously a sign of a healthy conference.

Didn't TCU, West Virginia, OSU and KU all play in BCS games in the last 5 years? Haven't Baylor and Tech played in just as high bowl games as Missouri in the last 5 years? KSU has played in a BCS bowl game. I just don't see things like you do.

 

[Sawyer]

LMFAO, oh how little you know.

The SEC and Big 12 actually OWN this bowl game, unlike the similar model with the Rose Bowl and the Pac12 and Big 10. The revenue both conferences get from this is going to be huge because the bowl revenue will go only to the conferences and they will have a bidding war for its rights from locations and TV networks. I've seen speculation that this bowl game will net each member of the conference between $2-3 million each.

It is quite obvious that losing Missouri and A&M didn't hurt the Big 12 football brand because the contract they have been offered is similar to what the SEC will also get. Neither Mizzou or A&M is a national brand and losing or adding them won't do much when it comes to a national deal like one with ABC/ESPN. The SEC added those two schools has become obvious to me recently. It has nothing to do with wanting to add the two schools for sports purposes, but because the SEC in the future will have a "SEC Network" and they wanted the Texas and Missouri TV markets. Having the markets aren't important for a national deal, but they mean everything when it comes to a conference network.

As for the solid ground the Big 12 is now on, it is quite obvious there are going to be "4 super conferences" and the Big12 was chosen to be #4. The money between the Big 12 and ACC is growing even greater and it is time for any school in the ACC which is interested in big time football and a big monied athletic department to jump ship.

Of course the SEC added Mizzou and A&M with the intention of starting a conference network. That was the point from the beginning. In the Big 12, tier three rights are independently negotiated, which means UT and to a lesser extent OU will profit from it. kansas might with basketball (not sure how that factors in). No one else will be able to cash in on that. It's not a healthy model for the conference as a whole. It's good for the programs with resources, but it doesn't benefit most teams at all.

The SEC network will generate a ton of cash for all involved.

On the four superconferences, we'll see. None of the conference expansion stuff has gone down like people expected it to. The fate of the conference still lies with UT and OU remaining committed to it. None of the current teams hold any power over their own fate. That is not a good position to be in. And if you assume there will inevitably be four superconferences, with the PAC being one of them, where will their additional teams come from? Until that gets settled and/or the Big 12 locks itself into a long-term deal preventing teams from leaving (with an actual binding contract, not an informal agreement), I'd assume nothing.

DenverSooner, my point wasn't that complicated. Those teams' contributions to the bottom line have been more or less even with (or less than) Mizzou and A&M. If Mizzou/A&M are financial dead weight (and this thread is about financial health), then so, too, are those teams.

 

[seniorsooner]

Is Missouri out of the Big 12 yet?

 

[Tundrasooner]

Lol at Mizzou

 

[DenverSooner]

DenverSooner, my point wasn't that complicated. Those teams' contributions to the bottom line have been more or less even with (or less than) Mizzou and A&M. If Mizzou/A&M are financial dead weight (and this thread is about financial health), then so, too, are those teams.

And my point is they all contribute more than Missouri. You simply are not in the position to be cast stones at any program in the conference.

 

[152219]

Of course the SEC added Mizzou and A&M with the intention of starting a conference network. That was the point from the beginning. In the Big 12, tier three rights are independently negotiated, which means UT and to a lesser extent OU will profit from it. kansas might with basketball (not sure how that factors in). No one else will be able to cash in on that. It's not a healthy model for the conference as a whole. It's good for the programs with resources, but it doesn't benefit most teams at all.

The SEC network will generate a ton of cash for all involved.

On the four superconferences, we'll see. None of the conference expansion stuff has gone down like people expected it to. The fate of the conference still lies with UT and OU remaining committed to it. None of the current teams hold any power over their own fate. That is not a good position to be in. And if you assume there will inevitably be four superconferences, with the PAC being one of them, where will their additional teams come from? Until that gets settled and/or the Big 12 locks itself into a long-term deal preventing teams from leaving (with an actual binding contract, not an informal agreement), I'd assume nothing.

DenverSooner, my point wasn't that complicated. Those teams' contributions to the bottom line have been more or less even with (or less than) Mizzou and A&M. If Mizzou/A&M are financial dead weight (and this thread is about financial health), then so, too, are those teams.

The grant of rights has either been signed or will be signed at the Big 12 meeting next week. The long term health of the Big 12 has been shown, because no way the SEC forms an alliance with the Big 12 if they thought the conference was unstable.

More case in point that Mizzou doesn't add to any conference except for the markets in its state...recent tweets.

RT @Matt_HayesSN: Sports Business Journal: #SEC near SEC Network deal, begin early as 2014. CBS balking at major $ increase with Mizz/TAMU

@BryanDFischer
Can't say I'm surprised at my bosses' bosses' bosses balking at major $ increase for SEC. Mizzou/A&M don't do much for broadcast network.

 

[playmakr]

the grant of rights has either been signed or will be signed at the big 12 meeting next week. The long term health of the big 12 has been shown, because no way the sec forms an alliance with the big 12 if they thought the conference was unstable.

More case in point that mizzou doesn't add to any conference except for the markets in its state...recent tweets.

Rt @matt_hayessn: Sports business journal: #sec near sec network deal, begin early as 2014. cbs balking at major $ increase with mizz/tamu

@bryandfischer
can't say i'm surprised at my bosses' bosses' bosses balking at major $ increase for sec. mizzou/a&m don't do much for broadcast network.

LOL at Missouri.

 

[stoops4pres]

Both are revenue neutral, at best, compared to Mizzou and A&M.

So by your logic, are Mizzou and A&M considered to be "dead weights" as well? Considering the difference between those two, and TCU/West Virginia, are negligible?