Texas & Oklahoma leaving in 2024, period.

[1UNI2ISU]

Question:

What's the $100M for? Is this the simple conference exit fees or is it compensation for the GoR?

The basic exit fee was meant to be 2 years revenue distributions, or about $80M EACH. And this has nothing to do with how many years they stay in the conference, or how early they leave or not.

Then the GoR was supposed to be on top of that, and the more difficult nit to unpick.

If Big12 is only getting $100M (or $80M after Fox gets a cut), then they are leaving about $80M on the table. Again, they should be owed that money even if OuT stays thru 2025. This isn't like Scott Frosts contract, where they could have waited and reduced their obligation. Why give them a break on that, and why so large? The OP article says it "usually" gets negotiated down to 60%, but why agree to that just because "usually"? Did ESPN/Fox fatten up the TV deal (or agree to shiv the PAC so Big12 could survive) in exchange for this?

Also, is the Big12 getting anything additional for the loss of 1 year of GoR? I've not seen anything about that.

Maybe I am missing something, certainly I have not dug into the details as much as I could.

The Big 12 is getting $80M and FOX is getting $20M plus some OU/Texas inventory. That's it. That's the deal.

I think it's the right move. Let's both sides move on with it and look at the future. It's a fair deal for everybody and lets both leagues shape what the future is going to look like for themselves.

 

[SCNCY]

Question:

What's the $100M for? Is this the simple conference exit fees or is it compensation for the GoR?

The basic exit fee was meant to be 2 years revenue distributions, or about $80M EACH. And this has nothing to do with how many years they stay in the conference, or how early they leave or not.

Then the GoR was supposed to be on top of that, and the more difficult nit to unpick.

If Big12 is only getting $100M (or $80M after Fox gets a cut), then they are leaving about $80M on the table. Again, they should be owed that money even if OuT stays thru 2025. This isn't like Scott Frosts contract, where they could have waited and reduced their obligation. Why give them a break on that, and why so large? The OP article says it "usually" gets negotiated down to 60%, but why agree to that just because "usually"? Did ESPN/Fox fatten up the TV deal (or agree to shiv the PAC so Big12 could survive) in exchange for this?

Also, is the Big12 getting anything additional for the loss of 1 year of GoR? I've not seen anything about that.

Maybe I am missing something, certainly I have not dug into the details as much as I could.

The way I read it is that $100 million total is for everything.

Regarding the bolded, since they are only leaving one year early, compared to two, they would only owe 1 year of lost media revenue. So that becomes 40 million each. I assume the balance would be for breaking the GOR that was negotiated.

 

[JP4CY]

Rumors out there that Arizona State is pissed about the what's happening with the Pac, especially SMU, and might be more open to moving than they have been in the past.

 

[SCNCY]

Rumors out there that Arizona State is pissed about the what's happening with the Pac, especially SMU, and might be more open to moving than they have been in the past.

Source of these rumors? I am enjoying this and would like to catch up where I can.

 

[singsing]

San Diego state is a horrible option and should never be considered by the Big12. Yeah they might* be better than WSU of OSU but no one is talking about having either of those schools added to the big 12. This love affair some people have with SDSU is so odd and has no basis in reality.

This was in discussion whether to take the Arizona schools. I don't think they're a great option either. West coast is just a bad time zone. In a dream world I like the ACC schools better like beens discussed. As we've seen everything has evolved pretty quickly the last couple seasons, so I think football is going to be in a big state of Flux going forward so who knows. Schedules out for next season..not even counting on that

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Source of these rumors? I am enjoying this and would like to catch up where I can.

Arizona State’s equivalent of this board and Jason Scheer has also mentioned it.

Sounds as though Yormark is going to swing for the fences first for Oregon and Washington. I assume the pitch will be that we are a better home for now and you will get your crack at the B1G when the ACC explodes in a handful of years.

 

[exCyDing]

San Diego State is a better option than a lot of pac12 schools. Most don't even want to join. Why take them? I think it's going to be interesting to see how these g5 schools do that are entering the conference. I would not underestimate how good a UCF or Houston could get with the right scheduling and TV deals. We'd be on the outside looking in hadn't we jumped on those schools when we did. Kinda arrogant talk too..Cincy just made the playoffs. When was the last time we pulled that off?

I think we should establish a few ground rules for discussion further B12 expansion, if only to limit the dumb takes like this. Just a few ideas:

1. There are no G5 schools worthy of discussion. It doesn't matter how big of a city they are in (see #2). It doesn't matter how cool it would be to go to an away game there. At best, your preferred G5 school is the 11th best option on the table right now, and 25th best option over the next 15 years.
2. TV market size does not matter for the B12. It's only a consideration if the conference has their own network that they can get on the local cable packages. The B12 does not have it's own network. The B10 does, and that's why this model works for them. For this same reason, "it's a new TV market / we already have a school in that market" aren't necessarily relevant discussion points either so long as both have a sizeable fanbase.
3. GORs seem to be pretty ironclad, which means the ACC is off the table for the time being. Yes, there is some number that could persuade the rest of the ACC to break the GOR. OUT was $50m/school/year. The rest of the ACC has zero reason to negotiate at all, but maybe $40m/year would persuade them. Does it make any sort of economic sense for someone to put up that much money to get it done? Not even sort of.
4. Don't worry about the B10/SEC expanding further. They're going to do what they're going to do, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. Yes, get agreements to extract a pound of flesh if a school gets an invite. "They're going to jump at the first chance they get to join the B10/SEC" describes every single school that is not currently in the B10 or SEC.
5. If a school does not maintain or grow the current media deal on a per-school basis, it's a non-starter.
6. No partial members for revenue sports.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I think we should establish a few ground rules for discussion further B12 expansion, if only to limit the dumb takes like this. Just a few ideas:

1. There are no G5 schools worthy of discussion. It doesn't matter how big of a city they are in (see #2). It doesn't matter how cool it would be to go to an away game there. At best, your preferred G5 school is the 11th best option on the table right now, and 25th best option over the next 15 years.
2. TV market size does not matter for the B12. It's only a consideration if the conference has their own network that they can get on the local cable packages. The B12 does not have it's own network. The B10 does, and that's why this model works for them. For this same reason, "it's a new TV market / we already have a school in that market" aren't necessarily relevant discussion points either so long as both have a sizeable fanbase.
3. GORs seem to be pretty ironclad, which means the ACC is off the table for the time being. Yes, there is some number that could persuade the rest of the ACC to break the GOR. OUT was $50m/school/year. The rest of the ACC has zero reason to negotiate at all, but maybe $40m/year would persuade them. Does it make any sort of economic sense for someone to put up that much money to get it done? Not even sort of.
4. Don't worry about the B10/SEC expanding further. They're going to do what they're going to do, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. Yes, get agreements to extract a pound of flesh if a school gets an invite. "They're going to jump at the first chance they get to join the B10/SEC" describes every single school that is not currently in the B10 or SEC.
5. If a school does not maintain or grow the current media deal on a per-school basis, it's a non-starter.
6. No partial members for revenue sports.

#6 seems out of touch with what they are already trying to do with Gonzaga

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Jason Scheer reporting that the Pac-12 presidents have given Kliavkoff a mid-April deadline to resolve the TV deal and expansion. Otherwise, he says the leaving conversations will become very real at that point.

 

[surly]

I agree, the B12 will be talking to Oregon, UW, UofA, ASU, CU and likely Utah although with BYU, the Utes add nothing.

Or maybe the B12 and P12 get married. IDK. But I believe expansion is on the horizon with UCLA and USC P12 goners. Because SMU and San Diego are not acceptable fixes for the latter.

 

[drmwevr08]

#6 seems out of touch with what they are already trying to do with Gonzaga

I like his rule better. Screw Gonzaga.

 

[singsing]

I think we should establish a few ground rules for discussion further B12 expansion, if only to limit the dumb takes like this. Just a few ideas:

1. There are no G5 schools worthy of discussion. It doesn't matter how big of a city they are in (see #2). It doesn't matter how cool it would be to go to an away game there. At best, your preferred G5 school is the 11th best option on the table right now, and 25th best option over the next 15 years.
2. TV market size does not matter for the B12. It's only a consideration if the conference has their own network that they can get on the local cable packages. The B12 does not have it's own network. The B10 does, and that's why this model works for them. For this same reason, "it's a new TV market / we already have a school in that market" aren't necessarily relevant discussion points either so long as both have a sizeable fanbase.
3. GORs seem to be pretty ironclad, which means the ACC is off the table for the time being. Yes, there is some number that could persuade the rest of the ACC to break the GOR. OUT was $50m/school/year. The rest of the ACC has zero reason to negotiate at all, but maybe $40m/year would persuade them. Does it make any sort of economic sense for someone to put up that much money to get it done? Not even sort of.
4. Don't worry about the B10/SEC expanding further. They're going to do what they're going to do, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. Yes, get agreements to extract a pound of flesh if a school gets an invite. "They're going to jump at the first chance they get to join the B10/SEC" describes every single school that is not currently in the B10 or SEC.
5. If a school does not maintain or grow the current media deal on a per-school basis, it's a non-starter.
6. No partial members for revenue sports.

Dumb? Should have read a couple posts further. Like I said, I don't like any west coast options including the Arizona schools. If we're in a west coast discussion who would join and who'd be a better option in the pac? I don't mind opinions but if you're going to waste that much time typing and calling me dumb you can go **** yourself.

 

[exCyDing]

#6 seems out of touch with what they are already trying to do with Gonzaga

I'd be surprised if those talks were anything more than very preliminary. Bringing Gonzaga into the B12 makes about as much sense as SMU to the PAC to keep everyone around.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Source of these rumors? I am enjoying this and would like to catch up where I can.

Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer)

He's Arizona's version of Chris Williams and has been pretty well connected to all of the drama in the Pac. He's also pretty sure that Kliavakoff doesn't have a linear TV deal anywhere and none of the money he's promised.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I'd be surprised if those talks were anything more than very preliminary. Bringing Gonzaga into the B12 makes about as much sense as SMU to the PAC to keep everyone around.

Disagree with this take. Adding Gonzaga as a basketball only member would cost very very little and would help shore up the Big12 as the premier basketball conference. Even if they fall off they would be making so little it wouldn’t matter. Travel could suck but that’s the only real negative

 

[1UNI2ISU]

#6 seems out of touch with what they are already trying to do with Gonzaga

Agreed. Gonzaga brings value in both being a name that draws TV ratings and can fill that late night TV window. Plus them getting a 1/8th share (that's what Wichita gets for being a non-football AAC) is $5M incredibly well spent that you'll actually make money on in just NCAA Tournament units alone.

 

[CloneFanInKC]

The more I think about it, the more I like expanding to the point of having large divisions. Limiting travel for the West and East schools would be a huge benefit and it would allow for teams to develop rivalries with their division members. So add 4 more and get to 16 with an East/West split.

West:
4 PAC schools
BYU
TCU
Baylor
Tech

East:
ISU
KU
KSU
OSU
WVU
Houston
Cincinnati
UCF

Or however the Texas school split would go. Play 7 division games and 2 cross-over games in football. Go wild and play 14 division games and 8 cross division games in basketball.

I like 16 “today” like outlined above and then grow to 18 or 20 “tomorrow” when ACC is available. Pitt, VaTech, NC State and one more?

 

[surly]

Agreed. Gonzaga brings value in both being a name that draws TV ratings and can fill that late night TV window. Plus them getting a 1/8th share (that's what Wichita gets for being a non-football AAC) is $5M incredibly well spent that you'll actually make money on in just NCAA Tournament units alone.

Adding P12 schools, which is clearly going to happen soon, would lesson the Zags travel burdens as well.

 

[exCyDing]

Dumb? Should have read a couple posts further. Like I said, I don't like any west coast options including the Arizona schools. If we're in a west coast discussion who would join and who'd be a better option in the pac? I don't mind opinions but if you're going to waste that much time typing and calling me dumb you can go **** yourself.

That's fine, but preferring SDSU over the Arizona schools makes about as much sense as thinking the PAC adding SMU is going to keep their current 10 members around.

The list wasn't entirely targeted to you, but moreso the same ones that reliably bubble up.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Time to get aggressive. Get one school of the four to jump and we get all 4.

Yormark; we wanted a killer, get killing.