Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC

[CascadeClone]

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

Completely agree with you Goldwater. No one can know for sure, but using logic, "follow the money", and trying to put yourself in commissioners' shoes, you can make a decent guess.

FWIW, I think they would take the 4 teams, going to 16 total. Makes decent divisions, 8 on coast, 8 inland, and feels like 16 is becoming a magic number for table stakes.

 

[Cyclones1969]

What a bunch of ****-measuring. "Are you an attorney?" "Are you a politician?" Is everyone 8 years old tonight? Is your dad gonna beat up my dad? Good grief. Settle down everyone.

With 0 inside information, but some familiarity with corporate contract bs, here's a simplified swag at "arguments":

ESPN is gonna say, we paid for OU and UT, and 45 conference games. Now you don't have OU and UT, even if you do come up with 45 conference games somehow. So what we bought and paid for isn't what you are giving us, so you broke the contract, and we want to pay less (or none). That's IF the Irate8 doesn't wet the bed and fold the conference first (which is of course what they hope).

The Irate8 will argue back "the only reason we don't have them is you interfered and stole them". It will be up to a judge to decide, based on the contract language (which I haven't seen and would not be qualified to decide anyway) - unless they settle it out of court, which is about a 99.9% chance.

Now can we all be civil please?

Your statement seems obvious. But that wasn’t what that poster was saying.

he made very definite statements, I was trying to find out what Information he has that led him to his conclusions.

and i agree, this won’t ever see the inside of a court room. I would doubt they ever get to discovery.

 

[Cyclones1969]

I don’t think it’s valuable to discuss legal strategy about a nine-figure contract dispute on a message board with someone who has not read the contract and wouldn’t be qualified to interpret it anyway.

No one knows how this will shake out - which makes it funnier (to me) that the original post that spurred this conversation was from someone else categorically saying the Big 12 will not admit any AAC universities. It’s foolish to say that with any certainty, just like it’s foolish to read an article about a contract and declare that the outcome you really want to happen is guaranteed to happen.

Have you read the contract? And, if it’s not valuable to discuss contracts on a message board, why are you making inferences to the contract?

Are you an attorney?

 

[StPaulCyclone]

Easy to say that now; not so easy if the best alternative is stay as an 8-team league and risk ESPN using that as a basis to slash the TV contract.

I think his point was to stay at 8 through the GOR and hope things go our way in the meantime.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I think his point was to stay at 8 through the GOR and hope things go our way in the meantime.

OK, thanks. I think 10 is preferable but that could also work. It would be interesting to see how we filled 5 non-conference slots, especially when we are trying to preserve the aura of P5. I imagine that is where a Pac-12 scheduling alliance could come in for at least 1 of those 2 new OOC slots.

 

[BCClone]

OK, thanks. I think 10 is preferable but that could also work. It would be interesting to see how we filled 5 non-conference slots, especially when we are trying to preserve the aura of P5. I imagine that is where a Pac-12 scheduling alliance could come in for at least 1 of those 2 new OOC slots.

I think you will see the PAC 12 alliance and if we are interested in BYU, they need to raise their schedule from their current teams and adding several big XII teams would help them.

 

[Number Monkey]

Thanks for posting here, Number Monkey! I remember you from the old Big 12 board when David Boren was on his foolish expansion debacle back in 2016.

Ha, guilty! The Fanatic just ghosted though about 4 years ago, haven't heard a peep since.

 

[Cloneon]

What a bunch of ****-measuring. "Are you an attorney?" "Are you a politician?" Is everyone 8 years old tonight? Is your dad gonna beat up my dad? Good grief. Settle down everyone.

With 0 inside information, but some familiarity with corporate contract bs, here's a simplified swag at "arguments":

ESPN is gonna say, we paid for OU and UT, and 45 conference games. Now you don't have OU and UT, even if you do come up with 45 conference games somehow. So what we bought and paid for isn't what you are giving us, so you broke the contract, and we want to pay less (or none). That's IF the Irate8 doesn't wet the bed and fold the conference first (which is of course what they hope).

The Irate8 will argue back "the only reason we don't have them is you interfered and stole them". It will be up to a judge to decide, based on the contract language (which I haven't seen and would not be qualified to decide anyway) - unless they settle it out of court, which is about a 99.9% chance.

Now can we all be civil please?

Actually, I was trying to be civil. I like reading posts which have substance. I was, merely, asking what his opinions were to substantiate that the B12 would never win this one in court. BUT, and I do apologize, I got a little snarky when the evasive tactics started to emerge. I'll try to be more civil going forward.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

OK, thanks. I think 10 is preferable but that could also work. It would be interesting to see how we filled 5 non-conference slots, especially when we are trying to preserve the aura of P5. I imagine that is where a Pac-12 scheduling alliance could come in for at least 1 of those 2 new OOC slots.

That was my thought, replace OuT with two teams from the P12 alliance and then schedule rest of nonconference, per usual. Again, hopefully things go our way in the meantime.

Fox doesn’t have a great streaming solution right now. I would love for them to partner with Amazon or Apple, etc. and pay the P12, B10 and ”B8” Big money. Turn those 34 (and add ND and BYU to get to 36) teams into a super league that would be coast to coast and would wall off and compete against ESPN and the SEC and ACC. It could still be 3 related conferences with scheduling alliances.

 

[AuH2O]

What a bunch of ****-measuring. "Are you an attorney?" "Are you a politician?" Is everyone 8 years old tonight? Is your dad gonna beat up my dad? Good grief. Settle down everyone.

With 0 inside information, but some familiarity with corporate contract bs, here's a simplified swag at "arguments":

ESPN is gonna say, we paid for OU and UT, and 45 conference games. Now you don't have OU and UT, even if you do come up with 45 conference games somehow. So what we bought and paid for isn't what you are giving us, so you broke the contract, and we want to pay less (or none). That's IF the Irate8 doesn't wet the bed and fold the conference first (which is of course what they hope).

The Irate8 will argue back "the only reason we don't have them is you interfered and stole them". It will be up to a judge to decide, based on the contract language (which I haven't seen and would not be qualified to decide anyway) - unless they settle it out of court, which is about a 99.9% chance.

Now can we all be civil please?

The problem ESPN has, is if it is shown they interfered and were involved in getting OU and UT to jump, then they are left paying the current contract to the rest and open themselves up to future earnings/damages as well.

If it is NOT shown that ESPN interfered, and they can get out of the contract, then it just provides even more ammo for the rest of the league against OU and UT, which of course puts a quick move to the SEC in real jeopardy, which ESPN doesn't want.

The point is, no matter what ESPN is in a big bind here, whether they are directly implicated in actions to destabilize the conference or not.

Also, I don't think people are seeing the legal battle correctly if they think the question is "do UT and OU get out of paying media $ per the GoR." I think the legal battle is going well beyond that, and it's about ESPN destabilizing the conference for gain when a competitor has a stake; ESPN having information about OU and UT jumping to the SEC, thus bidding against CBS for a product they knew would be more valuable in the future while CBS did not; UT and OU acting as participants in negotiating, or having talks about renegotiating with ESPN on behalf of the Big 12 while already having active talks with the SEC; ESPN being privy to OU and UT's intent to jump to the SEC while discussing potential renegotiated media rights.

Any of these things are major problems legally for OU and UT and/or ESPN. Even if ESPN is able to shift blame or get out of any accusations, it simply shifts more blame and responsibility to OU and UT, which comes back to bite ESPN.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Everyone seems to think that this whole deal has to be settled in the next month or two or the remaining Big 12 schools are screwed, that is not the case at all.

OUT will be here for at least this season and next, they have to give 18 months notice to leave, which they have done. No school is going to leave a conference in Jan/Feb, so we are good through the 22/23 season. Now the question becomes does OUT want pay the buyout of $75 million each for the next two seasons, I tend to think they will not. ESPN does not take control of the SEC broadcasts until the 2024 season, CBS holds the contract for the 2023 season, so ESPN will not want them to move before they take control of the broadcasts, why help CBS? I do think they will l buy themselves out of the last year of the contract, but by then it will not matter.

Both the Pac 12 and Big 10 contracts come up for renew in 2023 and 2024, neither network is going to do anything until those agreements are finalized. Then expansion or whatever will occur at that time.

ISU will get a full share for the next 4 years, ESPN knows that and so does the league, the one thing we have on our side is time. We just need to be patient and allow the problem to work itself out.

 

[Number Monkey]

Good analysis. I think another good comparison is whether you include postseason or exclude it, ISU outdrew the average Fox family of network games in both scenarios. I'd say ISU was pretty evenly represented in network, ESPN, and second tier (ESPN2, FS1 and 2) channels. Of course we also know that Fox had Big 10, Big 12 and PAC games, so it's pretty fair to say that ISU performed well vs. the typical teams in those leagues.

Another addition to your analysis above, both on networks (ABC and Fox) at the same time, ISU and Okie St. outdrew Notre Dame - Pitt. Pitt is not a big draw of course, but this flies in the face of it being only OU and UT that create ratings. Outdrawing ND head to head is a big deal, and shows that Okie St. and ISU have value.

Yes, this is where it gets tricky because time of day, network, competition, etc will all factor into who performed well, when. Its a rabbit hole to be honest. The one advantage the Big 12's media deal currently has is they have more games on rated channels than any other league, who mostly dump almost half their inventory on conference channels that are not rated. That gives you more games rated, but that also means your averages drop, because all low end crap for the SEC and Big Ten are removed from the pool of rated games, upping the averages.

It makes a difference too. The national, or Tier 1, channels get a boost just because they're known and easy to find for casual viewers, but also because they tend to market their games, regardless of who is playing. Here's the averages per channel for last year.



If all of your games on are ESPN and up, you're going to look better than if they were all on ESPN and down. Not all teams make it on the same channels though. Per the earlier point, its easier to market big brands, so they end up getting the lions share of the ESPN and Up bookings. Granted, performance helps too. The more you win, the more you get on TV, so winning truly is everything, especially if you're not a big brand. (Technically winning in close games against ranked teams boosts the most...rabbit holes) And, for comparison purposes, the conference networks are around the FS2 level of viewership. That is why the battle a decade ago was for markets and cable households, it socializes unwatched content to provide a higher value. Now that they're national, it will be about increasing viewership.

Here's the representation of games the Big 12 played last year on Tier 1 Networks (ABC/FOX), adding in ESPN which is kind of like Tier 1.5 any more, and all Tier 2 games, which are the numbered channels (ESPN2, FS1, etc).



So, Iowa State sat 6th in the conference in the ability to be seen in front of the biggest audiences. However, they out performed once within those channels, having the fourth highest averages in the T1 channels and the largest averages on ESPN.

That's why Oklahoma State and Iowa State are sitting in good places (and WVU due to their location), assuming they can continue success. Matched with the right regional match ups those numbers should improve.

I wouldn't want to be Kansas right now though, as I don't think their basketball brand is enough to move the needle. Considering 57% of their games were on T2, that's barely getting people in KC to turn in, let alone anywhere else.

 

[Gonzo]

This is spot on. The biggest mistake people, specifically reporters, are making currently is stating their industry sources claim so and so "doesn't have value". That is a complete over simplification. Does Texas and OU have value? Sure, they are in a football crazy part of the world, that is growing in population, and they have a history of success. The difference between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State isn't population or cable audiences or that Oklahoma State isn't valuable or whatever, it is that Oklahoma is easier to market. Far less work for ESPN, because the brand is national.

The next round, and there will be another round in the next two years prior to a potential seismic shift within the next decade the way things are progressing, isn't about cable households, that was the last round where it was about forcing people who didn't watch your games to pay for your channel. That's done, these channels are national, this next round will be about who is marketable. Who will increase interest in what I already have.

In the Big 12, none left rival Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, as the big dogs, but neither does any other team in any other conference. That doesn't mean they're worthless.

I pulled all the numbers from last year's tv audiences to get a view of how they could be marketed. I don't have a place to post it all at the moment, so I'll try and keep this simple; of those five, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and West Virginia stood out as the highest potential.

West Virginia (#5 in B12): Closer numbers to the Hawkeye's audience, but draws big numbers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the DMV, far bigger than Pitt, UVA, and Maryland and behind only Penn State/Ohio State in the area. They did that without really playing anyone geographically around them, which reduces interest. Rivalry games are rarely in two different regions.

Oklahoma State (#3 in B12): Surprisingly their numbers put them at about 75% of Oklahoma's draw, which is pretty respectable. Fun fact, the average audience difference between Texas/Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is the same difference between Oklahoma State and Iowa/Nebraska.

Iowa State (#4 in B12): Slightly behind Oklahoma State's numbers, they averaged 500-600k more viewers, per game, than both Iowa and Nebraska, had the largest non-playoff post season audience for both the Big 12 and Big Ten, and they did that by not really playing anyone geographically around them. Like Oklahoma State, their numbers were actually closer to USC/Oregon than Iowa/Nebraska.

(Rounding it out for the curious: Kansas State [6], Texas Tech [7], TCU [8], Baylor [9], and Kansas [10])

As an example, the Big Ten (All other things aside, e.g. AAU, politics, "sources", etc) could add ISU and WVU and market a bunch more games to people already within the footprint they own. WVU would spark Maryland and Penn State and Iowa State could spark Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota. When the average CFB national audience is 2m people, you don't really need a big market to be successful. You just need people, regionally, to care enough to turn on the game.

I could likely write for days on viewership and/or how these media contracts work or how they could really make some money in the next deals, but this is already long enough to induce comas. The TLDR at this point: going forward value is based on marketability, not location. Look for those opportunities.

USC and Oregon.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Everyone seems to think that this whole deal has to be settled in the next month or two or the remaining Big 12 schools are screwed, that is not the case at all.

OUT will be here for at least this season and next, they have to give 18 months notice to leave, which they have done. No school is going to leave a conference in Jan/Feb, so we are good through the 22/23 season. Now the question becomes does OUT want pay the buyout of $75 million each for the next two seasons, I tend to think they will not. ESPN does not take control of the SEC broadcasts until the 2024 season, CBS holds the contract for the 2023 season, so ESPN will not want them to move before they take control of the broadcasts, why help CBS? I do think they will l buy themselves out of the last year of the contract, but by then it will not matter.

Both the Pac 12 and Big 10 contracts come up for renew in 2023 and 2024, neither network is going to do anything until those agreements are finalized. Then expansion or whatever will occur at that time.

ISU will get a full share for the next 4 years, ESPN knows that and so does the league, the one thing we have on our side is time. We just need to be patient and allow the problem to work itself out.

I agree with much of that, but I disagree with the bolded. Why would you want to finalize your contract before you made a move to add value to it? I think you'd at least want an agreement in place that says, "in 2025, these teams will be added". Otherwise, the schools being added do nothing to increase the value of what is potentially a pretty long term contract.

 

[Number Monkey]

ISU will get a full share for the next 4 years, ESPN knows that and so does the league, the one thing we have on our side is time. We just need to be patient and allow the problem to work itself out.

Truth. There is a lot of posturing, but no matter what reporters may claim, this isn't something that will be done quickly nor easily. There are two big parts at play:

Buyout: This is two years media revenue withheld the moment the announcement comes they're leaving. So, at a minimum, OU/Texas will owe around $80m each to the Big 12, even if they stay for the end of the current media contract.

Grant of Rights: Also known as GoRs, grant of rights literally give away your ownership of something, be it a song, book, youtube content or, in this case, broadcast rights for sporting events. They are used all the time, they are not unique to CFB. You may have heard stories back in the day about Michael Jackson buying the rights to the Beatles songs, that was because the Beatles, as most bands due, granted their publishing rights to Apple Records. They still get paid, they just can't control how those rights are used.

Generally speaking, what makes these rights iron clad, is that you willingly ceded them for some benefit (in this case money) and there is an end date on the contract. This allows you to give away something you created, or are going to create, for a benefit, and you can secure them again should that benefit not materialize. (Like an author signing over the movie rights to their story for 5-10 years, or Sony getting to keep the Spider-Man movie rights from Marvel as long as they keep making Spider-Man movies).

Even if OU/Texas wrote a check for $160m today and wanted to play in the SEC tomorrow, ESPN could not broadcast their games, outside the single Tier 3 game provided in the contract, without the permission of the Big 12 as the rights holder to that content.

The Big 12 could then choose to black them out or it could sell the rights to ESPN, or it could allow ESPN to broadcast the games and collect the checks without the need to pay Texas no OU for the content. Or, if ESPN claims it will pay the Big12 less because this content is now gone, then the Big 12 can add these revenue decreases to the buyout amount of OU/TX to be made whole, per the terms of their bylaws, which were strengthened considerably after the last round of realignment.

What ESPN was trying to do, is get enough Big 12 schools to go to different homes, that the conference would fold and ESPN could start mixing it up ASAP. I don't think you're going to see a TI battle in court nor will you see a lot of legal battles over the buyouts or GoR either because its four years. Its likely a court case would take longer than that to settle it with all the money is involved.

The most likely solution, to Seiwa's point, is that the ten schools will play it out four years, with the remaining 8 getting a thank you check in the buyout, and go their separate ways within a host of realignment possibilities. Or, that in 2-3 years a deal is struck to provide the rights to the SEC sooner for some monetary benefit to the remaining members.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I agree with much of that, but I disagree with the bolded. Why would you want to finalize your contract before you made a move to add value to it? I think you'd at least want an agreement in place that says, "in 2025, these teams will be added". Otherwise, the schools being added do nothing to increase the value of what is potentially a pretty long term contract.

Simple, you are negations the base contact, and there is a rider if you add additional schools. You have to know the value the schools you currently have in the fold, before you know how much more you will be getting by adding.

No doubt during these negations the numbers will be run on the value of the contract staying put as well as the value of the contract if they expand to new teams, and the exact amount each new team is going to bring into the conference.

Both the Big 10 and Pac 12 will have people running the numbers to determine if we add school A how does it affect our numbers compared to school B. Much like the Big 12 did when they were thinking about expanding a few years ago.

Once that information is determined that is when the OFFICAL offer will or will not come, that does not mean that either conference is not reaching out to perspective schools during the negations finding out if they will join if offered. All under the table and in silence from the media.

 

[Number Monkey]

USC and Oregon.

They don't draw like the rest. Michigan played less televised games as USC and Oregon last year and drew 46% more audience. Penn State and Wisconsin were higher. For per game averages for teams who played at least 5 televised games last year (to factor out the ones who played one game against ND and got a bump), USC is ranked 21st and Oregon is ranked 22nd. UNC was ranked #19, Oklahoma State was ranked #22nd and Iowa State was ranked #25th.

They are big brands, but they're not currently materializing numbers like the ones listed.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Simple, you are negations the base contact, and there is a rider if you add additional schools. You have to know the value the schools you currently have in the fold, before you know how much more you will be getting by adding.

No doubt during these negations the numbers will be run on the value of the contract staying put as well as the value of the contract if they expand to new teams, and the exact amount each new team is going to bring into the conference.

Both the Big 10 and Pac 12 will have people running the numbers to determine if we add school A how does it affect our numbers compared to school B. Much like the Big 12 did when they were thinking about expanding a few years ago.

Once that information is determined that is when the OFFICAL offer will or will not come, that does not mean that either conference is not reaching out to perspective schools during the negations finding out if they will join if offered. All under the table and in silence from the media.

I had not thought of that angle, but I'd personally rather do the negotiations once with known quantities, than roll the dice on the value of the additions in a few years. Also, the PAC 12 appears to be in both an offensive and defensive position right now, as they need to add and score a nicer contract in hopes that they don't lose key members.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Yes, this is where it gets tricky because time of day, network, competition, etc will all factor into who performed well, when. Its a rabbit hole to be honest. The one advantage the Big 12's media deal currently has is they have more games on rated channels than any other league, who mostly dump almost half their inventory on conference channels that are not rated. That gives you more games rated, but that also means your averages drop, because all low end crap for the SEC and Big Ten are removed from the pool of rated games, upping the averages.

It makes a difference too. The national, or Tier 1, channels get a boost just because they're known and easy to find for casual viewers, but also because they tend to market their games, regardless of who is playing. Here's the averages per channel for last year.

View attachment 88059

If all of your games on are ESPN and up, you're going to look better than if they were all on ESPN and down. Not all teams make it on the same channels though. Per the earlier point, its easier to market big brands, so they end up getting the lions share of the ESPN and Up bookings. Granted, performance helps too. The more you win, the more you get on TV, so winning truly is everything, especially if you're not a big brand. (Technically winning in close games against ranked teams boosts the most...rabbit holes) And, for comparison purposes, the conference networks are around the FS2 level of viewership. That is why the battle a decade ago was for markets and cable households, it socializes unwatched content to provide a higher value. Now that they're national, it will be about increasing viewership.

Here's the representation of games the Big 12 played last year on Tier 1 Networks (ABC/FOX), adding in ESPN which is kind of like Tier 1.5 any more, and all Tier 2 games, which are the numbered channels (ESPN2, FS1, etc).

View attachment 88061

So, Iowa State sat 6th in the conference in the ability to be seen in front of the biggest audiences. However, they out performed once within those channels, having the fourth highest averages in the T1 channels and the largest averages on ESPN.

That's why Oklahoma State and Iowa State are sitting in good places (and WVU due to their location), assuming they can continue success. Matched with the right regional match ups those numbers should improve.

I wouldn't want to be Kansas right now though, as I don't think their basketball brand is enough to move the needle. Considering 57% of their games were on T2, that's barely getting people in KC to turn in, let alone anywhere else.

Damn that is some good information regarding TV viewership and really lays bare the fact the OUT were worth 50% of the contract, because the numbers do not show that. Are the two schools important, sure they are, but they are not worth 50% of the deal or $200 million for the two.
If they were anywhere close to that then the LHN would have had no trouble getting a sizable audience for their yearly game on the network, when in reality it lost money each and every year it was in business.

The more you get on Tier 1 networks the higher your rating are, the networks chose OUT most often to broadcast their games on those Tier 1 channels and then want to say, that OUT are producing 50% of the revenue for the league, while everyone else is crap. Its not true and this proves it.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I had not thought of that angle, but I'd personally rather do the negotiations once with known quantities, than roll the dice on the value of the additions in a few years. Also, the PAC 12 appears to be in both an offensive and defensive position right now, as they need to add and score a nicer contract in hopes that they don't lose key members.

Both the Pac 12 and the Big 10 will know those numbers before they even start negations with the networks, and so will FOX or anyone else looking to bid on the contact.