Why doesn't Texas just reform the Big12 with its current TV deal?

I think they might add some Big East teams to theat as well. I think a Big 12/East merger benefits Texas. they get a crap conference they can lord over and keep their precious LHN. With Texas, the Big 12 might even keep its BCS bid.

I know you'll hate it, but add Boise as well, and maybe some other MWC castoffs.

quote:

---

I think they might add some Big East teams to theat as well.

---

yea i was thinking more of a western push, b/c as of now there is the pac12 and NOTHING. we need another conference with a western footprint

quote:

---

I know you'll hate it, but add Boise as well,

---

I INCLUDED THEM

actually i originally thought about this watching the Boise game Friday night

lol tell that to the networks they can and will renegotiate if OU OKie St and A&M bolt and like I say unless they get a ND type the value is a ton less.

You are talking about losing a program in OU that has won national titles and is yearly in the BCS mix, the OU-Texas game is annually the highest revenue generating game for OU, Texas and highest rated.

But that is all just gravy, the bottom line is in every TV deal there is a clause to renegotiate if the conference changes.

Put yourself in the chair of ESPN or ABC, if you can't air OU nationally or even Okie State regionally or A&M regionally do you pay the same for Houston, SMU and Boise as replacements?

quote:

---

lol tell that to the networks they can and will renegotiate if OU OKie St and A&M bolt and like I say unless they get a ND type the value is a ton less.

---

a. do we know for 100% certain that the deal has to be negotiated if OU leaves? seems like UT would have been an idiot to agree to that

b. if the deal gets less overall, UT can still keep it's $18-20M and just pay the small schools they add less than what OU/TAMU got. it still works out for UT even with less overall money

quote:

---

You are talking about losing a program in OU that has won national titles and is yearly in the BCS mix, the OU-Texas game is annually the highest revenue generating game for OU, Texas and highest rated.

---

they'd still play. no matter how puffy chested they got. they'd end up playing it again

quote:

---

Put yourself in the chair of ESPN or ABC, if you can't air OU nationally or even Okie State regionally or A&M regionally do you pay the same for Houston, SMU and Boise as replacements?

---

from UT's perspective, it's irrelevant

Boise, Houston, and SMU won't require the $18-20M TAMU/OU wanted. UT gets paid at that level and the lesser deal is split among the new schools (who end up making a lot more than in their current deal)

quote:

---

There is no guarantee OU and Texas would still play

---

you are right

quote:

---

the PAC would get the revenue at least half the time as OU would be PAC team and the TV rights would go there

---

the network revenue for both schools would already be set. which network the game came on is irrelevant to the schools

quote:

---

you obviously don't understand the nature of TV contracts.

---

did you just make a statement that tv revenue is distributed per game? because i think you did

Kansas and KSU are likely to bolt for the Pac-16. So you might need two more teams...

Nevada?
New Mexico?
UNLV?
Southern Miss?
Air Force?

Slow,

You really have no clue.

To answer your questions no TV revenue is not calculated per game.

However when the networks negotiate deals they do so with the right to CHOOSE which games and in many cases at what times they air games.

The value is for the season not per game.

The contracts are negotiated thru the conferences but the networks pay for BAMA v LSU and not Vandy v Kentucky.

The value is also for the conf as a whole. If OU goes to the PAC, the PAC has the TV rights to OU and the revenue.

The B12 distributes money differently than most conf,most share equally or near equally.

But again the bottom line to answer is NO the TV deals are not game by game.

If OU goes to PAC, the PAC gets the rights and revenue.

And the B12 is less valuable and would command less $$ if OU, OKie State and A&M are replaced by Boise, SMU and Houston.

Watch and see.

IF your point is that Texas will attempt to keep revenue same (or increase) if they move to ACC, go indy or reform B12 you are correct, but there are vast differences in what cards they hold to negotiate depending on where they sit.

OOC rights are shared and negotiated. It's different depending on who holds them and where the game is played.

quote:

---

but they've already paid the conferences the money

---

NO they have not, that is the point. If the conf changes the deal changes.

And that is the point. The ability Texas has to negotiate either thru the B12, as an Indy or thru/with ACC is diminished by losing games with OU and to a lesser extent A&M.

Maybe if they go to ACC and can replace OU with FL State and Miami and VT it would be a wash IF the ACC would allow unequal revenue sharing.

If not and they replace OU with Houston the pie is smaller, as TV will not pay same for B12 without OU, will they try to rape new teams coming in sure maybe but with a smaller overall pot and less Aces in the hole.

Indy is same dilemma, can they cut a deal like Notre Dame? What would their schedule look like? Would OU still play them would SEC teams? Again depends on the $$ if they go indy and get a TV contract in order to be of value to the network they have to air games folks want to watch outside of Texas. That likely would mean fees/payouts to teams (and the conf they play in) to play Texas the networks are not stupid and will figure the costs associated with that as part of their cost and ultimately what they will be willing to pay Texas for the rights to air their games.

All I am saying is without OU and to a lesser extent A&M and Okie State their ability to negotiate takes a huge it, they are playing with 2 pair rather than Aces up Full House.

Sir, while whatever teams the B12 adds may indeed command less money and in theory there would be room for Texas to make up the difference the fact is they must find some network somewhere to pay a large enough pie to satisfy Texas and whomever they bring.

That will not be easy and probably impossible if the big game of the year is Texas v Baylor or Boise. Networks will not pay $$ money for that Conf lineup.
Especially if the 4 Super Conf stuff actually happens. Those 4 TV deals will command top dollar with 64 teams and likely all but 2 or 3 of the top 25 programs (less Texas and ND and let's say Boise) They will also command the prime time network schedule


If you are CBS or Fox or ABC to you pay for SEC or Texas v SMU? Or Nebraska v Wisc or Oregon v OU.

There has to by a bill payer. Maybe B12 without OU can get an ESPN deal but what over the air network is gonna pay for it on top of what they pay for SEC, PAC, ACC and BIG?

They are trying to make money you know. Networks are gonna have to pony up more to air the new Super Conf games and Texas alone or with the schools you list have very little chance to command the $$ to make all happy.

It has to pencil out they want to make money not piss it away for the privilege to air Longhorn games no one will watch and very few will pay to air ads on.

Finally the reason we are here in the first place is unequal revenue sharing and the LN is why A&M left and to a large extent why OU is looking around. It may collapse the B12 why would any network enter into a relationship with any conference that has proven to be unstable.

Texas just does not offer that much. You are seriously overestimating the ability of Texas to get paid and even moreso the willingness of some network to to pay what would be necessary to keep everyone happy

Gotta have something to sell and someone willing to buy

I am certain Deloss has already penciled this out and this is why he is pushing to get in ACC with the ability to keep LN and an bigger ACC TV deal.