ADVERTISEMENT

Interesting ESPN Article About B10 Expansion

Texas makes $35 a year with the Big 12 TV contract plus the LHN,

That is really nice until you realized that Purdue made $32 million last year and that's with what could be the biggest TV contract ever is still coming. Purdue could be making anywhere from $45 to $50 a year.

Suddenly the LHN looks like a rip off. With Texas added that number could surpass $50 million per school...

I am not saying anything will happen, I am just throwing numbers out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickyNewark51
Scarlet_Scourge said:
Texas makes $35 a year with the Big 12 TV contract plus the LHN,

That is really nice until you realized that Purdue made $32 million last year and that's with what could be the biggest TV contract ever is still coming. Purdue could be making anywhere from $45 to $50 a year.

Suddenly the LHN looks like a rip off. With Texas added that number could surpass $50 million per school...

I am not saying anything will happen, I am just throwing numbers out there.
Click to expand...


Exactly the point. Things changed.
 
Scarlet_Scourge said:
Texas makes $35 a year with the Big 12 TV contract plus the LHN,

That is really nice until you realized that Purdue made $32 million last year and that's with what could be the biggest TV contract ever is still coming. Purdue could be making anywhere from $45 to $50 a year.

Suddenly the LHN looks like a rip off. With Texas added that number could surpass $50 million per school...

I am not saying anything will happen, I am just throwing numbers out there.
Click to expand...
Texas made $58 million from rights and licensing alone in 2014. Trust me they aren't going anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickyNewark51
derleider said:
All of this was known 6 years ago. Texas would have made more money in the Big Ten than in the Big 12. They would have made more in the SEC as well, at least if they could be reasonably confident that they would start their own network. Even in the PAC12 they would likely be making more money from TV than they do in the Big 12 with the LHN. That was true in 2010, 2012, and now.

But when you are already making more money than anyone else, you have the luxury of not simply considering which option will make you the most straight up. And thats exactly the position that Texas is in. They can sit back and be #1 in the conference instead of #1B like they would be in the Big Ten and still make enough money that everyone else is playing catchup.
Click to expand...


Texas' AD is making moves specifically to generate more revenue as we speak. Clearly that is a big consideration as they move forward.
 
WhiteBus said:
Texas made $58 million from rights and licensing alone in 2014. Trust me they aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

To compare...

Michigan made $82 million last year.

"The $82 million haul doesn't count indirect revenues, such as sponsorships, licensing and advertising agreements — which totaled $22.5 million that year — primarily made attractive by the football and basketball programs."

Yes, Texas still made even more than that but with the new TV contract, they might be push off the top of the heap.
 
Scarlet_Scourge said:
To compare...

Michigan made $82 million last year.

"The $82 million haul doesn't count indirect revenues, such as sponsorships, licensing and advertising agreements — which totaled $22.5 million that year — primarily made attractive by the football and basketball programs."

Yes, Texas still made even more than that but with the new TV contract, they might be push off the top of the heap.
Click to expand...
Michigan made less in media rights and merchandising than Texas did. Over all Michigan made 20 million less.
 
Texas future does not lie in the big 10...that is over bexause the big ten is big on continuous geography continuity and the move east for Rutgers and Maryland eliminated spots for other partners to make it work

It will be either in the pac16 or in the SEC with Oklahoma

Long term the big 12 is on borrowed time

The only confrence that MAY make concessions to Texas is the pac12 and the pac12 has the most to gain by going super to 16 with four big 12 programs and Texas knows this

For the pac12 to keep up...must expand east. No one within it's footprint to ass value

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and either Oklahoma stare or Texas texhn

Tech is the problem. Texas wants them. Pac12 doesn't ...wants others as 16
 
  • Like
Reactions: LC-88
derleider said:
Topdeck - what do you mean.

The calculus wasnt that different. The Big Ten was making only a little less per team than it was when it invited Rutgers two years later. The calculus was still largely about expanding to major new markets. The only team that was involved in expansion that doesnt fit that bill is Nebraska, who is a force unto themselves (not Iowa State like at all), and TCU/WVU who were desperation moves by the Big 12.

Shack is more or less right, hence, Iowa State is not in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't always about markets, like the way it is now. From 2010 to 2012, the contracts for the major conferences increased dramatically. The ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 12 all signed deals during that time period with hugely increased payouts. The inflation in TV contracts is what made schools with big media markets much more desirable than they were 5-10 years ago. Plus in the case of the Big Ten, the BTN grew a lot between 2010-2012.

If you notice, most of these expansion picks came after that initial round of contract negotiations in 2010/11. It was after that first round of contracts that Pitt & Syracuse went to the ACC, Rutgers & Maryland went to the Big Ten, and A&M and Missouri went to the SEC. Nebraska to the Big Ten and Colorado/Utah to the Pac 12 came before that. The reason is, after conferences saw how much these TV contracts were increasing, they started adding these schools with big media markets.
 
touchyfeely said:
The only way Texas gets into the B1G is if they share TV money equally. With the LHN there is no incentive for them to do so. That's the same reason Notre Dame isn't joining.
Click to expand...

WhiteBus suggested that all things equal, the B1G would not be interested in Texas. That's crazy talk.
 
I call utter BS...I do not know of a single A&M fan, follower and donor who ever wanted to head to the B1G...not one...granted, the B1G is infinitely better than the big dumpster fire, but for A&M it was SEC or perhaps maybe the ACC (as a waaaaaaaaaaay distant second)
 
RUfinal4 said:
then the B12 / BE would have merged.

B10 adds Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas AM, and Iowa State
B12 remainders with BE remainders
  • Rutgers
  • UConn
  • West Va
  • Louisville
  • Cincy
  • USF
  • Texas
  • TCU
  • Okl St
  • KS St
  • Texas Tech
  • Baylor
It is possible that ND and BYU may have partnered up to get a deal with the new B12 / BE similar to ND's deal with the ACC.

Pitt and Cuse had already agreed to move to the ACC
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that the B1G vetting of RU was common knowledge to Cuse/Pitt due to the results of the Chicago research firm that said outside of ND NO ONE brought more value than RU and saw the writing on the wall!?! Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me could shed some light on that? SU knew we were a B1G target and would soon dart so accelerated the process of getting an ACC invite before they were shamed. We in the area knows SU had lost any FB juice they had in NYC metro was long gone here. Over on UConn's CR board I saw an old ninety three article stating we were already in their sights back then! When ND wasn't interested they started secret talks with Md to partner with us that finally bore fruit.
 
Scarlet Shack said:
Texas future does not lie in the big 10...that is over bexause the big ten is big on continuous geography continuity and the move east for Rutgers and Maryland eliminated spots for other partners to make it work

It will be either in the pac16 or in the SEC with Oklahoma

Long term the big 12 is on borrowed time

The only confrence that MAY make concessions to Texas is the pac12 and the pac12 has the most to gain by going super to 16 with four big 12 programs and Texas knows this

For the pac12 to keep up...must expand east. No one within it's footprint to ass value

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and either Oklahoma stare or Texas texhn

Tech is the problem. Texas wants them. Pac12 doesn't ...wants others as 16
Click to expand...
I doubt the pride of UT would EVER allow them to follow aTm to the SEC. The Oklahoma CR board on Landthieves is quite interesting.
 
WhiteBus said:
Texas made $58 million from rights and licensing alone in 2014. Trust me they aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...
They like being king of their own little kingdom and have many little brothers to feed!! UTs pride is gonna kill the Big12. What happens at TT,Baylor and TCU if UT leaves?
 
West Point Knight said:
I call utter BS...I do not know of a single A&M fan, follower and donor who ever wanted to head to the B1G...not one...granted, the B1G is infinitely better than the big dumpster fire, but for A&M it was SEC or perhaps maybe the ACC (as a waaaaaaaaaaay distant second)
Click to expand...

I can see A/M looking at the SEC as their first choice, but the ACC (distant second or not) over the B1G?
Do you know the reason the fans you're talking about were for the ACC over the B1G?
Even looking at it from an academic standpoint , can find a reason the ACC would be second choice!
 
Correct....Texas A&m was not ever interested in the big 10.

They were all about the pac12 or sec

But they would have had a tough decision to make if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska were invited to the big 10 and they would have been left behind if they weren't #16
 
The wild card in this whole thing is Oklahoma.

National name is bigger than local market like Nebraska. A prime candidate to the big 12 and sec. Not for big ten at this point

Texas will NOT remain in the big12 without both Oklahoma and Texas a&m.

If Oklahoma goes....Texas, this time, will have to have to go somewhere else...otherwise they will be in a confrence that will quickly become even more regional that it already is

The SWC died partially for this reason. So will the big 12....and Texas, no matter how much money it makes, wants to be nationally relevant even mkre than making dough

If I am the pac12 comissioner...I go hot and heavy after the two Oklahoma schools. Force Texas' situation....
 
  • Like
Reactions: LC-88
Arizona Knight said:
I guess I misunderstood your original post. We don't disagree on their desire to drop the LHN.
Click to expand...
That what I figured. You know better than most that there is no way in hell that Texas is giving up the LHN.
I guess guys like Cali can't comprehend that. Texas is the only college in the country with their own network! And people think they would give that up for a few extra million. Now that's crazy talk!!!
 
West Point Knight said:
I call utter BS...I do not know of a single A&M fan, follower and donor who ever wanted to head to the B1G...not one...granted, the B1G is infinitely better than the big dumpster fire, but for A&M it was SEC or perhaps maybe the ACC (as a waaaaaaaaaaay distant second)
Click to expand...
Last week 90% of Orioles fans wanted the team to be sellers in the free agent market after they got swept by the Yankees. Now they have won three in a row. Im guessing if they did the poll again it would be 50/50.

Theres a reason that fans dont get to make these decisions.

Remember - at the time the SEC wasnt expanding - this was 2010, not 2011. And Texas was actively talking to the PAC12. So if you are A&M and your choices are try to anchor a dying Big 12 without Texas or Nebraska, follow Texas to the PAC12, or go to the Big Ten, who cares what the fans think, you are probably at least approaching the Big Ten to gauge interest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mdh2003
Scarlet Shack said:
The wild card in this whole thing is Oklahoma.

National name is bigger than local market like Nebraska. A prime candidate to the big 12 and sec. Not for big ten at this point

Texas will NOT remain in the big12 without both Oklahoma and Texas a&m.

If Oklahoma goes....Texas, this time, will have to have to go somewhere else...otherwise they will be in a confrence that will quickly become even more regional that it already is

The SWC died partially for this reason. So will the big 12....and Texas, no matter how much money it makes, wants to be nationally relevant even mkre than making dough

If I am the pac12 comissioner...I go hot and heavy after the two Oklahoma schools. Force Texas' situation....
Click to expand...
People keep forgetting the timeline. This already played out. At the time OU was actively saying it would go to the PAC12 with or without Texas, A&M was actively in talks with the SEC - it all happened in the same week. And Texas said, we are going to stay in this conference even if both leave. The PAC12 already took Colorado in part to get Texas to jump, and they decided they werent going to risk it again with Texas seeming perfectly content to stay where they are.

If Oklahoma goes the Big 12 would actually get LESS regional, as almost surely the new team would be from outside of the Great Plains/Texas. They certainly wouldnt be as GOOD as OU, but BYU, UCF, or Cincinnati expands the Big 12 footprint.

Also - OU isnt Nebraska from a national standpoint.
 
OU's president had said at the time something along the lines of "we didn't start this thing but we'll finish it" and approached the PAC12 with OSU. He was rebuffed and without Texas the PAC12 presidents didn't want them. I actually think Larry Scott would have taken them but of course if he can't get consensus from his presidents then it's a no go.

Assuming they could have kept the money constant, I actually think taking OU/OSU would have been a good play to possibly lure Texas down the line even if not at the moment. Then Texas would have pretty much lost its 2 biggest rivals in A&M and OU. I don't believe Texas would stay in the B12 indefinitely if all it's main competitors are off in the other conferences. Whenever GOR/LHN issues work themselves out whether it be 10/15/20 years down the line, I think they'd leave for somewhere else because they'd be without OU/A&M/Nebraska in the B12.
 
rutgersguy1 said:
OU's president had said at the time something along the lines of "we didn't start this thing but we'll finish it" and approached the PAC12 with OSU. He was rebuffed and without Texas the PAC12 presidents didn't want them. I actually think Larry Scott would have taken them but of course if he can't get consensus from his presidents then it's a no go.

Assuming they could have kept the money constant, I actually think taking OU/OSU would have been a good play to possibly lure Texas down the line even if not at the moment. Then Texas would have pretty much lost its 2 biggest rivals in A&M and OU. I don't believe Texas would stay in the B12 indefinitely if all it's main competitors are off in the other conferences. Whenever GOR/LHN issues work themselves out whether it be 10/15/20 years down the line, I think they'd leave for somewhere else because they'd be without OU/A&M/Nebraska in the B12.
Click to expand...
The thing is - I dont think they need that lure. I think the PAC12 is the place Texas wants to be if they arent running the sow in the Big 12. Good academics, plus they would rule an Eastern division, if not the whole conference, in a way that they couldnt in the SEC or Big Ten.
 
derleider said:
The thing is - I dont think they need that lure. I think the PAC12 is the place Texas wants to be if they arent running the sow in the Big 12. Good academics, plus they would rule an Eastern division, if not the whole conference, in a way that they couldnt in the SEC or Big Ten.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and have always said I see Texas going to the PAC12 somewhere in the future, distant or otherwise, but having a little extra incentive never hurts and could speed up a "timetable."

Some here have always been touting the collapse of the ACC, I've always thought it was the B12 most vulnerable because of its narrow geographic focus. The B12 had their chance to possibly get Clemson/FSU and they didn't do anything to act on it. I've always said they should have tried a Larry Scott type play and snag a whole swath of ACC teams at that time. It might not have worked but the effort wasn't given. In general most schools and their presidents don't want to leave their current homes, they just feel circumstances compel them to do so. A play like that would make it feel like they're leaving without really leaving when you have so many conference mates coming along for the ride. Best of both worlds. Larry Scott failed but at least he tried.

By the time of the next TV contract, I think the ACC will be fine and they won't get snookered so easily again. The only caveat to that is if the B10/SEC were to come after an ACC school. How likely that is to happen and be successful? I don't know. I still think Texas moving to the PAC12 is more likely than that and when they go obviously the B12 is done. I guess you could see some mish mash between the ACC/B12 but even then I think the ACC could bring in WVU and possibly add UConn with the best of the B12 stragglers like Kansas. So even in that scenario I think the ACC still would be in a stronger position than the B12.
 
If the Big 12 died, Texas can always go independent like UND and have a deal with the PAC-12 for their non-football sports. Texas doesn't really need a conference.
 
NickyNewark51 said:
I doubt the pride of UT would EVER allow them to follow aTm to the SEC. The Oklahoma CR board on Landthieves is quite interesting.
Click to expand...

Add in the events of 25 years ago. When the SEC was expanding to add a conference championship game, they originally offered Texas. The politicians in Texas would not allow Texas to join the SEC and leave Texas A&M behind in the dying SWC.

From the link:
"The one that made the most sense was Texas," (former SEC Commissioner Harvey) Schiller said. "I spent some time with DeLoss Dodds (the Texas athletic director) and he really wanted to join the conference."

Done deal. Everything agreed to but the name on the dotted line. Then, it all came apart.

"The state legislature (in Texas) somehow got wind of it through Texas A&M and said we had to bring in both schools or we couldn't take Texas," Schiller said.

The SEC didn't want A&M. Ultimately, the two Texas schools would leave the Southwest Conference and join the Big 12.
Click to expand...
 
Scarlet_Scourge said:
If the Big 12 died, Texas can always go independent like UND and have a deal with the PAC-12 for their non-football sports. Texas doesn't really need a conference.
Click to expand...
Why would the PAC12 do that? Yes Texas is a big brand but it's not ND nor is it as national a brand as ND. I wouldn't assume that the PAC12 would do the same the ACC does with ND.
 
Scarlet_Scourge said:
If the Big 12 died, Texas can always go independent like UND and have a deal with the PAC-12 for their non-football sports. Texas doesn't really need a conference.
Click to expand...
Im not sure they could. They dont have the national appeal of ND. Thy can toll into Dallas, New York, and LA and draw full houses playing a non-local team like ND can.

rutgersguy1 - both are at risk for the same reason - because they both rely basically on one team. The ACC relies on FSU for legitimacy, the Big 12 relies on Texas for money.

But you are right - the Big 12 is more at risk because Texas can go anywhere - Pac12, SEC, or Big Ten will all take them I think. FSU is never getting a Big Ten invite. Obviously the PAC12 is out. The SEC doesnt need them right now, although I can imagine a scenario where the national TV deal becomes the big thing again ad FSU looks attractive. That basically leaves the Big 12, who is close enough to the ACC, that there is little benefit for FSU joining.

The flip side of that is - Texas is much more able to stand on its own that FSU. It goes back to the split in the first sentence - FSU's main problem with the ACC isnt going to be money, its going to be prestige. One can easily imagine a scenario where a one loss FSU gets left out o the playoff (would have happened this year in fact). Texas on the other hand can make money in any league.

SO which is more vulnerable is hard to say. The Big 12 would collapse without Texas, while the ACC would power on as a lesser entity without FSU. But Texas is less likely leave that FSU in my opinion.
 
derleider said:
Im not sure they could. They dont have the national appeal of ND. Thy can toll into Dallas, New York, and LA and draw full houses playing a non-local team like ND can.

rutgersguy1 - both are at risk for the same reason - because they both rely basically on one team. The ACC relies on FSU for legitimacy, the Big 12 relies on Texas for money.

But you are right - the Big 12 is more at risk because Texas can go anywhere - Pac12, SEC, or Big Ten will all take them I think. FSU is never getting a Big Ten invite. Obviously the PAC12 is out. The SEC doesnt need them right now, although I can imagine a scenario where the national TV deal becomes the big thing again ad FSU looks attractive. That basically leaves the Big 12, who is close enough to the ACC, that there is little benefit for FSU joining.

The flip side of that is - Texas is much more able to stand on its own that FSU. It goes back to the split in the first sentence - FSU's main problem with the ACC isnt going to be money, its going to be prestige. One can easily imagine a scenario where a one loss FSU gets left out o the playoff (would have happened this year in fact). Texas on the other hand can make money in any league.

SO which is more vulnerable is hard to say. The Big 12 would collapse without Texas, while the ACC would power on as a lesser entity without FSU. But Texas is less likely leave that FSU in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The Big 12 is at no risk for another 17 years. TV rights, Texas basically controlling the conference and the LHN means the Big 12 is as solid as a rock.
 
WhiteBus said:
The Big 12 is at no risk for another 17 years. TV rights, Texas basically controlling the conference and the LHN means the Big 12 is as solid as a rock.
Click to expand...
Assuming that ESPN decides it wants to keep the LHN going for the whole length of the deal. Given the rumblings of their financial issues, they might not.

Even the GOR might not be an issue, if you can simply dissolve the conference with a bare majority of votes, depending on how many teams find new homes.
 
Last edited:
derleider said:
Assuming that ESPN decides it wants to keep the LHN going for the whole length of the deal. Given the rumblings of their financial issues, they might not.
Click to expand...
ESPN has no out in the deal. ESPN is under contract with Texas for the full ride. Only a mutual agreement can collapse the LHN. And There is no way that Texas wants out.
 
WhiteBus said:
ESPN has no out in the deal. ESPN is under contract with Texas for the full ride. Only a mutual agreement can collapse the LHN. And There is no way that Texas wants out.
Click to expand...
No out? So youve seen the whole contract. Link please.

Even aside from that - there are always out. Surely you arent naive enough to think that Disney wont be able to get out of the contract if they really want to. They might have to pay some pennies on the dollar, but they will get out.

Im pretty sure that it will come to that, because ESPN benefits from having Texas in the Big12 more than in the PAC12, which has an independent network. So taking a loss of a few million dollars a years is probably worth it to prevent the P12N from expanding into Texas and competing with the SECN.

But 17 years is a long time. 17 years ago we were the worst team in conference that looked anything but dead in the water. There were no conference networks and ESPNs two channels were really the only all sports options out there.
 
Last edited:
derleider said:
No out? So youve seen the whole contract. Link please.

Even aside from that - there are always out. Surely you arent naive enough to think that Disney wont be able to get out of the contract if they really want to. They might have to pay some pennies on the dollar, but they will get out.

Im pretty sure that it will come to that, because ESPN benefits from having Texas in the Big12 more than in the PAC12, which has an independent network. So taking a loss of a few million dollars a years is probably worth it to prevent the P12N from expanding into Texas and competing with the SECN.

But 17 years is a long time. 17 years ago we were the worst team in conference that looked anything but dead in the water. There were no conference networks and ESPNs two channels were really the only all sports options out there.
Click to expand...
Google is your friend. It's out there as well as comment about no out.
 
I am not sure I quite understand the belief that Texas is not playing by the rules. The fact is that Texas is the straw that has always stirred the SWC and Big 12 on TV contracts. They always earned more from TV in those two conferences than the other schools (just as Miami did in the Big East because they are the key to the TV audiences). You could argue that the LHN compensates Texas for their value and the other teams benefit because of Texas’ lure to the networks for conference games. In fact, the Big 12 teams each earn more from TV/playoffs/shared revenue than the ACC and the PAC teams earn yearly. There is a benefit to be aligned with Texas, especially if you're an alumn from one of the cow colleges or even the two private schools.

From the beginning, conference realignment was always about two teams – Notre Dame and Texas. There is a reason those two teams have their own TV deals outside of a conference and why every conference wanted them. Every move by every team during the past half decade was because of what ND and UT decided about their own conference affiliation.
 
Scarlet_Scourge said:
If the Big 12 died, Texas can always go independent like UND and have a deal with the PAC-12 for their non-football sports. Texas doesn't really need a conference.
Click to expand...

Why in the world would Pac-12 invite a non-football 13th member to their conf?

All so Washington State Volleyball can fly to Austin for a match?

Or UT Men's Tennis team has to fly to Corvallis, Oregon?

No clue how ideas like this even pop up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RU848789

Sargeant Article, "Playing With the Big Boys"

Replies
53
Views
2K
Rutgers Football
koleszar
koleszar
mosito

CFP 14-Team model shift from byes to more $$$

Replies
0
Views
206
Rutgers Football
mosito
mosito
bac2therac

GAME 29 NEBRASKA: They are exactly what they are

Replies
139
Views
3K
Men's Basketball
kcg88
kcg88
R

Rutgers 3rd Best Expansion Move in last 10 Years, Easy

Replies
21
Views
802
The Round Table
briccnerff
briccnerff
Miggins

Maryland Interesting stats

Replies
64
Views
1K
The Round Table
wheezer
wheezer
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back