camel at sea

I can't see Disney wanting the GOR challenged in court. The GOR has been a good tool to protect the stability of the media side's inventory slate. If it gets challenged successfully, then maybe that comes back to bite them in one of their other deals or at some point in the future. The best outcome is a mutually acceptable settlement. If they get that, then the GOR continues to have teeth for other leagues and other deals.

I think some TV executives told them that none of them are additive to another power conference. Does Kansas add so much to the B1G pie that they can split their money 15 ways instead of 14 without the current members coming out behind? Probably not. I'd guess that's true for the entire conference. Best thing the IR8 can do is to make the Big 12 as good as it can be. That said, I think the ACC and PAC schools have the same issues. It's going to be really tough for anyone other than Notre Dame to be additive to either the B1G or SEC now that we're moving into the streaming era.

Yeah. There are other factors that go into conference distribution than just the TV deal. It makes it hard to parse this in general terms (which is what I was trying to do for simplicity.) The IR8 might be worth half of the TV deal, more than half of the NCAA tourney money, and we have a big question mark as to football post-season. As to the last, though, it appears that the individual NY6 bowl tie-ins, for conferences, are going away when the CFP expands. You can't have a Big 12 tie in with the Sugar Bowl if the Sugar Bowl is always going to be a playoff bowl. Conversely, if the major bowls are not part of the CFP, there might still be tie-ins, but they will not be worth nearly as much b/c the teamss playing in them will be much worse. Either way, the Power 5 / Autonomous 5 are slated to get oversized cuts from the expanded CFP when that happens. The estimates for that money are that it will be triple the value of the current post-season. As a result, as long as the Big 12 remains at the power conference table, it's likely to see that post-season revenue stream increasing quite a bit.

BYU > IR8 has been implied in several places online since this the Big 12 expansion discussion started. I've seen multiple people tweet that they're the only *additive* program out there - which obviously has an implication for BYU's relationship with the current members. Since you're requesting proof, I'll see if I can find one of those guys touting "industry sources" who spell it out specifically. In the interim, I know BYU draws more fans at the gate than every current Big 12 school, is the only one with a national fanbase, and is the only one with a color TV era national title. And there's this:

Here's an SB national article on the AAC's current payout. I'm not sure why you'd think the Big 12 would invite the member schools who are "not even close" to being the most valuable in that league. Jut based on common sense, the only other factors for that "most valuable" moniker are Memphis and Navy. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2019/3/19/18273232/aac-television-deal-espn-conference-realignment

As far as the money, I think the Big 12 probably ends up distributing somewhere in the 20-30M range. If the AAC distributes $7M per, it means those three new Big 12 additions are probably worth double that number, each. I also remember reading that the American was offered an additional $5M more, per school, if they would have signed a GOR. Again, that reflects a lot more individual value for the AAC's breadwinners when they're locked in with a GOR. The Big 12 is distributing about $40M per on 10 year old deal. If the IR8 are worth half, then they're all worth $20M+. An updated deal *should* reflect an increase in value for those member schools. I've been reading that BYU is valued more highly than every current member of the Big 12 other than Texas and Oklahoma. I'd guess somewhere in the 20sM per school without a GOR. 30ishM per school if they're willing to sign a GOR.

I disagreed with his statement that "no one cares about basketball." The basketball schools care. Probably the most prominent athletic department remaining in the Big 12 is a basketball-first school. I'm not disguising agreement as disagreement. I just disagree. I added a qualifier. Football matters, too. That doesn't change my point. It just means that basketball helps Houston and Cincinnati, doesn't help UConn, and works against BYU and UCF.

Basketball schools care about basketball. If you're Houston and you want into the Big 12, having a strong basketball program (now and historically) is going to help get a school like KU on your side. Obviously you have to bring football first. But basketball is a good tie-breaker when a basketball strong league is in expansion mode.

Agreed. It works in UH's favor though that they've got 6 Final Four trips in their history - including last season. KU is going to want what's left of the Big 12 to at least be elite on the hardwood.

Tim Shepherd is not a real source of information.

Usually UH draws well on TV when they play a Big 12 school. They're probably the safest bet on the board to do that outside of BYU. I think Coog fans over-value themselves and the short term potential of their program quite a bit. But I do think they'd be indistinguishably Big 12-ish within a decade of joining and they'd help the league maintain a visible presence in that market. If the league went with BYU (Football Only), Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati... that is very salty in basketball. Arguably it's better than the status quo and the status quo is as a top 2 basketball conference nationally. You could get Wichita State (or Creighton) to be the "all sports but football" 12th team. If not, then you can play a double round robin with 11 schools.

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/ap-source-memphis-temple-cut-from-big-12-expansion-field

I generally agree but if we can take anything from the process 5 years ago it's that the Big 12's presidents do not like Memphis. The Tigers - even with FedEx promising to bribe the league - didn't make it past the first cut. Maybe they've won enough football games (70% win pct last 5 years) and made enough improvement on the academic side to change that. If it were me, I'd probably go this way: +2: BYU, UH +4: Cincy, Memphis +6: UCF, USF We'll see who they line up as a TV partner. The MWC has a deal with CBS and FOX as a combo. I kind of expect the Big 12 to move in that direction.

I'm just sorting out who the constituency behind the UH push five years ago might have been and what would have changed. Abott has been governor since 2015. It seems to me that (more or less) if the Big 12 expands, there's going to be the same type of pressure from Texas pols now that there was in 2016. As a result, I'd expect Tech to eventually get behind a UH invite.

If those underlying factors were in place five years ago... aren't they still in place now?

The Texas legislature, Governor Abbott, and Texas Tech's President endorsed Houston to the Big 12 five years ago so that UT could get a research campus in Houston?

Five years ago, the Texas legislature and Governor Abbott pushed for Houston's inclusion. Even if the endorsements were not sincere, UT and Tech both publicly endorsed Houston to the Big 12.

I'll be interested to see how the TX Leg plays into the Houston issue. In addition, TTU might come around to viewing an elevated UH as a better partner for trying to exit the Big 12 than TCU/Baylor.

There's probably a difference between what the Big 12 *should* do and what they actually do. They probably should make a point of killing the American as a competitor. But I would not be shocked if they don't. Going to ten probably squeezes out the most money for current members and BYU is the most valuable addition. They won't kill the AAC as a competitor by taking BYU + 1. Stopping at ten leaves more spots open in the event that ACC/PAC schools become available in a post-raid situation. Stopping at ten also limits the number of schools being "elevated" to compete with current Big 12 members for future open spots in other leagues. They can elevate BYU without worrying much that the PAC/B1G will someday want BYU. FWIW, I bet the TV side tells them that the most valuable "+1" is Houston. UH (due to geography, history, etc.) is the safest bet for fan interest. Add in that traveling there is cheap and that they add the most in basketball and I think they drag their feet and begrudgingly make that choice. One kind of intriguing thing about this scenario is what happens if BYU is football only. Does the Big 12 play all other sports at 9? Find an affiliate member for basketball (Wichita St, Creighton, etc.)?

With the exception of about 10-12 programs, casual college football fans watch the games involving ranked teams. That's it. That can be K-State, Arizona State, Michigan State, or whoever. The ACC has better Tier 1 games than the R8 but they're not exactly competitive with the SEC or B1G on that front. Tier 1 inventory is only one component of a media rights deal. The R8 has MUCH better inventory with respect to Tier 2 quality games than the ACC. Think about the chart you posted. Even with the ACC beating the Big 12 in 4M+ viewer games, and even with the ACC not having about half of its inventory rated at all (while the Big 12's bad games are being rated by virtue of their presence on FS1), the Big 12 still has better per-game viewership on average. Even with the bad Big 12 inventory included, they're outperforming the ACC's top half games on average. The R8 should be competitive-ish with the PAC and ACC if they get paid in relation to what the TV numbers say about them. The TV numbers are competitive. I agree with you that the ACC's program are better branded than the Big 12's R8. Same is true with the PAC. But superior branding doesn't turn on the TV. Actual viewers turn on the TV. Media companies factor in actual viewers as well as branding when they decide how much they want to pay someone.

If the Big 12 is "overpaid," then you're also arguing that the PAC and ACC are overpaid.

The Big 12 didn't get overpaid. The Big 12's TV number were 3rd. The Big 12 is paid 3rd place money. If you wanted to argue the Big 12 was overpaid, then you'd see something different than that. It's not like the PAC or ACC are outperforming the Big 12 on TV. The Big 12 didn't get any of the LHN or OU's SSTV deal. Texas and OU left b/c the gap between 3rd place and 1st/2nd was going to get a lot wider going forward. They probably also left to help sell season ticket packages and to be in the room when the SEC sets the NIL terms for college football.

"Nobody" is a term that doesn't reflect reality. The TV numbers are out there and available to look at. Just with respect to fan support, most of the Irate8 are better on TV than most of the ACC. It's just true. Obviously Clemson and Florida State (when they aren't in the gutter) are the distinguishing factor.

The Big 12 made better decisions re: monetization than the PAC a decade ago. The Big 12 parked inventory on FS1 and got paid for it. The PAC parked similar inventory on the PACN and didn't make any money from it. So the Big 12 ended up making money on a bunch of games for which the PAC was making nothing w/ similar games. That accounts for a lot of the difference between the two conferences. Going forward though, you compare apples to apples, and the Big 12 has been pulling better TV numbers than the PAC for the last decade despite having a larger percentage of its games rated. Think about that. Even with the worst games included into the Big 12 average, and not included into the PAC average, the Big 12 is still beating the PAC. I'm not convinced that the status quo gap between the Big 12 and the ACC is only 10% in viewership. BC, Duke, WF, Cuse, Pitt, and GT would all have bottom rung fan support in the Big 12. Like the PAC, the ACC inflates its average TV ratings by only putting about half of it on a national network to be rated. The Big 12 consistently put nearly all of its inventory on a national platform and was still beating the ACC in average TV numbers for most of the last decade. The last couple of years, with a thumb on the scale, the ACC has been only edging out the Big 12. The Big 12 makes 3rd place money right now b/c it's TV ratings are in 3rd place. I'm arguing that the Big 12 - going forward - will be in 5th place and that its TV ratings will be in 5th place. However, the gap between the IR8 and the PAC/ACC, when it comes to TV, is not all that wide. Fans in the center of the country care more and they watch more. There's reason to think the money will therefore not be that far behind. There are going to be a lot of weekends when the IR8's best game is better than the best game being played in the PAC or ACC that same weekend. We occasionally had weekends like that with the American over the last few years. The Big 12's media rights partners declined to negotiate b/c they had bigger fish to fry first (pro sports deals, the B1G, an expanded CFP, etc.) Disney may have also known something about what was coming with Oklahoma and Texas, too.