Perhaps, SEC. But from the basic research I've done, it just seems like if Utah were the only option (goto 11), that the revenue just doesn't seem to be there.

What we know...
Pac-10 Priorities:
1) Increase revenue for the current 10 schools (via a new Tv contract)
2) see 1
3) see 1
4) If expanding will increase the revenue for each of the existing 10 Pac-10 schools, then the presidents would consider it
5) Pac-10 expansion is not likely if the current 10 schools would not benefit by expanding.


So it's like this in my eyes:
* Pac-10 sets a number that they want to see for the new TV contract. Let's say it's going from $58 to $100 million = $10 per P10 school.
* Recos by ESPN/Fox/NBC-Comcast/new P10 Network suggest that by expanding with Schools A & B, that the contract coudl go from $100 million to $115 million.
* Pac-10 then says, "alright, $100/10=$10 each, $115/12=$9.5 million...Pac-10 says no thanks.
* If 2 team expanded conference could get $120/12=$10 each, maybe they do it
* If 1 team expanded conference (Utah) was good for $115, and would lower the per school revenue, the Pac-10 would likely pass, you think?

So it comes down to what the Pac-10 AS-IS can get on their own during the negotiations. And if new schools increased that payout, it makes sense.

We just need to be sure to look at the big picture. Someone can throw around numbers like $100 for the Pac-10 and we might assume that is for a 12 team scenario. It very might well be that the $100 number (or whatever hypothetical number) would also exist for the current 10 teams WITHOUT expansion. But that would be no fun for us

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I am looking for the PAC-10 and the Big 12 to do whatever they reasonably have to do to increase their revenue,especially the tv revenue since they are both lagging the Big 10 and SEC by wide margins.Also it appears they are in a type of mini-arms race to attract/keep members.It should be interesting to see what transpires between now and the summer of 2011.

Also,look for the Big 12 to pacify it's "big -time" members perhaps at the expense of the so-called "have-nots" in the North division in upcoming tv negotiations.

Here is column out of Sooner country discussing Big 12 finances,possible realignment and Texas.Notice the apparent "disconnect" between the Texas view and the North division schools like Colorado and Missouri.Link at http://newsok.com/hooked-on-the-horns/article/3441208

I hear ya, freaked. The Big 12 is in an interesting spot. If Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska were to leave, you all of a sudden find the conference looking somewhat similar to the old SWC, with 4 SWC members and 5 Big-8 schools. Iowa St. becomes geographically isolated ala BC in the ACC. Just how much more is ESPN going to pay if you replace Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska with say BYU, Houston and TCU? Even with a tiered TV contract, it seems like at least Texas could just goto the SEC and make more money and be in a much better conference.

Interesting times indeed.

I'm putting something together to show what the market map would look like if some oft mentioned scenarios played out in the P10, B10, etc...and it does seem like there is a chance that 10 years from now, there could be a BCS4 with the Big East and B12 decimated and losing so many members that they are more on par with the current MWC and CUSA.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Quinn,thanks for the response.
In addition to the above posted linked articles here is a followup from Barry Tramel at the Daily Oklahoman that discusses Big 12 unequal revenue sharing situation that was instituted 15 years ago and arguably keeps Texas and other"big time" Big 12 schools in that league.
From the several articles that I have recently posted on this board it is becoming rather clear that Texas, having hitched it's wagon to the Big 12 will not be leaving as long as there is no "palace coup",that takes away their little sweetheart deal.
Officials like Texas AD Dodds are indicating that Texas is contented if not happy with the current deal and the other conference teams should just wait a few more years to get more money.
They are apparently indicating that if teams like Colorado and Missouri can't wait that long AND can get a better offer they should go and that the Big 12 can replace them.This article explains the history of the deal a little more.

Frankly,unless Texas is bluffing regarding it's hard nosed position I would be surprised if the Big 12 did not lose at least one school(from the northern division) this realignment cycle.The Big 12 Commish is apparently trying to fashion some type of tv revenue enhancement scheme that could assist all parties. Time will tell how successful that exercise turns out to be.Also,that is the reason some Big 12 school officials are making public statements regarding the possibility of moving.
In addition,other than maybe the PAC-10,conferences like the Big 10 and the SEC are not in a position to give Texas a sweetheart deal like the one they have with the Big 12.

It should be interesting to continue to follow this story thru to the summer of 2011.

Link at http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-revenue- ... nes_widget

No conference with Oklahoma and Texas in it would be considered on a par with the Big East or CUSA.

I keep hearing/reading similar items about Texas and this "sweetheart deal". But is the deal really so sweet if it's 7-10 million less than say the bottom feeder SEC or Big Ten school? Eventually, some logic is going to have to come into play rather then the kind sentiments of solidarity in the B12. The writing on the wall seems to be that a school like Texas will be able to start it's own Longhorn TV network to make up that financial difference. But heck, they might be able to do that even if they were part of, say, the SEC.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Also...

You're right, it does seem likely that at least 1 school would leave, like Colorado to the P10. Missouri to the B10 is the next seemingly likely move, but perhaps only in a 14-16 team scenario (northeast market school > chance than missouri for #12).

Also, I really am curious how this Texas deal can be viewed so favorably by them if it's so much less than say Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern etc. Heck, UIowa makes more money each year than Texas & Iowa St. combined. The facts are that being the B10 bottom feeder if making more than the B12 bigdog Texas. SEC isn't such a clear cut position since with schools averaging big money, but Texas' deal could make them more than those schools.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Quinn,thanks for the responses.

I believe that the proper comparison for Texas revenue are for the schools it regularly competes against,in this case fellow Big 12 schools.In this type of comparison they will ALWAYS be on or near the top because of the unequal tv revenue sharing agreement.In financial comparisons,BCS wide,they have been either on top or near the top in overall annual athletic revenue over the past few years.So they are currently in good financial position.
Perhaps a little surprising,the Texas AD is making remarks that he is ok with the present situation because he believes that the Big 12 tv revenue situation will eventually be corrected,for EVERYONE in the league including Texas.Time will tell.There is obviously a negotiating/political game being played right now in the Big 12 over how tv revenue will be made and shared in the future.This should continue to be an interesting story to follow.

As far as the SEC/Texas angle is concerned,the SEC (as well as the Big Ten)cannot match the current Big 12 tv sweetheart deal that Texas currently has because it will not/cannot allow one school like Texas to have more tv money than the rest of the league schools.Also,to make a Longhorn network really VIABLE Texas is going to need some "live FB and BB content".The SEC has sold all of their live content to CBS and ESPN.If Texas joined the SEC(or the Big Ten)they would likely have to conform to these constraints in order to get a full share of tv money.
As I have previously noted on another thread,Texas wants and probably needs to have the Big 12 allow it access to more "live" content in the next tv deal.Based on recent comments from the Big 12 Commish,he apparently is working on a new tv scheme that does just that,using a possible joint conference tv network that would require less of the Texas live content that thus (in theory)would make it available for a possible Longhorn Network.
These negotiations are ongoing,and some have apparently spilled over into the press. It will be interesting to see how this works out over the next several months.

Thanks
Freaked


BTW,I will routinely use a "n" designator as a "posting place saver",prior to posting.
Thanks
Freaked

Quinn on your 4 super conf. theory. I think that if that is an option it would take a few years. I don't see this next round going to more that 12 per conf. Because of that it would give the B12/BE time to replenish itself. Adding schools to fill the holes. Then say in 2020 if the big 4 decide they want 14 or 16. (BE could be at 12 and B12 is 12) Helping protect against another raid and having the left over WAC/MWC and CUSA as backup. B12 could keep its bid BE would lose it if they got raided again in 2020. The smaller and slower the raid (2 at a time) the easier it would be for the B12/BE to recoup and look like a solid conf.

Also if the Pac 10 went to 14, UNLV over New Mexico, to 16 UNLV, UMN, and Boise St or Hawaii. I don't think they'd care much about their rules if they're trying to get to 16. The west is short on schools.

B12 could still look like this
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Baylor
Texas Tech
Houston
TCU
BYU
Memphis
Tulsa
UTEP
Boise St.
Air Force
or
Colorado St., Wyoming, SMU, Rice. Hell take all of them put them at 16. If Boise St. is in the P16 then throw in UTSA or Tulane

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Article from Dallas paper(previously posted in another thread)with comments from Texas AD who says that Texas is happy in the Big 12 and has NOT had any talks with the Big 10.He further stated that if the league lost a school that they would likely just replace it and move on.Link at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... QO0G0.html

BE MB thread discussing above posted linked article out of Dallas discussing comments from Big 12 Commish regarding conference expansion and the Big 12 tv contracts.Link at http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=421744

BE MB thread(previously posted in another thread) discussing above posted linked article with comments from Texas AD regarding possible conference expansion and the Big 10.Link at http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=421632

Freaked, I'm confused by how the SEC/Big Ten can't match the Texas TV revenue in a equitable sharing plan.

Why does the percentage Texas draws matter?

10% of $120 million is smaller than 8% of 250 million.

The difference between #1 and #12 in the Big 12 is reportedly about $3 million. That puts Texas at $12m and Baylor at $9m by published reports (I'm rounding for convenience, it's like 11.8 and 9.1 or something). So Texas IS getting approximately 10% of the $120 million Big 12 loot.

If Texas went to a 12-team Big Ten, they'd only get 8.3%, but that's $13 million.

And that's based on The current Big Ten deal. Adding Texas could get the Big Ten closer to $16 or $17 million each. A smaller percentage is still more money, and that's what matters.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

I'm with ya JP. I don't quite understand it in any articles. It's simple math: if Texas moved to a conference and would make X millions more and further travel would cost Y million dollars, and the difference was that Texas would make an extra $Z million than in the Big 12...well, if that Z million was in the 4-7 range (Big Ten Network with Texas would likely be the highest grossing scenario).

Just don't get the whole "sweetheart deal" aspect of Texas in the Big 12 if they would actually make more money in another conference. I have to think that there are other factors then like toughness of schedule, loss of rivalries, etc.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

JPSchmack and Quinn,thanks for the posts.
Good questions,not sure if/when this(Long Horn Channel) subject was covered in depth on this board,may have been back in 2007-2008.

My understanding is that "Texas believes" that their tv deal situation will end up being more lucrative in a conference like the Big 12 that allows unequal tv revenue shares but more importantly,the opportunity to try and monetize(by letting Texas keep more of their live FB & BB content) the cable tv sets in the state of Texas(with Longhorn channel) for pretty much their sole benefit.
Not sure(in fairness they have not shared their revenue projections with me) that they can pull it off but it won't be my call either way if they go ahead and try it.
They appear to be thinking that in addition to their current ESPN piece they will add the revenues from either their Long hornChannel or the LHC plus a piece(not sure whether that would be an equal or unequal share) from a proposed joint conference tv network which would include the Big 12.

Will those three pieces add up to more than they can make in either the Big 10 or the SEC?
That is to me an unanswered question that probably can only be answered for sure in the future.

Currently ,neither Big Ten or SEC rules would allow Texas to attempt something like this in those two leagues.
Unclear if the PAC 10 would be interested in granting Texas those kinds of incentives.

So,the bottomline is,Texas seems to be "itching" to try and monetize the Texas cable system for their benefit plus keep at least one and maybe two additional pieces of Big 12 tv revenue in the process.I can see where some Big 12 schools may object.They need 9 votes out of 12 to put the "kibosh" on this idea and threaten league stability.If nothing surprising happens by the spring meetings Texas will likely be ok with this.Time will tell.

It is unclear whether the Longhorn Channel can reach viability but it should be an interesting story to follow.
I hope that I have been able to clarify at least some of this complicated revenue sharing scenario for you.

Thanks
Freaked