Grant of Rights with unequal revenue sharing?
- Thread starter caneks
- Start date
It may come down to a great escape clause for ESPN if any team leaves. Or a planned reduction in value depending on which team leaves should it occur.
I know these contracts already have such provisions but perhaps the conference would have to accept stricter conditions. It seems like a good alternative to an extended granting of rights.
I know these contracts already have such provisions but perhaps the conference would have to accept stricter conditions. It seems like a good alternative to an extended granting of rights.
This can’t just be about football, though it’s the conversation starter and major revenue contributor. Lest we all forget non-revenue sport and Title IX? Everyone is losing money at the same rate there and the revenues from football and any TV contracts balance the budgets of those program budgets. Every school has them (must), and that is a service each provides to the other for the sake of allowing football to be a part of the athletic department. No matter the value of the football team, it wouldn’t exist without the tag along programs. Throw them into the equation and this is argument becomes way more interesting and offers another validation point for balanced revenue sharing.
Not everyone is losing money at the same rate. For reasons to lengthy to explain here the larger schools with the larger stadiums and larger marketing budgets have to make efforts to demonstrate substantial compliance with programs that give the same opportunities to women. You don’t have to build a 80,000 seat stadium for the softball team in Norman, but if your stadium expenditure for men is in the Top 25, then you had better be able to demonstrate a substantially similar commitment to women’s facilities in other sports. This is why Alabama has a ridiculous women’s facilities program and Vanderbilt has a bowling team instead of other more costly sports for women. And that’s allowed, partly, because their stadium is a dump. We got away with it too, to the consternation of many, because our stadium was also in the Bottom 10 for quite awhile. If you wondered how/why the soccer and softball facilities came around at the same time as the renovations, now you know why.
UH has a tougher road than say UCF and USF. I think the Big XII would look at those 2 simply to get a stronger foot into FL recruiting plus TV markets.
The more insane scenario would have teams from the Big XII bolting for the Pac-<insert # here> and then what's left of the Big XII poaching a few AAC members. The PAC-12/14/16 is on pretty shaky ground and are likely not going to be in for a bigger payday the next go around of TV rights.
The soccer and softball facilities were built at the same time as the Case Tennis complex and the student fitness center. That was around 2001-2002ish. Case Football complex was added in 2005 and the stadium renovation occurred Dec. 2007-start of 2008 football season. Spending money on the football renovations had nothing to do with why we ended up with track and soccer and softball.
Never dreamed five years ago I would be saying this but there is a greater likelihood the Big12 poaches Arizona and Arizona State than the Pac12 takes any current Big12 members. The Pac12 is currently a mess. I do believe the Big12 is pretty happy with the current state of the conference. Member schools are forecast to make at least $40M each next year in revenue distributions. 2017 distributions were up 17% over the prior year. One can never tell what will happen when the current grant of rights expires in 2024 but the smart money at this point is on the status quo imo.
I'm for anything that keeps the status quo. I've always been convinced that in the next conference shuffle, TU gets excluded and ends back up with Rice, La Tech, UNT and UTEP. And maybe SMU and Tulane end up there two. Or TU bolts for the MWC (which wouldn't upset me that much). At that point, there will be a de facto division II if there isn't already. It's a shame that football tanked at precisely the wrong moment.
Sure we did, but the verbiage was different. Same folks have never thought we belonged at the same table because we’re just Tulsa. They never believed we could sustain the success, and unfortunately they were correct this time around. The folks lobbying for this have a higher probability of being able to sustain due to a number of factors, but they can suck in a hurry just like us. Florida State and Tennessee are two recent examples of how the mighty can quickly regress, but nobody talks it about them because they are perceived as established. Our conference mates are just like new money and in most cases new money doesn’t stand the test of time. Every once in a while a Bill Gate pops up and establishes themselves, but there there are way more Enron’s who try to get to big, cut corners and crap on everyone in their path till they end up a failed venture.
Last edited:
They don't have to withstand the test of time. They have to maintain excellence until the next round of realignment occurs...whenever that might be. They want to be TCU and Utah. The problem the likes of UCF and Houston have is that it doesn't currently appear as if the P5s will be adding new members anytime soon. They have to be good for a very long time.
Last edited:
Actually there was a recent article that hammered the current commissioner as he has spent a ton of money on things that have not helped the member schools at all. They still get crappy TV coverage and crappy timeslots.
I can see the Arizona and Arizona State thing. I can also see Colorado begging back in.
“Being very good for a long time is enough to get into a big conference.” — Boise St. football fans.
I suspect what the conferences are looking for isn’t being a great program - they don’t worry about their quality not being good enough. I suspect they want not embarrassing and mainly revenue generation. I can’t imagine OU would say “what the Big XII needs is a great team to improve the conference quality.”
Do you think TCU’s addition generated significant additional revenue for the Big12? They were added in large part due to their on-field success. There were several other available schools which would have made more sense from purely a revenue standpoint imo. Does anyone believe UCF would be garnering this attention if they had just gone 2–10 and 3-9? There are obviously other factors aside from on-field success but wins to matter imo when it comes to adding a G5 schools.
I don’t think anybody expected TCU to be a top 3 team in the conference. They were good enough not to be an embarrassment, and that was good enough. The Big XII needed someone and they were close and easy and we’re good and brought Dallas and a pretty good fan base. On the other hand you have Maryland and Rutgers and South Florida who has no real sustained success and got in. I can’t claim to know all the drivers for these conferences but I don’t think being great is a requirement. I doubt being 12-0 makes UCF a lot more attractive to the conferences than 9-3.
The addition of TCU was a political move....
The next big 12 addition will be for TV markets and recruiting in the SE..
That is unless OU and Texas sack up and go join the big boys in the SEC... what a conference that would be... no more bedlame games.
Only if you're referring to the politics of college football. At 9 teams the Big XII had little leverage in anything and the other conferences knew it and risked being shredded apart...all it needed was the APC-12 or SEC to come to Texas or OU and say come be a part of us. TCU was a stop gap solution to get to 10 teams which was going to be the minimum in order for them to lobby the NCAA for a waiver for the 12 team rule to host a conference championship game. At the time, TCU was the next best available school that was regional.
I also think Texas and OU veto anything that might involve UCF and/or Houston. They don't need help recruiting those areas and they certainly aren't willing to potentially lose their statuses as top dogs in the conference. UCF have both the resources and are within rich recruiting areas to make that happen on a consistent basis. I believe last year's UCF team could play with anyone in the country. Houston has shown that ability as well. Give them the same $ and they jump to those levels. Schools like Baylor, Tech, OkState, WVa, Iowa State...they want no part of that. I think Cincinnati makes more sense for the Big XII so WVa doesn't feel like it's on such a geographical island. After that, I don't have a clue...but there are probably some behind the scenes talks with Colorado. That would leave a spot for BYU in the PAC-12...and I don't think BYU is going forgo that chance a 2nd time.
The only other thing I could possible see happening is the FBS CFP division going to 4 team regions with 16 teams each of course preserving key rivalries.
And then the antitrust lawsuit follows. That's the key card in all of this because the P5 schools know they would likely lose.
Texas politics... TCU has influential alumni.
Politics keeps OU in the same conference as OSU... that’s why the SEC grabbed TAMU and MiZZOU not OU and UT.
Eh...I don't know about that. We all know the story of why Baylor is there and not Houston. Her name is Ann Richards.
My understanding is SMU has far more powerful and wealthy influence over Texas politics than just about any school in that state...they're still floundering
And just as politics keeps some people in, it keeps others out. It’s the same reason UCF isn’t going to the Big 12 or ACC and state auditors showed up on their doorstep in a very public way to investigate financial irregularities that otherwise would have been relatively hush hush.
