Teeples: The Big 12 simply can't afford to add BYU

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865607780/Teeples-The-Big-12-simply-cant-afford-to-add-BYU.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Some insight into the Big12 finances and their tier3 rights. Perhaps the other 9 members should join up to form a network. The LHN so far is a flop. Maybe they could latter get Texas to join in and create some value for everyone. I wonder what Hookem thinks of the LHN.

With all due respect to Hookem, UT is all about UT. I can't wait till 20mm isn't enough for little brothers of OK or others, and they dance off for more money to the PAC-o-crap, bc like Nebraska and A&M who have an identity took their ball and went away from the hubris and ego of UT.

And since the Utah experiment is only working to provide another cellar dweller little brother to beat up, oh, that, and 12 teams to justify a conf champ game, I wouldn't be surprised to see PAC drop kick Utah and add OK bc they will be easy pickings bc of UTs selfishness.

Stay Indy BYU. The big 12 will fall apart eventually or be forced to add a champ game. As much as big 12 is trying to be a "Big Brother" they are still 2 fiddle to the SEC and maybe soon the Pac12.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
With all due respect to Hookem, UT is all about UT. I can't wait till 20mm isn't enough for little brothers of OK or others, and they dance off for more money to the PAC-o-crap, bc like Nebraska and A&M who have an identity took their ball and went away from the hubris and ego of UT.

And since the Utah experiment is only working to provide another cellar dweller little brother to beat up, oh, that, and 12 teams to justify a conf champ game, I wouldn't be surprised to see PAC drop kick Utah and add OK bc they will be easy pickings bc of UTs selfishness.

Stay Indy BYU. The big 12 will fall apart eventually or be forced to add a champ game. As much as big 12 is trying to be a "Big Brother" they are still 2 fiddle to the SEC and maybe soon the Pac12.

Tell me how you really feel about my beloved school? Haha!



EDIT: To be honest, the tone and comments that followed your opening sentence, "With all due respect to Hookem...", reminded me of one of my favorite movie scenes. lol!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsv0GGattHE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

scott715 wrote:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865607780/Teeples-The-Big-12-simply-cant-afford-to-add-BYU.html



Some insight into the Big12 finances and their tier3 rights. Perhaps the other 9 members should join up to form a network. The LHN so far is a flop. Maybe they could latter get Texas to join in and create some value for everyone. I wonder what Hookem thinks of the LHN.

I'm under a tight deadline at work, and stopped by to see your extremely loaded question. I don't have time to go into as full detail as I'd like, but you deserve a response. I'll try and get back to you shortly.

scott715 wrote:
l I wonder what Hookem thinks of the LHN.

Based on this and cougs_rules comments, I see this as a loaded question that will open a can of worms, and I just don't have the time or energy for it.



I'm gonna take a pass on this. Sorry.

That's okay. Didn't know it was loaded. From what I am finding, the schools are making something on their tier3. I heard at least $3M for each team.



I have not heard or seen the LHN anywhere except where it got announced.

scott715 wrote:
That's okay. Didn't know it was loaded. From what I am finding, the schools are making something on their tier3. I heard at least $3M for each team.



I have not heard or seen the LHN anywhere except where it got announced.

Wasn't so much your question as much as it was me wanting to point out some points in the article that I disagreed with, as well as some overall false perceptions of the LHN and Texas as evidenced by cougs-rule's rant.



I started to respond and it felt like I was writing a master's thesis.



My issue with the LHN is exactly what you pointed out, which is availability. ESPN wants far more than what carriers are willing to pay. Neither side is willing to budge. There are several factors to be considered, but ultimately this likely won't be settled until Texas is able to produce a better product on the field. I'm betting ESPN is holding out hope that Texas will right the ship to increase the demand, and ultimately its bargaining power.



That said, I appreciate your willingness to take the time to search for, find and share your research on any particular topic because I'm the same way. I believe it makes one more informed and ultimately wiser and more grounded.

If it is just about money, then the question is whether BYU is willing to take a shave in revenue so adding them does not in fact act as an overall negative for the teams, yes? Methinks it is not just about the money.

Hookem wrote:

That's okay. Didn't know it was loaded. From what I am finding, the schools are making something on their tier3. I heard at least $3M for each team.



I have not heard or seen the LHN anywhere except where it got announced.

Wasn't so much your question as much as it was me wanting to point out some points in the article that I disagreed with, as well as some overall false perceptions of the LHN and Texas as evidenced by cougs-rule's rant.



I started to respond and it felt like I was writing a master's thesis.



My issue with the LHN is exactly what you pointed out, which is availability. ESPN wants far more than what carriers are willing to pay. Neither side is willing to budge. There are several factors to be considered, but ultimately this likely won't be settled until Texas is able to produce a better product on the field. I'm betting ESPN is holding out hope that Texas will right the ship to increase the demand, and ultimately its bargaining power.

Please don't let Cougs-rule's rant or anyone else's rant for that matter dissuade you from posting. Your insight and friendly approach is always welcome here. I for one appreciate you taking the time to visit here and share some great insight.

Wolverine wrote:

scott715 wrote:
That's okay. Didn't know it was loaded. From what I am finding, the schools are making something on their tier3. I heard at least $3M for each team.



I have not heard or seen the LHN anywhere except where it got announced.

Wasn't so much your question as much as it was me wanting to point out some points in the article that I disagreed with, as well as some overall false perceptions of the LHN and Texas as evidenced by cougs-rule's rant.



I started to respond and it felt like I was writing a master's thesis.



My issue with the LHN is exactly what you pointed out, which is availability. ESPN wants far more than what carriers are willing to pay. Neither side is willing to budge. There are several factors to be considered, but ultimately this likely won't be settled until Texas is able to produce a better product on the field. I'm betting ESPN is holding out hope that Texas will right the ship to increase the demand, and ultimately its bargaining power.

Please don't let Cougs-rule's rant or anyone else's rant for that matter dissuade you from posting. Your insight and friendly approach is always welcome here. I for one appreciate you taking the time to visit here and share some great insight.

Thank you, and no worries. Cougs_rule is perfectly fine. I think he's well intentioned, he just has an opinion that I don't completely agree with although he has some valid points. This is an opponents message board, and I would be naive if I thought I wouldn't meet at least some resistance, or slight animosity. You guys are all great.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BoiseBYU wrote:
If it is just about money, then the question is whether BYU is willing to take a shave in revenue so adding them does not in fact act as an overall negative for the teams, yes? Methinks it is not just about the money.

I think it's important to ask who stands to lose the most of all the teams in the Big 12 by adding 2 additional teams and then dividing up its current contract? Is it Texas?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BoiseBYU wrote:
If it is just about money, then the question is whether BYU is willing to take a shave in revenue so adding them does not in fact act as an overall negative for the teams, yes? Methinks it is not just about the money.

If it were truly just about the money, there are solutions. For example, you could make BYU and one other team a non-paid Big XII conference member. BYU and one other team would be free to make indpendent TV deals until such time as all rights were renegotiated in 2025-2026. With BYU, I don't think money is the reason that we want Big XII membership. In fact, with a regular Big XII slate of foes, I think our ESPN deal would become even better. Its really about not getting left out of the playoffs and becoming irrelevant.



So, while the money would be nice, BYU makes enough money as an independent right now to stay relevant. I say that because Holmoe said we could still pays full cost of attendance without a problem. It is really more about being part of the power 5.

Regarding the Big12 and money. I hear that debt might be part of their problem. Based on the future money streams, the schools borrowed to finance construction projects. I believe TCU is remodeling their stadium for example. They don't have much flexibility.

scott715 wrote:
Regarding the Big12 and money. I hear that debt might be part of their problem. Based on the future money streams, the schools borrowed to finance construction projects. I believe TCU is remodeling their stadium for example. They don't have much flexibility.

Yep. Baylor has built a new stadium. Kansas State and Iowa State, I believe are also expanding. Something most of the Big 12 schools would likely not be able to do without their expected $20 million annually for the TV deal. These projects weren't funded solely by donations.