The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Goatnapper'96]

Again, though...this doesn't make sense, it is the same thing being said over and over.

What "had to be done" for Utah and Colorado to get into the PAC? Who set these rules? The PAC was expanding, nobody was forcing them to do it. Nothing had to be done.

The PAc chose to expand with a school that had no money and hoped to find a second, financially stable school that would pay for the bankrupt school, then let the bankrupt school jump ahead in line? What a bizarre theory, although it seems to be the popular one.

It isn't a bizarre theory when one realizes that for Utah taking up the tailpipe out of the blocks was still a significantly brighter future than their status quo. The PAC wanted to expand for the conference championship game, but the PAC didn't need to expand and the old time members refused losing anything in order to expand as they didn't need to expand. The options for expansion were limited and one of the targets was in serious financial dire straits, somebody had to take it up the tailpipe for CU in order for it all to materialize. The existing PAC members wer not going to do it, if it were to hurt them they would have opted to not expand. Utah could afford it and has less of an aversion (uh-virgin for you Larry K. Flynt fans) to taking up the tail pipe as the long term benefit is significantly better than their status quo. Essentially the PAC said if you wanna join Utah you have to bail out CU and this is how we propose to do it, the Utes thought about it for a nano-second and said then broke into Meg Ryan screaming out in pure ecstasy "YES!YES!!YES!!!!"

[TripletDaddy]

I'm curious as to what Leverage byu has in the negotiation?

That they can join immediately? That they can just remain independent?

I think the former, not that latter. I doubt the B12 cares that BYU can remain Indy. The ability to join immediately is probably very important.

Another bit of leverage is BYUs current annual salary, which is no longer a MWC paycheck.

The global fan base certainly helps. The current on field performance is likely not a leverage point.

[YOhio]

It isn't a bizarre theory when one realizes that for Utah taking up the tailpipe out of the blocks was still a significantly brighter future than their status quo. The PAC wanted to expand for the conference championship game, but the PAC didn't need to expand and the old time members refused losing anything in order to expand as they didn't need to expand. The options for expansion were limited and one of the targets was in serious financial dire straits, somebody had to take it up the tailpipe for CU in order for it all to materialize. The existing PAC members wer not going to do it, if it were to hurt them they would have opted to not expand. Utah could afford it and has less of an aversion (uh-virgin for you Larry K. Flynt fans) to taking up the tail pipe as the long term benefit is significantly better than their status quo. Essentially the PAC said if you wanna join Utah you have to bail out CU and this is how we propose to do it, the Utes thought about it for a nano-second and said then broke into Meg Ryan screaming out in pure ecstasy "YES!YES!!YES!!!!"

Meg Ryan was faking it.

[Goatnapper'96]

Right, that is my understanding, as well, which would negate the "Colorado is in BK" theory. This really wasn't a cash deal, so Colorados liquidity/debt is a non-issue. And if the PAc did have the cash to give to a colorado, why penalize Utah?

I think Colorado's athletic department owes the State of Colorado the money. The Pac-12 deal provides the CU athletic department wth stable revenues to pay the state back. I don't think it was paying the Big-12 back. It was the loss of revenue going forward.

[BlueHair]

nobody from the U that negotiated the deal is or ever will talk. nobody from the pac12 is talking. so, you aren't going to get an answer.

but, it seems like there are 2 possibilities. 1. the U rolled over just to get in. 2. some other concoction of arguments along the lines of what has been articulated in this thread by ute fans... i.e.: the utes withheld from getting a full share for afew years because it got them in a year earlier and/or helped colorado to get in a year earlier as well.

Coug fans choose to focus on number 1, and ute fans choose number 2 as their point of focus. either way, the utes are out this year and then gradually become a full share member. it is what it is. i don't care. i am just enjoying the great schedule with some sweet roadies, which will continue for years and years to come.

You summed it up perfectly. As a fan, my only concern is the schedule.

[TripletDaddy]

It isn't a bizarre theory when one realizes that for Utah taking up the tailpipe out of the blocks was still a significantly brighter future than their status quo. The PAC wanted to expand for the conference championship game, but the PAC didn't need to expand and the old time members refused losing anything in order to expand as they didn't need to expand. The options for expansion were limited and one of the targets was in serious financial dire straits, somebody had to take it up the tailpipe for CU in order for it all to materialize. The existing PAC members wer not going to do it, if it were to hurt them they would have opted to not expand. Utah could afford it and has less of an aversion (uh-virgin for you Larry K. Flynt fans) to taking up the tail pipe as the long term benefit is significantly better than their status quo. Essentially the PAC said if you wanna join Utah you have to bail out CU and this is how we propose to do it, the Utes thought about it for a nano-second and said then broke into Meg Ryan screaming out in pure ecstasy "YES!YES!!YES!!!!"

Then you agree with OrangeUte Theory #1, it seems. Really, Theory #2 is basically the same as Theory #1. I don't see any other way around that conclusion. That is all fine and dandy and any other mid major would have taken the same deal, I was just wondering if anyone ever tried to officially explain it. I can see why no explanation was ever given.

I am really curious to see if BYU gets the same deal. The B12 would certainly be remiss to not attempt something similar.

[TripletDaddy]

You summed it up perfectly. As a fan, my only concern is the schedule.

The initial question wasn't whether fans enjoy a BCs schedule over a mid major schedule.

The question was whether an official explanation was ever given. It appears that none was given.

[U-Ute]

Then why would Colorado not be phased in immediately 100% in year one if it needed the money so badly?

I don't know the logic behind the phasing either. Usually you do some sort of vesting schedule in business to make sure that the other party just doesn't take the money and immediately leave, like when a small business owner sells to a larger company, and the larger company wants to keep the owner around in a managerial role for continuity purposes.

In reality, where would Utah and Colorado go?



The only thing I can think of with the phasing is that the financing under the old television revenue didn't allow both schools to jump in immediately. Several schools are running debt right now, so you can't suddenly take away 10%-20% of the revenue they were expecting and give it to new schools.

You have to remember that when Scott started this, the schools were supposed to not come on until next year. He would have the schools lined up to negotiate with this summer, but wouldn't have to pay out until they money was there.

But, as it turned out, Colorado desperately wanted GTFO B12 and Utah obviously wanted out of the MWC.

So, as to how this would affect BYU, it obviously depends on the the television rights and revenue streams of the B12. I don't know when the television rights are due to be renegotiated, but it would seem that, given the history of the B12 and the LHN, BYU could forgo some of the national TV revenue while in return keeping more of the BYUtv revenue. It doesn't affect the conference bottom line, and it was something BYU was banking on anyway.

Unless of course, forgoing the national TV revenue would be less than what BYU is currently going to contractually receive from ESPN, then they may have a problem with it.

[Goatnapper'96]

Then you agree with OrangeUte Theory #1, it seems. Really, Theory #2 is basically the same as Theory #1. I don't see any other way around that conclusion. That is all fine and dandy and any other mid major would have taken the same deal, I was just wondering if anyone ever tried to officially explain it. I can see why no explanation was ever given.

I am really curious to see if BYU gets the same deal. The B12 would certainly be remiss to not attempt something similar.

I forgot all the details of OrangeUte's post but I think the only difference between #1 and #2 was perspective. #1 focussed upon current leverage and #2 ignored that to focus on long term payout. Save for UteStar who focusses upon the taking it up the tailpipe out of the blocks. But that is the beauty of the U of U - its varied diversity and differences and whatnot! WOOHOO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY!

[SoCalCoug]

The greatest leverage in any negotiation is the willingness to walk away from the deal. I don't know why everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over BYU using this leverage.

[byu71]

The greatest leverage in any negotiation is the willingness to walk away from the deal. I don't know why everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over BYU using this leverage.

Having an awesome product is also great leverage. Too bad we didn't beat Texas and Utah.

[Goatnapper'96]

Then you agree with OrangeUte Theory #1, it seems. Really, Theory #2 is basically the same as Theory #1. I don't see any other way around that conclusion. That is all fine and dandy and any other mid major would have taken the same deal, I was just wondering if anyone ever tried to officially explain it. I can see why no explanation was ever given.

I am really curious to see if BYU gets the same deal. The B12 would certainly be remiss to not attempt something similar.

As far as BYU, I guess the Big-12 could but unless there is a compelling need, such as CU's financial issues, I doubt the Big-12 tries. I don't think the phase in is how other expansions were treated, but Utah's expansion included a partner that needed guaranteed revenues immediately. I think in comparing the imminent Big-12 expansion, the Big-12 needs expansion teams more than the Pac did so I doubt they Big-12 has the same negotiating leverage. However, if the Big-12 digs in and demands BYU take it up the tailpipe out of the blocks like the Pac did the Utes, I publicly offer my well honed military command voice to impersonate the previously mentioned faking Meg Ryan's "YES!YES!!YES!!!!"

[Goatnapper'96]

Having an awesome product is also great leverage. Too bad we didn't beat Texas and Utah.

I really think performance on the field is one of the lesser concerns. Certainly it is performance on the field that eventually feeds the larger concerns but I don't think BYU's losses this year either add to or take away from BYU's leverage.

[Flystripper]

Has this thread really devolved into a "Utah sucks becuse they didn't get full revenue share from day 1" thread? Please give me some more Big 12 Groundswell! I really don't care about what Utah is or isn't making.

If BYU has to give up revenue for 5 years to get into the Big 12 and be subsidized by the Church during that time I would still be in favor of it!

[Goatnapper'96]

Has this thread really devolved into a "Utah sucks becuse they didn't get full revenue share from day 1" thread? Please give me some more Big 12 Groundswell! I really don't care about what Utah is or isn't making.

If BYU has to give up revenue for 5 years to get into the Big 12 and be subsidized by the Church during that time I would still be in favor of it!

Would you pay tithing to facilitate it?