The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Mormon Red Death]

This reasoning doesn't make any sense. Utah doesn't get a full share for several years because it doesn't have any debt? Colorado gets a full share by year 2 despite swimming in debt? And despite the cash crunch, the PAC somehow had money to offer to Utah, anyway?

Colorado paid about 7mm to leave the B12, but it isn't even certain how much of that was cash. How much, if any, was paid by the PAC? If I'm understanding your post, you are suggesting that money for the next several years that would have gone to Utah was instead funneled to Colorado immediately to help them exit?

It is apparent that nobody on this board knows the answer to this question. That includes me, btw.

Ted Miller explained it best.

As for Colorado, it negotiated for an immediate full share of revenue upon leaving the Big 12. But there could be a complication. That negotiation had Colorado joining the Pac-10 before the 2012-13 academic year, the first year of a new media contract. Colorado now is considering joining the Pac-10 in 2011, just like Utah.

"There is an open question about the date that Colorado will come in," Scott said. "When we made the announcement it was 2012, but when all the dust settles there is a possibility the timetable will move up to 2011 to start with Utah. When they start in 2012 they will start as a full member in regards to revenue sharing, but if they start earlier we will have to discuss that."

The reason for this is simple. Utah's revenue equity coming from the Mountain West Conference is significantly less than Colorado's revenue equity coming from the Big 12. By 2014-15, a full share for Utah could be more than 10 times the $1.2 million in TV revenue it was collecting in the MWC.

[SeattleUte]

Do people actually think it's not unreasonable for new admittees to major conferences (from mid-major status) to phase into full equal sharing? Wow. These are people like Romney was saying have never had to meet a payroll.

[Mormon Red Death]

DDD here is a good article on it for you.

[OrangeUte]

This reasoning doesn't make any sense. Utah doesn't get a full share for several years because it doesn't have any debt? Colorado gets a full share by year 2 despite swimming in debt? And despite the cash crunch, the PAC somehow had money to offer to Utah, anyway?

Colorado paid about 7mm to leave the B12, but it isn't even certain how much of that was cash. How much, if any, was paid by the PAC? If I'm understanding your post, you are suggesting that money for the next several years that would have gone to Utah was instead funneled to Colorado immediately to help them exit?

It is apparent that nobody on this board knows the answer to this question. That includes me, btw.

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.

[Goatnapper'96]

If BSU gets picked up I hope Chris Peterson gets poached first. I also hope that those fine athletes in the 208 find their way to the Deseret (also their SoCal barely-qualifying students as well).

I was surprised when I spent some time looking at BSU's roster. While they may be getting some kids from SoCal that the big time schools passed on due to academic difficulty, many of their good players are diamonds in the rough. The AA DE was a running back at Caldwell High and grew up in Marsing, ID and their top tackling LB is from Snake River High out of Moreland, ID (same high school as former Ute LB Spencer Toone). Heck, BSU even has a kid on scholarship who played 8 man football at Council High. BSU does a good job like Utah and TCU at "tilting the field for speed" by recruiting a big runningback and turning him into a good DE or lots of safeties and turning them into LBs. Many of those kids are local kids in the 208.

[TripletDaddy]

Why is that surprising? Essentially Utah valued membership in the Pac and for the Utes to get to the Pac Colorado had to come with them. Without Colorado getting Utah $$ for the first few years it could not afford to go along. Some chicks like a guy enough to go dutch on dates because his ass is broke! Utah's financial situation allowed them to limp along without the money for a few years in order to faciliatate a richer future than what the status quo afforded.

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

And why is Utah not phased in fully until year 4? Especially now that the new TV deal is in place, the PAC could afford to waive all phase-in requirements and make them full members from the start.

Again, my question is whether there was ever an explanation given for the disparate treatment, not whether Utah should have accepted. It seems that the answer is no on the explanation. So far, the reasons offered here make little to no sense. If Colorado debt is an issue, why does Utah have to pay for that? Why can't the PAC simply offer Colorado the no interest loans directly? That is probably the worst explanation I have heard on the matter.

I wonder if BYU is being offered a similarly distasteful initial arrangement, which may be the cause of some heartburn. My guess is no because BYU is negotiating with more leverage...an ESPN contract in its pocket.

[Goatnapper'96]

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

And why is Utah not phased in fully until year 4? Especially now that the new TV deal is in place, the PAC could afford to waive all phase-in requirements and make them full members from the start.

Again, my question is whether there was ever an explanation given for the disparate treatment, not whether Utah should have accepted. It seems that the answer is no on the explanation. So far, the reasons offered here make little to no sense. If Colorado debt is an issue, why does Utah have to pay for that? Why can't the PAC simply offer Colorado the no interest loans directly? That is probably the worst explanation I have heard on the matter.

I wonder if BYU is being offered a similarly distasteful initial arrangement, which may be the cause of some heartburn. My guess is no because BYU is negotiating with more leverage...an ESPN contract in its pocket.

I think Colorado is being phased in faster because it needed the money and yes, I think Utah is paying for Colorado debt. I think they are doing it because it had to be done in order for Utah to get into the Pac. I also agree that BYU is in a better situation concerning the Big-12, because BYU has more negotiation leverage and also because I think the Big-12 needs expansion more than the Pac did.

[TripletDaddy]

Do people actually think it's not unreasonable for new admittees to major conferences (from mid-major status) to phase into full equal sharing? Wow. These are people like Romney was saying have never had to meet a payroll.

I'm unaware of any such arrangement for TCU, East Carolina, or Southern Florida...all of which have been bumped from mid major to BCS in the past few seasons. The Utah deal is the only one of its kind of which I am aware. So yes, I do think it is a little unreasonable.

That being said, I wonder if BYU will be offered a similar deal.

[Mormon Red Death]

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

And why is Utah not phased in fully until year 4? Especially now that the new TV deal is in place, the PAC could afford to waive all phase-in requirements and make them full members from the start.

Again, my question is whether there was ever an explanation given for the disparate treatment, not whether Utah should have accepted. It seems that the answer is no on the explanation. So far, the reasons offered here make little to no sense. If Colorado debt is an issue, why does Utah have to pay for that? Why can't the PAC simply offer Colorado the no interest loans directly? That is probably the worst explanation I have heard on the matter.

I wonder if BYU is being offered a similarly distasteful initial arrangement, which may be the cause of some heartburn. My guess is no because BYU is negotiating with more leverage...an ESPN contract in its pocket.

Distateful? @50% they are going to make 8 times what they made in MWC. Why is this such a big deal to byu people? If the big 12 said to byu in order to join we will phase in your revenue byu wouldn't say yes?

Utah had the combination of success and circumstances to rise above the MWC contenders. Hill said his MWC counterparts have been understanding.

"The reality of the league is 'Chris, we understand what happened. The reality of the position is we would do the same thing too.' "

[Goatnapper'96]

Distateful? @50% they are going to make 8 times what they made in MWC. Why is this such a big deal to byu people? If the big 12 said to byu in order to join we will phase in your revenue byu wouldn't say yes?

I could give you 44 stringpulling reasons why it is such a big deal!

[TripletDaddy]

I think Colorado is being phased in faster because it needed the money and yes, I think Utah is paying for Colorado debt. I think they are doing it because it had to be done in order for Utah to get into the Pac. I also agree that BYU is in a better situation concerning the Big-12, because BYU has more negotiation leverage and also because I think the Big-12 needs expansion more than the Pac did.

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.

[Paperback Writer]

Colorado paid about 7mm to leave the B12, but it isn't even certain how much of that was cash. How much, if any, was paid by the PAC? If I'm understanding your post, you are suggesting that money for the next several years that would have gone to Utah was instead funneled to Colorado immediately to help them exit?

It is apparent that nobody on this board knows the answer to this question. That includes me, btw.

I don't have the answer either. But if it helps, there was no cash paid to the Big 12 from Colorado. The cash flow works the opposite. Cash flows from the networks to the Big 12 for games already played, then the cash flows from the Big 12 to member programs. All the Big 12 had to do was to not distribute Colorado's full share of revenue. Did the PAC-12 step in and give Colorado cash that would normally come from the Big 12? I doubt it unless it was in the form of an interest free loan. But I kind of like the idea of the PAC-12 giving Utah's money to Colorado - gives a new angle to that Thanksgiving weekend Utah-Colorado rivalry game - "Hey! You guys took our money; we was robbed!"

[TripletDaddy]

Distateful? @50% they are going to make 8 times what they made in MWC. Why is this such a big deal to byu people? If the big 12 said to byu in order to join we will phase in your revenue byu wouldn't say yes?

I dont know. That is my question. Perhaps this is an issue with BYU. And currently, BYU would not get an 8x raise, so the situations are not analogous.

This isn't a "BYU people" issue. This simply pertains to conference expansion. If what you are saying is accurate, why wasn't Southern Florida phased in when it joined up? Why wasn't TCU phased in? And what is to prevent the B12 from attempting the same thing with BYU?

[Mormon Red Death]

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

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

[TripletDaddy]

I don't have the answer either. But if it helps, there was no cash paid to the Big 12 from Colorado. The cash flow works the opposite. Cash flows from the networks to the Big 12 for games already played, then the cash flows from the Big 12 to member programs. All the Big 12 had to do was to not distribute Colorado's full share of revenue. Did the PAC-12 step in and give Colorado cash that would normally come from the Big 12? I doubt it unless it was in the form of an interest free loan. But I kind of like the idea of the PAC-12 giving Utah's money to Colorado - gives a new angle to that Thanksgiving weekend Utah-Colorado rivalry game - "Hey! You guys took our money; we was robbed!"

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?