Big 12 Announces Discussion of Media Rights Extension

it never hurts to talk, but I don't see how early discussions would be helpful, unless it's a sweetheart offer that includes adding some PAC team to the mix.

it doesn't seem wise to show our hand before the PAC contract negotiations have failed completely, maybe we're just fishing for the next low-ball offer out of ESPN. (sigh)

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

it never hurts to talk, but I don't see how early discussions would be helpful, unless it's a sweetheart offer that includes adding some PAC team to the mix.

it doesn't seem wise to show our hand before the PAC contract negotiations have failed completely, maybe we're just fishing for the next low-ball offer out of ESPN. (sigh)

---

That is why he jumped in line. To beat the PAC. Get one to jump and the dominoes start falling.

Duke Silver said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

it never hurts to talk, but I don't see how early discussions would be helpful, unless it's a sweetheart offer that includes adding some PAC team to the mix.

it doesn't seem wise to show our hand before the PAC contract negotiations have failed completely, maybe we're just fishing for the next low-ball offer out of ESPN. (sigh)

---

That is why he jumped in line. To beat the PAC. Get one to jump and the dominoes start falling.

---

I would assume they likely have one or more that have already asked to jump, and we're testing the mkt for the value if they're added. I'm sure several of those pac teams are dipping their toe in the water trying to find the best deal before they happen to get stuck in one sooner than later.

Eclectic said:

---

Duke Silver said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

it never hurts to talk, but I don't see how early discussions would be helpful, unless it's a sweetheart offer that includes adding some PAC team to the mix.

it doesn't seem wise to show our hand before the PAC contract negotiations have failed completely, maybe we're just fishing for the next low-ball offer out of ESPN. (sigh)

---

That is why he jumped in line. To beat the PAC. Get one to jump and the dominoes start falling.

---

I would assume they likely have one or more that have already asked to jump, and we're testing the mkt for the value if they're added. I'm sure several of those pac teams are dipping their toe in the water trying to find the best deal before they happen to get stuck in one sooner than later.

---

This is almost a guarantee what is happening. We are going to get a valuation and present a group of schools.

Duke Silver said:

---

Eclectic said:

---

Duke Silver said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

it never hurts to talk, but I don't see how early discussions would be helpful, unless it's a sweetheart offer that includes adding some PAC team to the mix.

it doesn't seem wise to show our hand before the PAC contract negotiations have failed completely, maybe we're just fishing for the next low-ball offer out of ESPN. (sigh)

---

That is why he jumped in line. To beat the PAC. Get one to jump and the dominoes start falling.

---

I would assume they likely have one or more that have already asked to jump, and we're testing the mkt for the value if they're added. I'm sure several of those pac teams are dipping their toe in the water trying to find the best deal before they happen to get stuck in one sooner than later.

---

This is almost a guarantee what is happening. We are going to get a valuation and present a group of schools.

---

We're essentially saying the same thing. From a legal standpoint, however, I don't believe we're able to "offer", "invite", etc. I'm not trying to split hairs, but my interpretation is that there have likely been schools that have reached out to the big 12 to request membership. Obviously enough, and of enough quality, that Yormark is interested in a valuation. It's either that, or a potential Big 12/Pac 12 merger of some sort. Whatever it is needs to have a $$ amount prior to the pac signing a contract.

hmmm... I think a bunch of you are deeply consumed with wishful thinking.

I do not thing that an extension of this current contract is in our best interest, and that our value is in breaking the pieces up further (like the B16G did), or in getting a full commitment from one partner, like the SEC did.

I hope the Comish plays hardball with these media jackals.

Eclectic said:

---

Duke Silver said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

it never hurts to talk, but I don't see how early discussions would be helpful, unless it's a sweetheart offer that includes adding some PAC team to the mix.

it doesn't seem wise to show our hand before the PAC contract negotiations have failed completely, maybe we're just fishing for the next low-ball offer out of ESPN. (sigh)

---

That is why he jumped in line. To beat the PAC. Get one to jump and the dominoes start falling.

---

I would assume they likely have one or more that have already asked to jump, and we're testing the mkt for the value if they're added. I'm sure several of those pac teams are dipping their toe in the water trying to find the best deal before they happen to get stuck in one sooner than later.

---

BINGO, hit the nail square on the head!

Well doing what the B1G did is still possible as basically FOX took the whole thing and then sold off parts to the others. The same kind of process could be how it plays out. But for now we have to talk to these two, and they talk to any others. I'd say you're being too pessimistic wanting to wait until we have no time, and dealing with leftovers, when we can step up and get in front of the PAC and get a deal done that clearly pushes them as any money they get means less for the Big XII.

LOL - I'm not talking about doing anything but read the tea leaves..... a literal "extension" as the article says, doesn't do much for us, IMO.

I'm not suggesting waiting, I'm only doubtful that this initial salvo will be worth discussing.

It's time for the Comish to "think out of the box", as he was brought in to do.

I guess well see if we have any cards to play here in a few months.

I hope OSU doesn't sign anything committing us to the conference long-term.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

LOL - I'm not talking about doing anything but read the tea leaves..... a literal "extension" as the article says, doesn't do much for us, IMO.

I'm not suggesting waiting, I'm only doubtful that this initial salvo will be worth discussing.

It's time for the Comish to "think out of the box", as he was brought in to do.

I guess well see if we have any cards to play here in a few months.

---

An extension isn't necessarily getting paid the same money for a longer duration. When an NFL player gets an extension (i.e Mason Rudolph last year), they're generally paid significantly more than the original contract. Over 2X more in his case. Yes, it is an extension in the contract length, but everything else is negotiable.

I just watched a podcast with former Fox Sports CEO, Bob Thompson. He believes the networks are the ones that requested the early discussion period. Said Yormark wouldn't have released the statement he did if it wasn't them (the networks) asking him to do so. Said they're essentially trying to get him to send a msg to someone (audience)....likely the Pac12. Stated there has been a CFP expansion committee mtg suddenly organized for this friday. Also stated that he believes espn is wanting to buy out OU/Tex contracts after this year and fox is wanting to buyout usc/ucla after this year. So essentially a trade-off between the two, but a lot of trade fodder for them to strike a deal with a willing participant.

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

---

So, we blindly go about our business with no information to provide potential expansion candidates. Instead, we eat the sand our heads are buried in and just hope when we pull em out in 2 years we like what we see. Great plan.

Now that Washington/B1G talks are confirmed the fact is that the PAC is being taken out. ESPN & FOX are ready to move on with getting the Big XII contract set going forward as they don't need any money for the PAC as the remaining schools will fold in with the MWC.

An extension doesn't mean the same terms it just refers to the length. The networks have slots they need to fill. The Big XII is going to be sitting with programming matching the B1G's in 4 time slots. FOX will provide most of the T1 slots, ESPN some. T2 will be split, and we either wind up with a cable network or T3 on ESPN+.

This is going to be a good deal for the Big XII and all 14 or 16 schools.

As for those worrying about length this will run equal to the B1G deal probably, but no longer than the SEC deal. IF OSU has an opportunity to go SEC it will only be at the point where the ACC schools become available. Then I think there is a chance that if the B1G takes UNC, FSU, Miami & Utah, then the SEC would likely take Clemson, NC State, OSU, & WVU.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

---

So, we blindly go about our business with no information to provide potential expansion candidates. Instead, we eat the sand our heads are buried in and just hope when we pull em out in 2 years we like what we see. Great plan.

---

I did not say anything like that. Stop trying to put your words into my mouth. I did not even imply that I support anything like that.

Why are you only on here trying to pick fights?

NJAggie said:

---

Now that Washington/B1G talks are confirmed the fact is that the PAC is being taken out. ESPN & FOX are ready to move on with getting the Big XII contract set going forward as they don't need any money for the PAC as the remaining schools will fold in with the MWC.

An extension doesn't mean the same terms it just refers to the length. The networks have slots they need to fill. The Big XII is going to be sitting with programming matching the B1G's in 4 time slots. FOX will provide most of the T1 slots, ESPN some. T2 will be split, and we either wind up with a cable network or T3 on ESPN+.

This is going to be a good deal for the Big XII and all 14 or 16 schools.

As for those worrying about length this will run equal to the B1G deal probably, but no longer than the SEC deal. IF OSU has an opportunity to go SEC it will only be at the point where the ACC schools become available. Then I think there is a chance that if the B1G takes UNC, FSU, Miami & Utah, then the SEC would likely take Clemson, NC State, OSU, & WVU.

---

good lord NJ, they haven't even met with us yet, and already "it's a good deal".

can we at least hear the offer before we make any claims about it? Please?

and, for the record, an "extension" COULD mean the same terms and the same length and anything else.

I'm interested to see if they even offer anything at this time.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

---

So, we blindly go about our business with no information to provide potential expansion candidates. Instead, we eat the sand our heads are buried in and just hope when we pull em out in 2 years we like what we see. Great plan.

---

I did not say anything like that. Stop trying to put your words into my mouth. I did not even imply that I support anything like that.

Why are you only on here trying to pick fights?

---

Well, you clearly don't think it's a good idea to engage in discussions about an extension at this time, so yeah, it does seem like you're happy just closing your eyes and hoping for the best.

Perhaps if you'd describe a different path instead of just criticizing the current path everyone might have some idea what you do support.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

---

So, we blindly go about our business with no information to provide potential expansion candidates. Instead, we eat the sand our heads are buried in and just hope when we pull em out in 2 years we like what we see. Great plan.

---

I did not say anything like that. Stop trying to put your words into my mouth. I did not even imply that I support anything like that.

Why are you only on here trying to pick fights?

---

Well, you clearly don't think it's a good idea to engage in discussions about an extension at this time, so yeah, it does seem like you're happy just closing your eyes and hoping for the best.

Perhaps if you'd describe a different path instead of just criticizing the current path everyone might have some idea what you do support.

---

I already asked you to please stop, but you won't, you just want to try and pick fights.

MY VERY FIRST SENTENCE says "it never hurts to talk"..... I followed that with what I thought the outcome might be, but clearly I DID NOT SAY that it is not a good idea to engage in discussions.

I did not say that, nor did I imply that. You are just trying to pick a fight.

Please post more maturely. Thanks.

I think it's a great sign for the B12. Fox and ESPN engaging early clearly means they want the negotiations to flush out the most valuable alignment scenarios and timing for the schools in the B12, PAC, B1G and maybe even the SEC. If it's more valuable to certain schools in the PAC to leave and join the B12, these negotiations should provide the needed data points to settle the ongoing public debate. Further, engaging in discussions now allows for a "network" solution for the early exit of OU and UT which results in a better deal for the B12.

(As a side note, calling it an extension is of no consequence whatsoever. The parties can retain or change any terms or conditions they choose when extending a contract. But clearly, using the existing contract that addresses definitions, terms, conditions, reps, warranties, indemnities, etc.. that have already been agreed to is far easier than negotiating and re-writing an entire contract.)

Now, regarding the specifics of a new deal, I'd like to see Yormark explore some value adders for the new B12 and/or further expanded B12.

1. Increase the payouts for the B12 deal to provide a path for OU/UT to leave after the 2023 season. Included in that deal is for UT to hand over the assets of the LHN to the B12.
2. With the newly acquired LHN, the B12 creates its own content for 2-4 (?) games per week, plus content for all the other sports. This would require re-working the current ESPN+ deal.
3. Propose an inter-conference rivalry game for every conference team. Not only could this add significant value to the deal, it would also point college football back into a direction that honors and celebrates regional (mostly historic) rivalries. How cool would it be if the B12 could give fans from across the country the following every year:
OSUU
UT:TCU
BU:aTm
TT:Ark
WVU:Pitt
UCF:FSU
Cinn:tOSU
KU:Mizzou
KSU:Neb
ISU:Iowa
BYU:USC
UH:LSU
I would think ESPN and Fox would love it, and could sell (more $$$) the idea to the SEC, B1G and ACC. That's enough content to give the fans and network 1 big rivalry game most every week of the season. Just think how "interesting" the debate would be with the polls and when seeding the CFP. It would also raise the optics and probably the status of the B12 in the Power 4/5 hierarchy.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

---

So, we blindly go about our business with no information to provide potential expansion candidates. Instead, we eat the sand our heads are buried in and just hope when we pull em out in 2 years we like what we see. Great plan.

---

I did not say anything like that. Stop trying to put your words into my mouth. I did not even imply that I support anything like that.

Why are you only on here trying to pick fights?

---

Well, you clearly don't think it's a good idea to engage in discussions about an extension at this time, so yeah, it does seem like you're happy just closing your eyes and hoping for the best.

Perhaps if you'd describe a different path instead of just criticizing the current path everyone might have some idea what you do support.

---

I already asked you to please stop, but you won't, you just want to try and pick fights.

MY VERY FIRST SENTENCE says "it never hurts to talk"..... I followed that with what I thought the outcome might be, but clearly I DID NOT SAY that it is not a good idea to engage in discussions.

I did not say that, nor did I imply that. You are just trying to pick a fight.

Please post more maturely. Thanks.

---

Your second sentence says "it doesn't seem wise". Make up your mind and tell us what is wise.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

backphil said:

---

CC I think the stated purpose is to get reliable per team payouts if we add the four corner schools. We are averaging $44 million per team now, so an extension would also, presumably, pay the same to the four added schools. We just need confirmation to show those schools. That's my guess of the matter.

---

yeah, I get it... but we're getting that now with OU and Texas in the mix, not with UCF, BYU, Cincy and Houston..... we have no freaking idea what they think we're worth at the moment, and I seriously doubt that they will give us their "best offer" on stage 1 of negotiations.

---

So, we blindly go about our business with no information to provide potential expansion candidates. Instead, we eat the sand our heads are buried in and just hope when we pull em out in 2 years we like what we see. Great plan.

---

I did not say anything like that. Stop trying to put your words into my mouth. I did not even imply that I support anything like that.

Why are you only on here trying to pick fights?

---

Well, you clearly don't think it's a good idea to engage in discussions about an extension at this time, so yeah, it does seem like you're happy just closing your eyes and hoping for the best.

Perhaps if you'd describe a different path instead of just criticizing the current path everyone might have some idea what you do support.

---

I already asked you to please stop, but you won't, you just want to try and pick fights.

MY VERY FIRST SENTENCE says "it never hurts to talk"..... I followed that with what I thought the outcome might be, but clearly I DID NOT SAY that it is not a good idea to engage in discussions.

I did not say that, nor did I imply that. You are just trying to pick a fight.

Please post more maturely. Thanks.

---

Your second sentence says "it doesn't seem wise". Make up your mind and tell us what is wise.

---

I SAID WHY it doesn't seem wise to me.. .but I'm NOT opposed to it as you allege.

as for your proposal, I vote NO on two... flat out NO. Don't want the LHN, I don't think networks are in the future.... The ACC network is still struggling after 2 years... I'd like to see the numbers before we just flatly jump into something like that.

as for play OU .... never again, ever, would be my vote. Don't want it, college football does not need it, IMO. I'm more than happy finding new teams to spar with.

I'm for (1) adding the most value, (2) preserving rivalries and the fabric of college football, (3) raising/preserving the status of the B12, and (4) hopefully ensuring the B1G and SEC don't split off into a separate division.

My idea theoretically addresses all those points. I don't see how your many ideas accomplish anything.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm for (1) adding the most value, (2) preserving rivalries and the fabric of college football, (3) raising/preserving the status of the B12, and (4) hopefully ensuring the B1G and SEC don't split off into a separate division.

My idea theoretically addresses all those points. I don't see how your many ideas accomplish anything.

---

blah, blah, blah..... it really depends on how one defines "accomplishing anything"

I am for 1) getting the most money 2) creating a new "fabric of college football", whatever the heck fabric of football means in your world, 3) ignoring any "status debates", they are meaningless... line them up, and 4) let them split and become a semi-pro league, I couldn't care less and many fans feel the same way - I'm not interested in an "arms race", I would prefer to preserve the "fabric of COLLEGE football", bowls and good ole college try.

I'm not really surprised by your positions, you always choose the wrong side... you're always wrong. Deal with it.

Just heard RA on B12 Radio. He's claiming the B12, ESPN and Fox have been in discussions most of the summer. Further, the parties have agreed to an extended contract with new values, new term, but with close to the same sharing/split of games between ESPN and Fox.

We'll see.

All I can say is…….lol.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

All I can say is…….lol.

---

that's right, you're trying to turn it into corporate football, and I'm trying to preserve the fabric of college football..

I don't find it quite as funny, but I'm glad you get a kick out of it.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Just heard RA on B12 Radio. He's claiming the B12, ESPN and Fox have been in discussions most of the summer. Further, the parties have agreed to an extended contract with new values, new term, but with close to the same sharing/split of games between ESPN and Fox.

We'll see.

---

I hope like heck that the Comish has also been in "discussions" with all the other parties too... otherwise, that's not much "out of the box thinking".... same ol', same ol'

and.... if any of that is actually true, then it likely means we're stuck with ESPN+

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I think it's a great sign for the B12. Fox and ESPN engaging early clearly means they want the negotiations to flush out the most valuable alignment scenarios and timing for the schools in the B12, PAC, B1G and maybe even the SEC. If it's more valuable to certain schools in the PAC to leave and join the B12, these negotiations should provide the needed data points to settle the ongoing public debate. Further, engaging in discussions now allows for a "network" solution for the early exit of OU and UT which results in a better deal for the B12.

(As a side note, calling it an extension is of no consequence whatsoever. The parties can retain or change any terms or conditions they choose when extending a contract. But clearly, using the existing contract that addresses definitions, terms, conditions, reps, warranties, indemnities, etc.. that have already been agreed to is far easier than negotiating and re-writing an entire contract.)

Now, regarding the specifics of a new deal, I'd like to see Yormark explore some value adders for the new B12 and/or further expanded B12.

1. Increase the payouts for the B12 deal to provide a path for OU/UT to leave after the 2023 season. Included in that deal is for UT to hand over the assets of the LHN to the B12.
2. With the newly acquired LHN, the B12 creates its own content for 2-4 (?) games per week, plus content for all the other sports. This would require re-working the current ESPN+ deal.
3. Propose an inter-conference rivalry game for every conference team. Not only could this add significant value to the deal, it would also point college football back into a direction that honors and celebrates regional (mostly historic) rivalries. How cool would it be if the B12 could give fans from across the country the following every year:
OSUU
UT:TCU
BU:aTm
TT:Ark
WVU:Pitt
UCF:FSU
Cinn:tOSU
KU:Mizzou
KSU:Neb
ISU:Iowa
BYU:USC
UH:LSU
I would think ESPN and Fox would love it, and could sell (more $$$) the idea to the SEC, B1G and ACC. That's enough content to give the fans and network 1 big rivalry game most every week of the season. Just think how "interesting" the debate would be with the polls and when seeding the CFP. It would also raise the optics and probably the status of the B12 in the Power 4/5 hierarchy.

---

Let me add. If the inter-conference rivalry idea can be pulled off, it would be like adding a college football blueblood to our league with a full 12 (16 games if we expand) game schedule to our league without having to share the money with the blueblood. Maybe better. Just think of the viewership of games involving tOSU, UT, OU, LSU, USC, aTm, FSU, and Neb. Heck, that could be worth as much as (or close to) having oU and UT in the league. That's gotta be worth big $$$.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Let me add. If the inter-conference rivalry idea can be pulled off, it would be like adding a college football blueblood to our league with a full 12 (16 games if we expand) game schedule to our league. Maybe better. Just think of the viewership of games involving tOSU, UT, OU, LSU, USC, aTm, FSU, and Neb. Heck, that could be worth as much as (or close to) having oU and UT in the league. That's gotta be worth big $$$.

---

or... it will be like adding another loss to practically every team in the conference, when we're already going to be loaded down on P5 teams just playing within conference. Wouldn't that be great, get paid less and then take a whopping from the money hoarders... yeah... that'll show em.

Let the teams decide who they want to play, and keep the league out of it.

It reminds me of the B12/SEC basketball challenge, which is pretty silly, IMO, but it can be done because there are soooo many basketball games.

We only have 3 OOC games, and don't want to listen to the goons whine every stinking year....

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Let me add. If the inter-conference rivalry idea can be pulled off, it would be like adding a college football blueblood to our league with a full 12 (16 games if we expand) game schedule to our league. Maybe better. Just think of the viewership of games involving tOSU, UT, OU, LSU, USC, aTm, FSU, and Neb. Heck, that could be worth as much as (or close to) having oU and UT in the league. That's gotta be worth big $$$.

---

or... it will be like adding another loss to practically every team in the conference, when we're already going to be loaded down on P5 teams just playing within conference. Wouldn't that be great, get paid less and then take a whopping from the money hoarders... yeah... that'll show em.

Let the teams decide who they want to play, and keep the league out of it.

It reminds me of the B12/SEC basketball challenge, which is pretty silly, IMO, but it can be done because there are soooo many basketball games.

We only have 3 OOC games, and don't want to listen to the goons whine every stinking year....

---

Get paid less? No way, junior. We'd get paid significantly more.

Check. I'll put you down in the pansy column that's more interested in avoiding his "feelings" and competition than making money to stay competitive.

Did you miss that Robert reported the talks were already well advanced last week. They have talked, they are talking, and this announcement is just the notice the details are close to being signed off on and revealed.

You can't talk to other parties other than those you're contracted with other than speculatively. So you have to talk to your current partners and if everyone wants to bring in others then it can happen. Otherwise you have to wait until the end of the contract go into the exclusive window and then after its over go to market. You see how well that's worked for the PAC 12.

Also if you go into talks and they offer less than you need, you can still wait it out and go through the end process in 2 years and take it to market.

But a good deal is likely and why wait longer to get less or the same?