The race to expansion for the Big 12 is moving ahead at a fast and furious pace as BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston are all set to apply and eventually join the rebuilt conference. SicEm365 has continued to receive more details and clarification on the expansion process and what could be on the horizon.
Revenue
With the additions of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston, the annual television network revenue for the league is estimated at approximately $24.8 million gross.
In its current setup, the league administration withholds 10% of each university’s individual shares to cover its own expenses such as but not exclusive to real estate of headquarters, travel, personnel, marketing, advertising and promotion. With that 10% still expected to be withheld, the 12 members would receive an estimated $22.5 million annually for its television rights.
In addition to that estimated $22.5 million, the league would also receive revenue for the Big 12 Football Championship Game, College Football Playoff Revenue distribution and the various ways conferences are able earn revenue through the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship, including units for wins inside the main tournament and the NIT.
The revenue post-expansion would fall short of its current payouts that include Oklahoma and Texas through 2024-2025, but the additions of the four expected programs allows the league to avoid receiving a significantly more drastic cut in revenue. Without the additions, the remaining eight programs could have been dropped down to an estimated $10 million per year.
Without a conference television network, individual programs would still be responsible for its own Tier 3 content. In addition to agreements with platforms such as ESPN+, Tier 3 money also includes a variety of additional revenue including branding of the individual programs, corporate sponsors, ad revenue, radio contracts and logos. Tier 3 revenue is not included within the league distributions.
Tier 3 revenue for Big 12 programs, SicEm365 has been told, is approximately $15 million a year per institution on average. Each of the current universities that utilize the ESPN+ platform currently receive $4 million a year from ESPN+, leaving on average $11.0 million annually in other third tier revenue for those universities.
Tier 3 revenue for Texas and Oklahoma drastically outpaced the other programs within the league as both programs leaned on independent regional networks for Tier 3 television rights.
The chart below reflects the 2020-2021 athletic year payouts for all revenue streams to programs within the Big 12.
Third tier revenue averages for the league exclude Texas and Oklahoma.
After conference fees, the Big 12 Championship game and the Sugar Bowl payouts are divided equally amongst the members of the league.
The chart excludes payouts from the College Football Playoff as well bowl game payouts outside of the Sugar Bowl. In 2020-2021, the CFP distributed $78.3 million to the Big 12.
Big 12 w/ Texas & Oklahoma
20-21
Tier 1-2
$26.0*
Tier 3 (ESPN+)
$4.0
Tier 3 (Sponsorships, radio, etc.)
$11.0
Big 12 Championship ($20mm)
$2.0
Sugar Bowl ($30mm)
$3.0**
NCAA Championship (17-21)
$1.2
TOTAL
$47.2
The chart below reflects an estimated potential earnings from all revenue streams within an athletic year which includes BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston to programs within the Big 12.
After conference fees, the Big 12 Championship game and the Sugar Bowl payouts are divided equally amongst the members of the league.
Lump sum payouts to the league for the Big 12 Championship game and Sugar Bowl are divided by 12 members rather than 10.
The chart excludes potential payouts from the College Football Playoff as well bowl game payouts outside of the Sugar Bowl. In 2020-2021, the CFP distributed $78.3 million to the Big 12.
Big 12 w/ BYU, UC, UCF & UH
Tier 1-2
$22.0*
Tier 3 (ESPN+)
$4.0
Tier 3 (Sponsorships, radio, etc.)
$11.0
Big 12 Championship ($20mm)
$1.67
Sugar Bowl ($30mm)
$2.5**
NCAA Championship (17-21)
$1.2
TOTAL
$42.4
* Following Big 12 10% reduction
** Sugar Bowl 40mm payout minus team expenses
Not Done at Four?
While the Big 12 currently appears to be set on four programs as the situation stands now, a final decision on the total number of programs the league should add is still fluid.
SicEm365 has learned that there is push from active members of the Big 12 that the final addition total should be six programs and that the league should make the additions immediately.
If the decision is made to add six—with BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston slotted in as the first four additions—Memphis and Boise State look to lead the way as its final two additions. With an eventual departure of both Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC, six new programs added to the league would bring the total membership of the league to 14 with presence in three time zones.
One key piece of criteria for all potential candidates which the Big 12 considered, however, was financial commitment from the universities as well as financial support from boosters affiliated with the individual universities.
Additional Insight
Big 12 is willing to work with BYU’s Sunday scheduling conflict
BYU will add all athletic teams
July 1, 2023 is preferred timeline for additions of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston
That date doesn’t have impact on depature of Texas and Oklahoma to SEC
All votes for the league need to be unanimous; if that includes Texas & Oklahoma is not clear
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the unanimous vote is the eight remaining, since I thought it required an 80% vote for making conference additions. Effectively, we need unanimity among the hateful 8.
If that isn't the case, all these plans are kind of in trouble, as I think we can all imagine that Texas and OU would use their votes as leverage for their own purposes.
"Big 12 is willing to work with BYU's Sunday scheduling conflict BYU will add all athletic teams July 1, 2023 is preferred timeline for additions of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston That date doesn't have impact on departure of Texas and Oklahoma to SEC All votes for the league need to be unanimous; if that includes Texas & Oklahoma is not clear"
If the vote is with respect to remaining eight, it probably takes into account UT and OU as the two negative or abstaining votes that they might expect since both schools are still members of Big12 and still have a vote.
However, any negative vote from either of the two that has any negative impact on the continuance of the Big12 will result in the unleashing of a legal Armageddon against them.
Joined BaylorFans in 1999 under username jumpinjoe. Have always been Jumpinjoe. Proud 4 Year Baylor letterman and 1968 graduate and charter member of Quartermiler U, produced school record in 400 IH.
I love the idea of expanding to include Memphis and Boise state. Strength in numbers, greater national appeal. This also shields us if WVU, KU, or any other combination of schools jump ship. Remember Big East.
Any chance the hold up on last 2 is over academics possibly? With some schools/presidents pushing for at least one Academic addition in say Tulane (were in the running back in 2016)? Just curious
I love the idea of expanding to include Memphis and Boise state. Strength in numbers, greater national appeal. This also shields us if WVU, KU, or any other combination of schools jump ship. Remember Big East.
I'm with you. A 14-team conference with these six has been my preference since late July.
As far as UT and OK voting, that would be a no. I have a copy of the bylaws as well as the GoR.
Big 12 Bylaws section 3.5 (ii) neither the Director representing any Withdrawing Member nor such Member's representatives on any Advisory Committee (as defined in the Rules) shall be entitled to attend any meeting of, vote on any matter before, notice of any meeting of, or copies of materials distributed to, the Board of Directors or any Advisory Committee.
Any chance the hold up on last 2 is over academics possibly? With some schools/presidents pushing for at least one Academic addition in say Tulane (were in the running back in 2016)? Just curious
I wonder if osu, Baylor, and maybe TCU are holding up uh, with isu and Ku holding up byu?
Am I the only one who considers the 10% TAX, because that is what is, as outrageous for the "conference admin" to operate.
I need to do some research on the annual report, etc.
You're not alone. Bowlsby probably eats chateaubriand accompanied with super expensive French wines, desserts and liqueurs. Flashy car, maid service, travel allowance and lots and lots of worthless staff.
IOW's the Big 12 administrative office is likely run by the San Marcos ESPN+ staff.
Here is the guy I believe has taken charge doing Bowlsby's work.
HELL NO to two 4th rate schools like Boise St and Memphis. Good grief.
Stabilize the conference. Show some unity. And 3 or 4 years from now you may actually be able to pull off a coup by taking ASU, Arizona, Colorado and Utah from the Pac 12.
And WVU and KU are going nowhere. They are about as attractive as a wart on a sow's nipple to the B1G or ACC.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
HELL NO to two 4th rate schools like Boise St and Memphis. Good grief.
Stabilize the conference. Show some unity. And 3 or 4 years from now you may actually be able to pull off a coup by taking ASU, Arizona, Colorado and Utah from the Pac 12.
And WVU and KU are going nowhere. They are about as attractive as a wart on a sow's nipple to the B1G or ACC.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
I agree that the idea that we may poach from the pac 12 is pure insanity, They make much more than us.
What is more likely is that one of the other power conferences picks us apart. We should be prepared for this. If, for example, the pac 12 picks up OSU, tech, uh, and TCU, we'll be better able to withstand that loss. Also, expanding now further marginalizes the AAC and MWC.
HELL NO to two 4th rate schools like Boise St and Memphis. Good grief.
Stabilize the conference. Show some unity. And 3 or 4 years from now you may actually be able to pull off a coup by taking ASU, Arizona, Colorado and Utah from the Pac 12.
And WVU and KU are going nowhere. They are about as attractive as a wart on a sow's nipple to the B1G or ACC.
Agreed. We are already subject to a gigantic pay cut. Dividing the tiny remaining pie by 14 rather than 12 is just stupid. Yes I wished they had taken Memphis but it is what it is.
As to Boise, get rid of that stupid turf before you're allowed to join Big 12.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
I agree that the idea that we may poach from the pac 12 is pure insanity, They make much more than us.
What is more likely is that one of the other power conferences picks us apart. We should be prepared for this. If, for example, the pac 12 picks up OSU, tech, uh, and TCU, we'll be better able to withstand that loss. Also, expanding now further marginalizes the AAC and MWC.
Again they do make more than us and that is with USC. Some of y'all have alot more faith than I do that USC cares alot more about traditional rivalries than income. Y'all could be right but I have a feeling they are lot more like Texas than y'all think when it comes right down to it.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
I agree that the idea that we may poach from the pac 12 is pure insanity, They make much more than us.
What is more likely is that one of the other power conferences picks us apart. We should be prepared for this. If, for example, the pac 12 picks up OSU, tech, uh, and TCU, we'll be better able to withstand that loss. Also, expanding now further marginalizes the AAC and MWC.
Again they do make more than us and that is with USC. Some of y'all have alot more faith than I do that USC cares alot more about traditional rivalries than income. Y'all could be right but I have a feeling they are lot more like Texas than y'all think when it comes right down to it.
UT (with tam) is in sec country. They now border many sec schools.
USC, on the other hand, is located in LA. Nowhere near the Sec, B1G, or ACC. Geography matters. I do not see them moving their 20+ sports, and hundreds of student athletes, to play games in the eastern and central time zones. Have you been to West Lafayette or College Park? I have. It is a full day travel from la to these places.
A football only move will lead to usc having to relegate their other world-class Olympic sports to the WCC, which won't ever happen.
I understand your point about geography. Lets see if BYU declines the new XII money because they will be in a conference with teams in Morgantown, Orlando and Cincinnati.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
I agree that the idea that we may poach from the pac 12 is pure insanity, They make much more than us.
What is more likely is that one of the other power conferences picks us apart. We should be prepared for this. If, for example, the pac 12 picks up OSU, tech, uh, and TCU, we'll be better able to withstand that loss. Also, expanding now further marginalizes the AAC and MWC.
Again they do make more than us and that is with USC. Some of y'all have alot more faith than I do that USC cares alot more about traditional rivalries than income. Y'all could be right but I have a feeling they are lot more like Texas than y'all think when it comes right down to it.
Even if they are like Texas, the PAC-12 isn't going to let them leave without doing everything they can to keep them. That league would propose uneven media shares before it allowed USC to leave for more money.
And USC would very likely take that over sending all of their athletic teams across the country to a conference that doesn't respect them or their history the way their current coverage mates do.
I just dont think everything is settled forever now on the college football landscape. Maybe it is though.
I will say that 7 weeks ago earlier this week no one saw Texas and OU essentially being in the SEC and Cincinnati, BYU, UCF, and UH all essentially in the XII by the second week of the up coming season.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
I agree that the idea that we may poach from the pac 12 is pure insanity, They make much more than us.
What is more likely is that one of the other power conferences picks us apart. We should be prepared for this. If, for example, the pac 12 picks up OSU, tech, uh, and TCU, we'll be better able to withstand that loss. Also, expanding now further marginalizes the AAC and MWC.
Again they do make more than us and that is with USC. Some of y'all have alot more faith than I do that USC cares alot more about traditional rivalries than income. Y'all could be right but I have a feeling they are lot more like Texas than y'all think when it comes right down to it.
Even if they are like Texas, the PAC-12 isn't going to let them leave without doing everything they can to keep them. That league would propose uneven media shares before it allowed USC to leave for more money.
And USC would very likely take that over sending all of their athletic teams across the country to a conference that doesn't respect them or their history the way their current coverage mates do.
I agree. Rather than distributing shares equally, I see the power conferences paying schools based on what they bring in. For example, UCLA should get a premium for playing LSU during prime time national tv. WSU should not get the same amount for playing whoever they played. USC will get more for playing nd every year, same with Stanford. Utah shouldn't get much for playing southern Utah.
This will force schools to improve their schedules and reward programs with greater tv appeal.
This will happen nationwide. Vanderbilt shouldn't get paid the same amount as uga when Vanderbilt played Etsu while the bulldogs played Clemson.
The XII would take making a great situation from a bad situation and pushing the envelope into another bungling of things as the XII is historically prone to do if they go bigger than 12 right now with more current G5's. The XII may regret deeply such a move in only a couple of years.
We are taking the cream of the current G5 with two of them (BYU and UC) well over due on joining the P5 club. Leave at this right now and examine the landscape in the mid 20s.
All you have to do is wait until the PAC-12 signs its new TV contract here in a few years. Once that happens -- and it almost certainly will -- this dream of adding four PAC-12 schools will be dashed and you can decide whether to stay at 12 or add Boise and Memphis to get to 14.
I would prefer to add two at that point, but I wouldn't go any higher than 14 unless two other current G5 programs gave us a compelling reason to. There are really only six programs equipped to make that jump that make any geographical sense at all, and we've already added four. After Boise and Memphis, you'd be taking filler.
I agree that the idea that we may poach from the pac 12 is pure insanity, They make much more than us.
What is more likely is that one of the other power conferences picks us apart. We should be prepared for this. If, for example, the pac 12 picks up OSU, tech, uh, and TCU, we'll be better able to withstand that loss. Also, expanding now further marginalizes the AAC and MWC.
Again they do make more than us and that is with USC. Some of y'all have alot more faith than I do that USC cares alot more about traditional rivalries than income. Y'all could be right but I have a feeling they are lot more like Texas than y'all think when it comes right down to it.
Even if they are like Texas, the PAC-12 isn't going to let them leave without doing everything they can to keep them. That league would propose uneven media shares before it allowed USC to leave for more money.
And USC would very likely take that over sending all of their athletic teams across the country to a conference that doesn't respect them or their history the way their current coverage mates do.
I agree. Rather than distributing shares equally, I see the power conferences paying schools based on what they bring in. For example, UCLA should get a premium for playing LSU during prime time national tv. WSU should not get the same amount for playing whoever they played. USC will get more for playing nd every year, same with Stanford. Utah shouldn't get much for playing southern Utah.
This will force schools to improve their schedules and reward programs with greater tv appeal.
This will happen nationwide. Vanderbilt shouldn't get paid the same amount as uga when Vanderbilt played Etsu while the bulldogs played Clemson.
UT would love that idea. This concept was essentially how it was in the XII until about 2010 or so it was Texas' idea to do it this way and it was one of the things that lead the first 4 to leave.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the unanimous vote is the eight remaining, since I thought it required an 80% vote for making conference additions. Effectively, we need unanimity among the hateful 8.
If that isn't the case, all these plans are kind of in trouble, as I think we can all imagine that Texas and OU would use their votes as leverage for their own purposes.
It probably is to their advantage not to tick off any of the leftover 8. Causing this plan to fail does not get them out of the conference quicker.....and without a big payment. And if any of the eight vote against it, where are they going. It hurts no one to pull in more teams. Teams will still have the same options (NONE) to go somewhere else sooner.
What does Vandy do with all that money? It sure as hell isn't going to their athletic programs.
Knowing Texas and how it plays within its conferences, it probably won't be long before Texas raises this with about 5 other SEC member as to why they are all making so much money for the other 11.
When it comes to votes required on membership (such as expansion) The Big 12 Bylaws do notused the phrase unanimous and it doesn't use 80%. Those are both terms used by writers to shortcut the math. The By-Laws specifically state that all votes on membership require a 75% vote. At the current membership level of 10 75% is 7.5 votes minimum or in reality 8 votes. It looks like 80% is required and at 10 that is actually the case but as the membership levels change (12 members, 14 members etc) the vote threshold doesn't (still 75%) which for 12 would be 9 votes and at 14 members would require 10.5 or in reality 11 votes.
The real issue with these numberfs in the past was that when the Big 12 considered expanding in 2014-2016 with memberhsip at 10, it only took 3 votes to kill any expansion issue. Oklahoma and Texas would naturally vote no, because any expansion would delete theire revenue shares and they knew they would survive on tkheir own even if they killed off the Big 12. Texas Tech voted with UT on the lasr expansion vote hoping to gain favor with Big Brother so that when UT hopped teh fencew for greener pastures, Tech would get to "ride along" Tech now knows they were duped and they had better side with their other 7 surviving members if they wish to be relevant in college football in 5 years.
Now that UT and OU have removed their sheep's clothing and revealed their ture selves to be wolves in the flock so to speak all remainin 8 members will be united against them in any membership votes. UT and OU will take a pay cut (albeit an insignificant one for them), nonetheless OU and UT will involuntarily be helping to pay for Big 12 expansion all the way unntil July 1, 2025.
