Thanks to the poster who posted the interview of Texas Tech president (Dr. Lawrence Schovanec) in another thread. I think this is worth its own thread because there is really fascinating and newsworthy stuff in the interview. I've even taken the time to transcribe the key questions and answers in the interview. Key parts italicized. Further comments in brackets by me below.
Q: Lot of reporting that TV contracts allowed if you guys expanded, that they would add money into mix. There’s been reports that TV networks have said we will pay you not to expand. Is that accurate?
A: Obviously we are going to get more money because of the championship game. So that was part of the discussion. That’s still being negotiated as to what final amounts will be. The networks were kind of ambivalent about whether we added none, 2, 4. They had a certain probably level as to what they wanted to provide. But this decision wasn’t solely driven by negotiations with the networks, Fox and ESPN.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: Big 12 is going to enter into a new contract with the networks, with a substantial increase in annual revenues based on (1) addition of championship game and (2) elimination of the "pro rata" clause allowing Big 12 to add teams whenever it wants. The networks are negotiating with the Big 12 a bottom line dollar figure and do not particularly care if the Big 12 adds schools or not. Certainty in the amount of the annual payment is what is most important to the networks, not the number of schools in the Big 12.]
Q: How is 10 member Big 12 better for Texas Tech than 2 or 4 schools added to mix?
A: This speaks to general issue of what is best for the league. Some debate among our fan base as to their enthusiasm for any of those schools being discussed. That would have been a controversial issue had we expanded. What’s most important for Texas Tech is that there is a long term commitment to the Big 12 so that we have a lengthy period of time to decide what we want to do when 2024-25 comes around and our TV contract comes to an end. We achieved that. There is a commitment of all of the members to the league. There are on-going discussions about what the final TV support will be in terms of additional revenue. We will realize some increase, so that’s good for Texas Tech. We won’t be dividing among 12 or 14; it’ll be divided among ten. We can’t be sure of what might really happen between now and the next 8 years in terms of discussions or alliances with other leagues.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: Three key points here. (1) Everyone is looking ahead to the possibility of a big shake up in 2024, and folks want time to prepare for that. More on this below. (2) In the end, the decision against adding teams was easy, because as discussed above the networks are willing to up the Big 12's payment and don't particularly care if the Big 12 actually adds teams or not. So, less mouths to feed. Plus, a lot of the Big 12's revenue would not go up if Big 12 expanded, such as the Big 12's Sugar Bowl money. (3) Schovanec's comments that there may be "discussions or alliances with other leagues" is fascinating. Could that be an alliance between the Big 12 and Pac 12? Nobody knows, but it seems clear that the Big 12 and the invidual schools in the Big 12 are going to be proactive given that the Big 12's vulnerability is clear as day. I think before the last realignment round, nobody appreciated the Big 12's vulnerability and as a result the schools and conference were much more reactive than proactive. That is not going to happen again.]
Q: Is a Big 12 network still possible?
A: That was discussed. There is some difference of opinion among the networks as to the value of a branded conference network. That’s part of the discussion going on as to the final financial package that may be determined as to what value would be assigned to that. That is an issue that is still under discussion.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: This is huge. First, Schovanec admitted that at least one network sees some value in a branded conference network. Second, he admitted that discussions about a conference network are still ongoing, and will be rolled into the conference's overall TV package. It may just be a digital network, but given these comments I bet we will see some kind of conference network agreement when the Big 12's new contract is announced.]
Q: Did Texas Tech prefer the status quo from the beginning of this process when the exploration was announced in July or did the university’s position evolve over the last three months?
A: Well I wasn’t involved in this discussion when it first began. The first meeting I attended was in July. If it had to come to a decision of certain schools, there are some we would have supported. But we didn’t get to that point. We were very supportive of the decision to stay at ten. If you talk to ADs and coaches there was broad support for that.
Q: Can you describe your relationship with UT President Greg Fenves? Is that overplayed – Tech’s relationship with Texas - or should we pay attention to that relationship?
A: I would say that relationship is very good. I had visited with President Fenves prior to the board meeting this past weekend in Dallas. Texas is really a good partner for Tech. Not just in terms of athletics. Talk about the academics opportunities we are engaged in. I know the fans may have an issue with that. Our relationship with Texas is good and it potentially helps us.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: Texas Tech is very interested in continuing to align with Texas, but understands that there are no guarantees.]
Q: You mentioned the 2024-5 window earlier. That’s 8 years away. Do you think the Big 12 will exist 10 years from now?
A: Your guess is as good as mine. I don’t think anybody can be certain what the landscape is going to look like. We’ve all heard of the discussions of what might happen with the 64 Power 5. Those are things that are discussed. How that might shake out. The relationship of those schools to the NCAA. Those things are talked about. The way that inventory is going to be distributed will have an effect on this. It’s not just going to be TV. There are all kinds of new technologies that are going to affect revenue streams that are possible for universities. 8 years is a long ways down the road. What we have now is an opportunity to make sure we are doing everything we can to strengthen our programs, athletically and academically, and making sure we are advancing the brand and telling the great story that Texas Tech is. So when things do change dramatically, people will know that Tech would be one of the schools in that select group, and I am confident that's what we will be.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: This is a pretty frank acknowledgement that the Big 12 could collapse in 8 years or sooner. The 64 "Power" teams breaking off from the NCAA is a real thing. People are actually talking about that. I think there is a real chance it could happen - there is real $$$ upside for all 64 schools if it comes to pass. But on the other hand, no one knows if it is going to happen, or how it might happen. So Tech (and presumably every other school in the Big 12 potentially left behind) is focused on improving their own programs over the next 8 years to make themselves attractive and competitive if there is a big reorganization. Certainly, as many fans on here have noted, it must be obvious to Tech and everyone else that it does no one currently in the Big 12 any good to elevate other schools to the "Power" level if 64 teams really does come to pass - then, those schools will have a leg up that they currently don't have.]
http://www.doublet973.com/story/33449202/tech-talk-interview-dr-lawrence-schovanec
Q: Lot of reporting that TV contracts allowed if you guys expanded, that they would add money into mix. There’s been reports that TV networks have said we will pay you not to expand. Is that accurate?
A: Obviously we are going to get more money because of the championship game. So that was part of the discussion. That’s still being negotiated as to what final amounts will be. The networks were kind of ambivalent about whether we added none, 2, 4. They had a certain probably level as to what they wanted to provide. But this decision wasn’t solely driven by negotiations with the networks, Fox and ESPN.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: Big 12 is going to enter into a new contract with the networks, with a substantial increase in annual revenues based on (1) addition of championship game and (2) elimination of the "pro rata" clause allowing Big 12 to add teams whenever it wants. The networks are negotiating with the Big 12 a bottom line dollar figure and do not particularly care if the Big 12 adds schools or not. Certainty in the amount of the annual payment is what is most important to the networks, not the number of schools in the Big 12.]
Q: How is 10 member Big 12 better for Texas Tech than 2 or 4 schools added to mix?
A: This speaks to general issue of what is best for the league. Some debate among our fan base as to their enthusiasm for any of those schools being discussed. That would have been a controversial issue had we expanded. What’s most important for Texas Tech is that there is a long term commitment to the Big 12 so that we have a lengthy period of time to decide what we want to do when 2024-25 comes around and our TV contract comes to an end. We achieved that. There is a commitment of all of the members to the league. There are on-going discussions about what the final TV support will be in terms of additional revenue. We will realize some increase, so that’s good for Texas Tech. We won’t be dividing among 12 or 14; it’ll be divided among ten. We can’t be sure of what might really happen between now and the next 8 years in terms of discussions or alliances with other leagues.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: Three key points here. (1) Everyone is looking ahead to the possibility of a big shake up in 2024, and folks want time to prepare for that. More on this below. (2) In the end, the decision against adding teams was easy, because as discussed above the networks are willing to up the Big 12's payment and don't particularly care if the Big 12 actually adds teams or not. So, less mouths to feed. Plus, a lot of the Big 12's revenue would not go up if Big 12 expanded, such as the Big 12's Sugar Bowl money. (3) Schovanec's comments that there may be "discussions or alliances with other leagues" is fascinating. Could that be an alliance between the Big 12 and Pac 12? Nobody knows, but it seems clear that the Big 12 and the invidual schools in the Big 12 are going to be proactive given that the Big 12's vulnerability is clear as day. I think before the last realignment round, nobody appreciated the Big 12's vulnerability and as a result the schools and conference were much more reactive than proactive. That is not going to happen again.]
Q: Is a Big 12 network still possible?
A: That was discussed. There is some difference of opinion among the networks as to the value of a branded conference network. That’s part of the discussion going on as to the final financial package that may be determined as to what value would be assigned to that. That is an issue that is still under discussion.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: This is huge. First, Schovanec admitted that at least one network sees some value in a branded conference network. Second, he admitted that discussions about a conference network are still ongoing, and will be rolled into the conference's overall TV package. It may just be a digital network, but given these comments I bet we will see some kind of conference network agreement when the Big 12's new contract is announced.]
Q: Did Texas Tech prefer the status quo from the beginning of this process when the exploration was announced in July or did the university’s position evolve over the last three months?
A: Well I wasn’t involved in this discussion when it first began. The first meeting I attended was in July. If it had to come to a decision of certain schools, there are some we would have supported. But we didn’t get to that point. We were very supportive of the decision to stay at ten. If you talk to ADs and coaches there was broad support for that.
Q: Can you describe your relationship with UT President Greg Fenves? Is that overplayed – Tech’s relationship with Texas - or should we pay attention to that relationship?
A: I would say that relationship is very good. I had visited with President Fenves prior to the board meeting this past weekend in Dallas. Texas is really a good partner for Tech. Not just in terms of athletics. Talk about the academics opportunities we are engaged in. I know the fans may have an issue with that. Our relationship with Texas is good and it potentially helps us.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: Texas Tech is very interested in continuing to align with Texas, but understands that there are no guarantees.]
Q: You mentioned the 2024-5 window earlier. That’s 8 years away. Do you think the Big 12 will exist 10 years from now?
A: Your guess is as good as mine. I don’t think anybody can be certain what the landscape is going to look like. We’ve all heard of the discussions of what might happen with the 64 Power 5. Those are things that are discussed. How that might shake out. The relationship of those schools to the NCAA. Those things are talked about. The way that inventory is going to be distributed will have an effect on this. It’s not just going to be TV. There are all kinds of new technologies that are going to affect revenue streams that are possible for universities. 8 years is a long ways down the road. What we have now is an opportunity to make sure we are doing everything we can to strengthen our programs, athletically and academically, and making sure we are advancing the brand and telling the great story that Texas Tech is. So when things do change dramatically, people will know that Tech would be one of the schools in that select group, and I am confident that's what we will be.
[Crazedstatefan Translation: This is a pretty frank acknowledgement that the Big 12 could collapse in 8 years or sooner. The 64 "Power" teams breaking off from the NCAA is a real thing. People are actually talking about that. I think there is a real chance it could happen - there is real $$$ upside for all 64 schools if it comes to pass. But on the other hand, no one knows if it is going to happen, or how it might happen. So Tech (and presumably every other school in the Big 12 potentially left behind) is focused on improving their own programs over the next 8 years to make themselves attractive and competitive if there is a big reorganization. Certainly, as many fans on here have noted, it must be obvious to Tech and everyone else that it does no one currently in the Big 12 any good to elevate other schools to the "Power" level if 64 teams really does come to pass - then, those schools will have a leg up that they currently don't have.]
http://www.doublet973.com/story/33449202/tech-talk-interview-dr-lawrence-schovanec
