Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. Yeah it would provide him a lure too. Let's say they actually sell it for $150m and $75m pays off debt. That splits $75m 10 ways. Over 5 years that's 1.5m a year to buff up any contract difference AND, if a team moves they lose that $7.5m, which hurts because they've paid into it for a decade with no return.
  2. If it is sold, probably. And if sold, it will be for pennies on the dollar, like $100m. It provides Apple a linear channel in 14m homes with a lot of production equipment and the personel to use it. Though it would cease to be PacNet and would become linear Apple TV. With their MLS and MLB regional agreements and the implosion of RSN, where rights can be gobbled up in various markets, they could expand the footprint more than the Pac ever could.
  3. I'm guessing the later. Either they are the smartest people in the room or this is going to implode drastically. The best expansion property on the board for them is now off market and ESPN is down to one window left and is cost-cutting at a remarkable pace. I'm still under the belief that the reason this is taking so long is they are going to sell the PacNet to pay off their issues and regain some lost investment, which will look like increased revenue for 5-10 years. If someone leaves now, they may miss out on recouping that cost.
  4. Potential and Population are not the measurements Does it help, sure, in time. Brand is like a bucket you fill slowly each year. The more success you have over decades, the greater that brand grows, you can't really grow a stable brand quickly. Nebraska has been a dumpster fire for two decades and it still has a bigger bucket than any other property left on the board, except the Irish. Miami, FSU, Oregon, etc, they all have brands, they have value. But they don't have brands and value that equates to the Big 2's per team revenue. They are in purgatory between the haves and have nots. Too valuable for the B12/ACC and not valuable enough for the Big 2.
  5. So this is an interesting one that I am not sure about. Brian is pretty good with media numbers, but the B12 just signed an additional data deal a little bit ago. I basically monetizes targeted ads. The NFL's is like a quarter or a half bill, so I'd be shocked if the B12 was getting $84m a year, but this could be a part of where basketball has more value due to the shear number of games. Not really my wheelhouse, but interesting if true. Thats kind of how I'd measure it, like a Q-score. When Nebraska sucks balls, they're still pulling in similar numbers to Oregon when at their best.
  6. This seems a no brainer. The windows are filling up fast and you can either put more games on streaming, at 12-14 teams, or you can take more windows. They've got 2 on Saturday, but getting Thursday and Friday nights not only takes games off streaming to linear, but also takes options away from the Pac. After next year, they could add 2-4 more west coast teams and take the late night window too and keep 3-5 linear slots on every week. Granted, not all in the top three camps of Big Noon on Fox and ESPN/ABC in prime, but its far better branding to be on tv than not. And playing Thursday night on ESPN is better than FS1, like, ever. And FS1 is better than any conference network or streaming.
  7. Haha, that is the benefit of timing, the next year starts tomorrow.
  8. I'm discussing brands, not how well some teams do in big games or when they're good. At 6-6 more people will still watch Texas or Michigan than will tune into Aurburn or FSU or Clemson. Oregon's brand is growing but it is not in that top tier. Nebraska has fucking blown for decades, but they still carry more brand power than Oregon. When consolidating for regular seasons, you want brands. Viewers will come.
  9. Also, ESPN just laid off a ton of staff, including a lot of household names. Probably for freeing up money to spend on 15 late night windows.
  10. I'm beginning to think the Pac's backout point is July 31st and that's fucking San Diego, which is today. I think they're fine though. If the MWC won't let them stay and the Pac/B12 are not interested, call the AAC. Mike will take you, Mike likes everyone.
  11. This is the part I'm most interested to see fleshed out. Historically, big brands aren't built in the regular season, they're built on championship runs. Championship runs that are, typically built on regular seasons full of cupcakes and nonbrands. Like an exhibition season to get to the finals. Brands, when losing, still draw ok, but no where near what they draw when winning. But we've made all these changes ONLY for the regular season media contracts. Way more money, but also more Ls than when it was more fractured. Also, even if you get four teams in the playoff, not everyone makes it through. Brands aren't built on almost winning. First and second round loses are no better off than a bowl game, IF you're a brand. So something is going to happen over the next 5-10 years: Either what you say is right and the brands will always be battling for supremacy and it will be an Ohio State natty one year then Bama the next then Michigan, then Texas, then USC...etc. If that happens the money will roll. Or, one or two teams make it through a gauntlet repeatedly of the backs of the other ones, who start to languish and act rashly, firing coaches, upending programs and basically spiraling their own failure. I kind of anticipate that the second will happen, because that's kind of what always happens. Someone puts it all together at once and goes on a run. Then everyone reacts to that run and some fail miserably until someone finally upends it and does their own run. It is rarely an even cage match. If the second does happen, teams that are in other conferences and put together a run will be able to build a much bigger brand. If Oregon stays in a depleted Pac and wins a natty or two, they'll become the new Clemson or FSU or the next Miami. Not a blueblood, but always in the convo. Do that for long enough and it builds until you are. Case in point, UConn basketball. Wasn't a blueblood in the 80s, but they are now.
  12. There are like ten schools that are in the same ballpark as each other and bring big value: Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Florida, LSU Then you have a few more who hover under them like: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesse, Wisconsin So, unless those are the schools you're adding. Its not additive to the Big Ten nor SEC. UNC, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, Washington have solid value, but the only way you add to the big 2 now is if you get rid of lower fruit in there. Like, sorry Mississippi State, but you're out and FSU's in. It wouldn't bring bags of money, but it would, technically, add more, e.g. MSU is worth $30m/year, FSU may be $40-45m. It doesn't make everyone rich, but it swaps out for a bit higher value. But, outside ND, there is literally no one left who will add to the SEC/B1G's media money. The only way to really make more with it now, is combine the B1G/SEC into one media contract.
  13. “I’d like to stay at 14 [teams] even w/ the departures of Texas & Oklahoma. Candidly. It’s not so much a number that we’re thinking about. It’s really more about the fit… that’s critically important.” - @Big12Conference Commissioner @brettyormark
  14. They also attend games like Vandy, barely getting 25k to show up.
  15. Colorado = 1/12 Mizzu = 2/11 A&M = 10/11, though if you look at conference winning records = 3/11 Not sure why he left those off.
  16. Yeah i hate how twitter copies in, thanks for adding the rest
  17. July 21st in Vegas USC/UCLA announced on June 30th that they were leaving when the B1G presidents said they accepted their invitations.....that night. They join the B1G on August 2nd. So maybe the B1G needed it by the end of June for their fiscal starting or to include in the deal, but the Pac's fiscal doesn't end until August. If that's the case this could drag on for another month.
  18. I have no idea how they're getting close to B1G numbers when they lack Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC, literally four Top Ten teams in terms of consistent viewership. Twitter has been buzzing about the Canzano article today talking up SMU like its just coming off back to back natties. Apparently their NIL set up would be the second largest in the PAC and on top of giving up revenue, they're paying the PAC's debt. All the while, everything else has gone very quiet.
  19. Oregon has the biggest viewership of the remaining Pac, followed by Washington. Those two are clearly the best brands left in the Pac, but the problem is they aren't that much better, they're just a bit better. That's kind of the problem with the remaining teams. None move the Big two needle, some move the B12/ACC needle, some break even to those two, and some are worse. My napkin valuation would be kind of like: Move B12/ACC - $40-50m: Oregon, FSU, Clemson, Washington Break-even B12/ACC - 30-40m: UNC, Miami, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, ASU Drain - 20-30m: Cal, Washington State, Oregon State, Stanford So Oregon/Washington will make more in the B12 than the Pac12 because the current bar is higher, but we're not talking massive amounts. Like the B12 would pay out $35-37m with them. The B1G would lose money to bring them in though, and that's the bind they find themselves. As for recruiting, its not a localized as it once was. The teams that win will get the good kids, period. Alabama and Ohio State will grab kids out of Texas still, Oregon can too. They'll also still be able to recruit SoCal, even if it is harder. IF they keep winning and have good visibility. Lose those though and it will dry up.
×
×
  • Create New...