Realignment talk not going away

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1254]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

Yet some schools, like Texas, manage to never schedule a FCS school. 
For a TV contract, you want to have quality games each week. This is where the blue bloods come in. In the B10, every game involving Michigan, Ohio State, and PSU is attractive. Games involving MSU, Illinois, Nebraska and Wisconsin still have appeal. Other teams can often market flashy offenses. 
In the SEC, games involving Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and LSU are always attractive. Games with Tennessee, Auburn, and TAMU still have appeal. 
 

In the ur-B12, Texas, OU and NU provided National appeal while CU and TAMU were solid second tiers. KSU was an upstart while TT and OSU could provide occasional flashes. 

In the new B12, you have OSU and TT as the flag bearers now. Start trying to fill out a week by week schedule and tell me how much a network should pay for a slate that headlines ISU-BU?

Texas doesn't go on the road to play non-P5 schools. P5 programs with smaller athletic budgets do. And networks really aren't interested in carrying Oklahoma State vs Louisiana Lafayette any more than they would be interested in carrying a game against an FCS school. It's a ratings stinker regardless.

[clapclapclap 8998]

Just to clarify a couple of points:

The ACC adding teams doesn't open their GOR in a way that current schools could then leave.

Schools can get out of the GOR if more than half choose to leave.

These were confirmed by an ESPN writer whose tweets were probably posted earlier.  He argues that it doesn't matter because the cost to leave could be over $400 mil per school and 8 ACC schools aren't finding a home elsewhere .  However others have argued that the cost might be negotiated to a much lower amount, and plausible scenarios exist where FOXb1g takes ND + 3 and the SEC gets 4 (or even FOXb1g getting ND +5 and SEC taking a VA and an NC school). 

Plausible is not the same as 'will' or 'likely', but if FOX wants to pay to get their semi-pro league, it can happen.  They don't need all the inventory that ESPN does, so they can focus more on a national 20 to 24 school B1G.  ESPN has a vested interest in keeping things as is (as much as possible).  I don't expect any more major schools moving the rest of the year, but it is possible.

 

@ADavidHaleJoint

 

...Writes about the pompatoose sports for ESPN. david.hale@espn.com

Journalist Charlotte, NC

Edited July 12, 2022 by clapclapclap

[Trey3216 15298]

48 minutes ago, statsman said:

Yet some schools, like Texas, manage to never schedule a FCS school. 
For a TV contract, you want to have quality games each week. This is where the blue bloods come in. In the B10, every game involving Michigan, Ohio State, and PSU is attractive. Games involving MSU, Illinois, Nebraska and Wisconsin still have appeal. Other teams can often market flashy offenses. 
In the SEC, games involving Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and LSU are always attractive. Games with Tennessee, Auburn, and TAMU still have appeal. 
 

In the ur-B12, Texas, OU and NU provided National appeal while CU and TAMU were solid second tiers. KSU was an upstart while TT and OSU could provide occasional flashes. 

In the new B12, you have OSU and TT as the flag bearers now. Start trying to fill out a week by week schedule and tell me how much a network should pay for a slate that headlines ISU-BU?

ISU-BU had over 2mm viewers last year.  ANd that was in the same slot as accy/Pig and Clem/NCSt.   So apparently someone was watching it.   

Edited July 12, 2022 by Trey3216

[clapclapclap 8998]

Another thought, FOX probably wants to get into the South big time.  We know Jim Delaney and the B1G spent a lot of time looking to get into the Southeast.  For the B1G it seems to be more of a long term strategy, but positioning to take advantage should certain situations occur.  Both the SEC and B1G have seemed to prefer small additions at a time, so as not to impact their conference's balance and culture too much.  FOX, OTOH, would probably prefer a big move now and a breakaway, hence likely urging the B1G to consider non-AAU big brands like Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, VT, or even TCU.  

If FOX wins the argument, that could be bad news for perhaps even WA and OR.  Look at the demographics, the South has higher population states with a higher percentage of college football fans and higher fan intensity.

FL - 22 million population

GA & NC - 10 mil each

VA - 8.5 mil

SC - 5 mil

---

WA - 7.5 mil

AZ - 7 mil

CO - almost 6 mil

OR - 4 mil

UT - 3 mil

CA - 39 mil, but FOX already has most of that with USC & UCLA

---

TX is now 30 mil, so if the B1G and SEC do breakaway, then FOX has strong incentive to add a beachhead school, even if an investment like TCU.

As to the other B12 states, OK is just 4 mil, KS & Iowa 3 mil each, WV under 2 mil.

Brands are increasingly important for this round of expansion, but FOX sources and the former head of ESPN all say that markets and local/in-state rates for cable/sat providers still matter, especially with the BTN, SECNet, and ACCNet.  Thus population matters.

So you can see that perhaps all the west schools could be in as much danger for exclusion as the B12 schools.  Bigger pop and higher cfb interest/intensity makes VA & NC better states for FOX than WA.  Despite Oregon's strong brand, the state is smaller than South Carolina, and SC is growing faster so the gap will widen.  Clemson a better add than OR.  UNC + UVA may be more lucrative than UW + OR.  Miami may value out better than OR, maybe even TCU.  Depends on how FOX weighs brand/market/in-state rates.

If the B1G can get ND + 3 ACC soon, then the SEC likely adds 4 and expansion for the 2 giants may be done.  I could see 7 ACC schools loosely cooperating through their donor networks to make sure they + ND have invites so they can simultaneously vote to end the GOR.  Easier for the B1G to integrate 6 (USC/UCLA/ND + 3 ACC) in the next few years than 10.

WA & OR may need to hope an early ACC exit (beyond ND) doesn't happen, or ND insists on adding Stanford.  The latter probably requires FOXb1g to go to 24 schools or leave the ACC alone for years (I can't see the SEC taking more than 4 ACC schools, so b1g might have to take 3 beyond ND to get enough movement to vote out the ACC GOR).

 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by clapclapclap

[DFW Horn 6020]

Berkeley may want a cut of UCLA's largesse after all.

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by DFW Horn

[Horn of Gabriel 1570]

10 hours ago, ONE YARD said:

 

cool texas monthly article from 1974 on conference realignment 

it really is funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same  

The Decline and Fall of the Southwest Conference Two things are certain: death and Texas.

 

 

That's hilarious.  Like you said the more things change the more they stay the same...1) Realignment is so terrible for college football, the world is ending, and 2) it's all Texas' fault!

Give me a break.  The clutching of pearls in the CFB media is hilarious.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Horn of Gabriel

[LTtxfan 48688]

CFB contracts about to get even bigger.

Fyi: NFL probably on a streaming service soon

I believe NFL media rights will be moving to a streaming service, says NFL's Goodell

[notre dame joe 170]

22 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Notre Dame only gets them six games, while the Big Ten game of the week would get them twice that.

7 but now they have to pay for a game against the FCS on some streaming service that no one has heard of.

20 hours ago, JFKFC said:

Why? People keep saying this, but no one ever provides an answer for why this is a concern. 

Likewise, if grabbing any school put you in the market then why did TCU, SMU, UH, Rice stay mostly obscure for 50 years?

 

I think it is time for ND to form a caucus of similarly interested schools.  The logical starting points are Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami. 

['stache 21489]

Or just join the fucking Big 10 already and get this shit over with. USC is already there, get Stanford with you, and be done with it. I'm getting sick of always having to account for ND in all of these realignment and playoff discussions. We need a unified and final realignment so we all know what the fuck is going on.

[notre dame joe 170]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

Berkeley may want a cut of UCLA's largesse after all.

 

 I was wondering when the world would notice that UCLA needs approval from the California Board of Regents, which is probably stocked with wanna-be politicians. 

 

@Stache, please join the EU and be done with it. 

 

[closetohumping 17258]

29 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

7 but now they have to pay for a game against the FCS on some streaming service that no one has heard of.

Likewise, if grabbing any school put you in the market then why did TCU, SMU, UH, Rice stay mostly obscure for 50 years?

 

I think it is time for ND to form a caucus of similarly interested schools.  The logical starting points are Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami. 

Other than Miami those schools are worthless for football.  Go for it

[MrBig 5101]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

I'm getting sick of always having to account for ND in all of these realignment and playoff discussions. We need a unified and final realignment so we all know what the fuck is going on.

“Waiting on ND” is a bullshit idea thrown out there to scare schools into not making a move. Who gives a fuck about Notre Dame? If a program is waiting to make a move based on what ND does, they need to rethink their whole college football strategy. 

['stache 21489]

15 minutes ago, MrBig said:

“Waiting on ND” is a bullshit idea thrown out there to scare schools into not making a move. Who gives a fuck about Notre Dame? If a program is waiting to make a move based on what ND does, they need to rethink their whole college football strategy. 

It's not the schools, its the conferences. Big 10 won't consider Stanford, Oregon, or Cal until ND makes a move. SEC won't expand unless Big 10 does. Oregon and Washington won't consider a move other than the Big 10 which is waiting on Notre Dame. It's clogging up everything. I just want to know where this fucking ends. 

[Francisco 2.0 31567]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's not the schools, its the conferences. Big 10 won't consider Stanford, Oregon, or Cal until ND makes a move. SEC won't expand unless Big 10 does. Oregon and Washington won't consider a move other than the Big 10 which is waiting on Notre Dame. It's clogging up everything. I just want to know where this fucking ends. 

Sad to say; we will be in our graves and this (realignment) will still be going on.  By that time, the SEC/B1G schools will be minor league teams for various NFL franchises, however.

[MrBig 5101]

9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's not the schools, its the conferences. Big 10 won't consider Stanford, Oregon, or Cal until ND makes a move. SEC won't expand unless Big 10 does. Oregon and Washington won't consider a move other than the Big 10 which is waiting on Notre Dame. It's clogging up everything. I just want to know where this fucking ends. 

I think the SEC/ESPN is waiting to see how much the Big Ten pays for Notre Dame in order to set market value for breaking the ACC GoR contract. 

[notre dame joe 170]

1 hour ago, MrBig said:

Who gives a fuck about Notre Dame?

Everyone.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, MrBig said:

I think the SEC/ESPN is waiting to see how much the Big Ten pays for Notre Dame in order to set market value for breaking the ACC GoR contract. 

ND's football isn't included in the GoR, they have some agreement that they can't join another conference if its not the ACC, but they can likely buy that out.   Worst case they don't get Olympic payments, which I think is like $7m a year.   Their market value is astronomical compared to any move to date and no one left in the ACC comes close.   In short, if ND wants to move, there really isn't anything keeping them from moving that matters, unlike everyone else.

As for the rest, the SEC doesn't need FSU/Miami/Clemson.   They don't add more value when you have Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina already, and you get to the point where you have too much content.  The only upside for the SEC is Texas/OU aren't a part of the SEC Network, so they could slot in two more teams there, but they don't get much more in affiliate fees for that move.

Now, if you could get rid of Vandy or Mississippi State and Bring in Clemson or FSU to replace...maybe.   Otherwise there's no equal value left.

[mr. sunshine 2819]

19 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Everyone.

Agree. Hating is very much giving a fuck

[BB65 476]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Sad to say; we will be in our graves and this (realignment) will still be going on.  By that time, the SEC/B1G schools will be minor league teams for various NFL franchises, however.

Moose out front says realignment not going away.  

[Steelers Roll Left 1140]

51 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

ND's football isn't included in the GoR, they have some agreement that they can't join another conference if its not the ACC, but they can likely buy that out.   Worst case they don't get Olympic payments, which I think is like $7m a year.   Their market value is astronomical compared to any move to date and no one left in the ACC comes close.   In short, if ND wants to move, there really isn't anything keeping them from moving that matters, unlike everyone else.

As for the rest, the SEC doesn't need FSU/Miami/Clemson.   They don't add more value when you have Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina already, and you get to the point where you have too much content.  The only upside for the SEC is Texas/OU aren't a part of the SEC Network, so they could slot in two more teams there, but they don't get much more in affiliate fees for that move.

Now, if you could get rid of Vandy or Mississippi State and Bring in Clemson or FSU to replace...maybe.   Otherwise there's no equal value left.

I believe that Florida & South Carolina don’t want Florida State, Miami, & Clemson in the SEC.  However, I do not believe that adding one or all of those schools would not increase what the SEC could demand for broadcasting rights.  Agree with you on contraction though many think it’s not going to happen, but I wouldn’t necessarily be looking to contract Mississippi State, but Vandy?……oh yeah.  But I personally might explore cutting Mizzou or Kentucky before I’d drop the guillotine on Mississippi State.

 

[MrBig 5101]

I never said ND is included in the ACC GoR. What I’m saying is that schools are using the “waiting on ND” line as an excuse to stall negotiations. Schools are trying to see how much ND can get to join the Big Ten/SEC to see if it makes sense to blow up existing TV contracts and move somewhere else. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

6 minutes ago, MrBig said:

I never said ND is included in the ACC GoR. What I’m saying is that schools are using the “waiting on ND” line as an excuse to stall negotiations. Schools are trying to see how much ND can get to join the Big Ten/SEC to see if it makes sense to blow up existing TV contracts and move somewhere else. 

The problem there is only ND is going to get that money.   There are no properties in the ACC that rival ND.  They'll get paid twice as much with a fraction of the exit issue.  I would be very surprised if there are enough teams in the ACC to remove the GoR and if they don't, they lose their broadcast rights through 2036 - on top of a 3-year revenue buyout.

That isn't to say some couldn't make more outside the ACC, but they likely can't make the numbers work for the B1G/SEC for them to be added and the added money the Big 12 could give them won't cover what they'll have to pay to leave.   The only reason USC/UCLA worked is they made BTN >$100m in increased affiliate fees alone.

The four so far happened because they announced they were leaving on the end of the current GoR, and they still owe buyouts (just less, as the Big 12 is two years of revenue), the ACC is in a much different spot.  ND could leave and it won't impact the handcuffs.

[MrBig 5101]

8 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The problem there is only ND is going to get that money.   There are no properties in the ACC that rival ND.  They'll get paid twice as much with a fraction of the exit issue.  I would be very surprised if there are enough teams in the ACC to remove the GoR and if they don't, they lose their broadcast rights through 2036 - on top of a 3-year revenue buyout.

That isn't to say some couldn't make more outside the ACC, but they likely can't make the numbers work for the B1G/SEC for them to be added and the added money the Big 12 could give them won't cover what they'll have to pay to leave.   The only reason USC/UCLA worked is they made BTN >$100m in increased affiliate fees alone.

The four so far happened because they announced they were leaving on the end of the current GoR, and they still owe buyouts (just less, as the Big 12 is two years of revenue), the ACC is in a much different spot.  ND could leave and it won't impact the handcuffs.

Schools are using the ND excuse to negotiate deals behind everyone’s back while under the guise of “waiting for the dominoes to fall” because of ND. Schools are making moves while hiding behind the wall of waiting for an ND move to secure their spots in the future of college football. 

[utee94 15671]

20 minutes ago, MrBig said:

I never said ND is included in the ACC GoR. What I’m saying is that schools are using the “waiting on ND” line as an excuse to stall negotiations. Schools are trying to see how much ND can get to join the Big Ten/SEC to see if it makes sense to blow up existing TV contracts and move somewhere else. 

There are no "schools" waiting on ND.  There are only conferences waiting on ND.  Specifically, the B1G.

There are schools waiting on conferences, for sure.  But no schools that want to move, are waiting on ND to determine value.  They'd all leave their current situations in a heartbeat if offered by the B1G or SEC, and pay the lawyers to figure it out for them.

Right now conferences are waiting on ND, and schools not named ND are waiting on conferences.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

20 minutes ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

I believe that Florida & South Carolina don’t want Florida State, Miami, & Clemson in the SEC.  However, I do not believe that adding one or all of those schools would not increase what the SEC could demand for broadcasting rights.  Agree with you on contraction though many think it’s not going to happen, but I wouldn’t necessarily be looking to contract Mississippi State, but Vandy?……oh yeah.  But I personally might explore cutting Mizzou or Kentucky before I’d drop the guillotine on Mississippi State.

 

It really comes down to what you're increasing and usually that goes by tiers:   Tier 1 are major channel big games (CBS/ABC/FOX), T2 are national cable channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, etc), and T3 is whatever falls to the conference networks at this point.

T1 (10-15% of games):   Highest payout per game, however it also has the most limited supply of inventory.   There are roughly 6-10 of these any weekend split between the channels at Noon/3:30/Primetime eastern.  Not every channel does each every week so lean towards the lower end.  For the SEC, they have ABC in those three spots, assuming ABC gives its entire inventory to sports.  You added Texas and Oklahoma for this reason, fill these games with match ups between Texas/Oklahoma/A&M/LSU/Bama/Georgia/Florida.  Every team you add at this point removes one T1 game that one of these teams would play.  So who is worth more?   Bama or Miami?  Texas or Clemson?   You already have the higher grossing property, so Clemson/FSU/Miami aren't going to get a lot of T1 games.   Harder to be worth $100m off a game or two.

T2 (35% of games): The stuff that isn't blockbuster, but is still good, lands here.   Think Texas/Arkansas.   Good match up, but not Red River.   These games pay about 1/3rd of a T1 game, roughly.   So if FSU/Miami/Clemson fall here, they need a lot more games to make up the difference of a lower value game.

T3 (50+% of games):   This is where the fodder lands.   In the example posted a few pages back, Missouri had all but one game land on T3 because they weren't compelling enough games to broadcast otherwise.    The SEC Network does not get paid on generating eyeballs like T1.   They get paid by affiliate fees.   It currently already has favored nation pricing in all of the states that FSU/Miami/Clemson reside, so they likely can't boost it that much.   And even if they didn't have top rates in all of Florida, for example, Miami would have the highest increase due to having 1.7m households in their DMA.   If the SECN made $0.25 out of market and $1.50 in, then Miami would bring $25M to the SEC in affiliate fee increases, and that's at the top end.   

The best chance for FSU/Miami/Clemson to make more is with the Big12, where they would bring new markets and bigger brands.    They still wouldn't make SEC/B1G money, but they'd close the gap.   

[Trey3216 15298]

2 hours ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

I believe that Florida & South Carolina don’t want Florida State, Miami, & Clemson in the SEC.  However, I do not believe that adding one or all of those schools would not increase what the SEC could demand for broadcasting rights.  Agree with you on contraction though many think it’s not going to happen, but I wouldn’t necessarily be looking to contract Mississippi State, but Vandy?……oh yeah.  But I personally might explore cutting Mizzou or Kentucky before I’d drop the guillotine on Mississippi State.

 

This is correct.  Some people are foolishly thinking about markets when intriguing matchups are an equal factor in the new arms race.   

Edited July 13, 2022 by Trey3216

[clapclapclap 8998]

Paywalled, but Wilner interviewed a former FOX VP of programming.  He thinks the Pac's best bet is to merge with or work a deal with the B12 to get a joint cable channel.  Also says the B12 expanding with just AZ, ASU, Utah, and Colo doesn't add much value, including WA & OR bumps it, but the Bay Area could also value. 

“If you’re the Big 12 and you raid the Pac-12 for those six schools,” he said, “maybe you get a 20 percent (revenue) bump. But maybe that gets to 30 percent if you bring the (Bay Area).”

Changes in media consumption have added immense value to the top brands in college football — the schools that drive ratings and command primetime slots on over-the-air networks. But market size still factors into valuation because of retransmission fees (for broadcast) and subscribers (for cable).

“The Bay Area adds value,” Crakes said. “Why would you say no to that?”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/11/pac-12-survival-guide-the-strategic-merits-of-a-merger-with-the-big-12/

Bay Area market is bigger than the entire state of Washington, and adding Sacramento's is similar to WA+OR.  A lower percentage of interest, but multiplied by a huge population base does add up.  Most efficient add would be WA-OR-Stan-ASU-Utah-Colo, but including AZ or Cal as a package might be what it takes to get a breakout or outbid the ACC.  Maybe even worth taking ORSU and WSU, since killing off and raiding the Pac would finally secure the B12's future.  The Pac remaining just prolongs the current instability, and if the ESPNACC does merge or raid the Pac the B12 risks getting left out of a breakaway.  (I don't think a B1G-SEC only breakaway is possible politically, but add an expanded ACC and they just might pull it off.) 

[Trey3216 15298]

11 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Paywalled, but Wilner interviewed a former FOX VP of programming.  He thinks the Pac's best bet is to merge with or work a deal with the B12 to get a joint cable channel.  Also says the B12 expanding with just AZ, ASU, Utah, and Colo doesn't add much value, including WA & OR bumps it, but the Bay Area could also value. 

“If you’re the Big 12 and you raid the Pac-12 for those six schools,” he said, “maybe you get a 20 percent (revenue) bump. But maybe that gets to 30 percent if you bring the (Bay Area).”

Changes in media consumption have added immense value to the top brands in college football — the schools that drive ratings and command primetime slots on over-the-air networks. But market size still factors into valuation because of retransmission fees (for broadcast) and subscribers (for cable).

“The Bay Area adds value,” Crakes said. “Why would you say no to that?”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/11/pac-12-survival-guide-the-strategic-merits-of-a-merger-with-the-big-12/

Bay Area market is bigger than the entire state of Washington, and adding Sacramento's is similar to WA+OR.  A lower percentage of interest, but multiplied by a huge population base does add up.  Most efficient add would be WA-OR-Stan-ASU-Utah-Colo, but including AZ or Cal as a package might be what it takes to get a breakout or outbid the ACC.  Maybe even worth taking ORSU and WSU, since killing off and raiding the Pac would finally secure the B12's future.  The Pac remaining just prolongs the current instability, and if the ESPNACC does merge or raid the Pac the B12 risks getting left out of a breakaway.  (I don't think a B1G-SEC only breakaway is possible politically, but add an expanded ACC and they just might pull it off.) 

Wilner is in the bargaining phase for his beloved Bay Area.  

[billfromlaketravis 11266]

7 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Paywalled, but Wilner interviewed a former FOX VP of programming.  He thinks the Pac's best bet is to merge with or work a deal with the B12 to get a joint cable channel.  Also says the B12 expanding with just AZ, ASU, Utah, and Colo doesn't add much value, including WA & OR bumps it, but the Bay Area could also value. 

“If you’re the Big 12 and you raid the Pac-12 for those six schools,” he said, “maybe you get a 20 percent (revenue) bump. But maybe that gets to 30 percent if you bring the (Bay Area).”

Changes in media consumption have added immense value to the top brands in college football — the schools that drive ratings and command primetime slots on over-the-air networks. But market size still factors into valuation because of retransmission fees (for broadcast) and subscribers (for cable).

“The Bay Area adds value,” Crakes said. “Why would you say no to that?”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/11/pac-12-survival-guide-the-strategic-merits-of-a-merger-with-the-big-12/

Bay Area market is bigger than the entire state of Washington, and adding Sacramento's is similar to WA+OR.  A lower percentage of interest, but multiplied by a huge population base does add up.  Most efficient add would be WA-OR-Stan-ASU-Utah-Colo, but including AZ or Cal as a package might be what it takes to get a breakout or outbid the ACC.  Maybe even worth taking ORSU and WSU, since killing off and raiding the Pac would finally secure the B12's future.  The Pac remaining just prolongs the current instability, and if the ESPNACC does merge or raid the Pac the B12 risks getting left out of a breakaway.  (I don't think a B1G-SEC only breakaway is possible politically, but add an expanded ACC and they just might pull it off.) 

Bundling their TV rights is an interesting idea. Oregon has a shit ton of Big 12 games on their future schedules. Stanford and Cal doesn’t have to associate with BYU and Baylor in an official capacity. New recruiting grounds for both conferences. Big 12 should get a much better TV deal, and much better OOC opponents. 
 

It’s probably a better idea than ESPN trying to jam the ACC Network down left coasters’ throats. 

[Gidnik 3230]

 

[clapclapclap 8998]

Oregon sportswriter:

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-espn-plays-kingmaker-as-pac

I reached out to the former president of Fox Sports Network, Bob Thompson, this week and asked him to examine the role ESPN will play in the future of the Pac-12. He came back with an analysis I think you need to hear.

Spoiler

ESPN is in an exclusive, 30-day negotiating window with the conference right now. I believe that explains why we’ve had a lull when it comes to realignment news. The conference members are waiting to see what kind of offer the Pac-12 will get.

Said Thompson, “ESPN needs the Pac-12 more than anybody and will likely pay more than anyone else. They like West Coast windows for football. They like basketball inventory and they might actually be able to make something out of the Pac-12 Networks. They also need content for ESPN+.”

A few things to think about, per Thompson:

• The Pac-12 will survive if ESPN reaches an agreement with the conference during this negotiating window that ensures the 10 remaining universities have a reasonable annual payout going forward.

• If ESPN’s initial offer is a lowball to the Pac-12, Thompson expects it could cause a few members to bolt or at least prompt them to seriously explore other options.

• Thompson negotiated dozens of these kinds of deals with a variety of conferences in his career. He said that ESPN may decide to make a shrewd offer to the Pac-12, knowing that it if it’s rejected, the conference is likely to fall apart and have a handful of members end up with the Big 12.

“ESPN,” he said, “can then go after those rights buoyed by the fact that they have $$$ in their pocket that they didn't pay the Pac 12.”

• The whole Pac-12 + ACC alliance makes Thompson leery. He believes the concept was hatched as a way to funnel some extra dollars to ACC members who have grown restless with the terms of the conference’s current media rights deal.

Said Thompson: “It seems to me the play is that somehow the ACC Network serves both conferences and replaces Pac-12 Networks ultimately increasing the payout from ESPN to the ACC.”

• The whole thing feels similar to the summer of 2011, Thompson remembers, when the Pac-12 tried to raid six schools from the Big 12. The hang-up then was Longhorn Network — the University of Texas media creation — which the Pac-12 didn’t want.

Said Thompson: “Fox and ESPN stepped up and didn't give the Big 12 a haircut on their rights fees as a result of Colorado and Nebraska leaving. This basically kept the Big 12 from cratering that summer.”

• It’s interesting that the Pac-12 tried once before to kill the Big 12, isn’t it? A decade later (2021), Texas and Oklahoma bolted to the SEC. At the time, per sources, the Big 12 floated a potential merger with the Pac-12. It was rejected. Now, a year later, the script is flipped. After the defection of USC and UCLA, the Big 12 might love nothing more than to cannibalize 4-6 more schools from the Pac-12 and squash it.

Fox has the Big Ten Conference and appears content with that partnership. Insiders don’t view them as a likely bidder for the Pac-12 right now. Not unless there’s some kind of merger with the Big 12 or other shape-shifting change. So that leaves ESPN holding the biggest vote when it comes to the fate of the Pac-12.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by clapclapclap
TL;DR: How lazy do you have to be to not click a spolier?

[TKthunder2 4958]

11 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Oregon sportswriter:

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-espn-plays-kingmaker-as-pac

I reached out to the former president of Fox Sports Network, Bob Thompson, this week and asked him to examine the role ESPN will play in the future of the Pac-12. He came back with an analysis I think you need to hear.

  Reveal hidden contents

ESPN is in an exclusive, 30-day negotiating window with the conference right now. I believe that explains why we’ve had a lull when it comes to realignment news. The conference members are waiting to see what kind of offer the Pac-12 will get.

Said Thompson, “ESPN needs the Pac-12 more than anybody and will likely pay more than anyone else. They like West Coast windows for football. They like basketball inventory and they might actually be able to make something out of the Pac-12 Networks. They also need content for ESPN+.”

A few things to think about, per Thompson:

• The Pac-12 will survive if ESPN reaches an agreement with the conference during this negotiating window that ensures the 10 remaining universities have a reasonable annual payout going forward.

• If ESPN’s initial offer is a lowball to the Pac-12, Thompson expects it could cause a few members to bolt or at least prompt them to seriously explore other options.

• Thompson negotiated dozens of these kinds of deals with a variety of conferences in his career. He said that ESPN may decide to make a shrewd offer to the Pac-12, knowing that it if it’s rejected, the conference is likely to fall apart and have a handful of members end up with the Big 12.

“ESPN,” he said, “can then go after those rights buoyed by the fact that they have $$$ in their pocket that they didn't pay the Pac 12.”

• The whole Pac-12 + ACC alliance makes Thompson leery. He believes the concept was hatched as a way to funnel some extra dollars to ACC members who have grown restless with the terms of the conference’s current media rights deal.

Said Thompson: “It seems to me the play is that somehow the ACC Network serves both conferences and replaces Pac-12 Networks ultimately increasing the payout from ESPN to the ACC.”

• The whole thing feels similar to the summer of 2011, Thompson remembers, when the Pac-12 tried to raid six schools from the Big 12. The hang-up then was Longhorn Network — the University of Texas media creation — which the Pac-12 didn’t want.

Said Thompson: “Fox and ESPN stepped up and didn't give the Big 12 a haircut on their rights fees as a result of Colorado and Nebraska leaving. This basically kept the Big 12 from cratering that summer.”

• It’s interesting that the Pac-12 tried once before to kill the Big 12, isn’t it? A decade later (2021), Texas and Oklahoma bolted to the SEC. At the time, per sources, the Big 12 floated a potential merger with the Pac-12. It was rejected. Now, a year later, the script is flipped. After the defection of USC and UCLA, the Big 12 might love nothing more than to cannibalize 4-6 more schools from the Pac-12 and squash it.

Fox has the Big Ten Conference and appears content with that partnership. Insiders don’t view them as a likely bidder for the Pac-12 right now. Not unless there’s some kind of merger with the Big 12 or other shape-shifting change. So that leaves ESPN holding the biggest vote when it comes to the fate of the Pac-12.

 

Interesting, this seems really doom and gloom when Andy Staples ran the real viewership stats without the exiting schools.

Per Andy Staples here is the list of fb viewership outside of the B1G/SEC/ACC listed in order for the Big 12/PAC12 region: UW, UO, WSU, Utah/OkSU, Stan, CU/BU, TCU/WVU, ASU/BSU, Cal/BYU, Cincy, Tech/UCF, UH/USF, ISU/Army/Navy, AZ/Memphis, KSU/SMU/Temple, OrSU. KU/Air Force/CO St/Marshall/Tulsa/UConn

If I’m Oklahoma State (the best Big12 school remaining per TV ratings) it looks like joining the PAC is better than remaining in the Big 12. Cut out the Eastern schools (West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF/USF), make a deal with snooty Cal/Stanford to exclude BYU/Baylor who are likely too toxic for their liking (and bypassing Boise for the same reason) and you’d end up with the PAC adding:

OkSU, TCU, Tech, Houston (for the market), Iowa St, and Kansas (for academics/market/basketball), that seems like a solid solution.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Interesting, this seems really doom and gloom when Andy Staples ran the real viewership stats without the exiting schools.

Per Andy Staples here is the list of fb viewership outside of the B1G/SEC/ACC listed in order for the Big 12/PAC12 region: UW, UO, WSU, Utah/OkSU, Stan, CU/BU, TCU/WVU, ASU/BSU, Cal/BYU, Cincy, Tech/UCF, UH/USF, ISU/Army/Navy, AZ/Memphis, KSU/SMU/Temple, OrSU. KU/Air Force/CO St/Marshall/Tulsa/UConn

If I’m Oklahoma State (the best Big12 school remaining per TV ratings) it looks like joining the PAC is better than remaining in the Big 12. Cut out the Eastern schools (West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF/USF), make a deal with snooty Cal/Stanford to exclude BYU/Baylor who are likely too toxic for their liking (and bypassing Boise for the same reason) and you’d end up with the PAC adding:

OkSU, TCU, Tech, Houston (for the market), Iowa St, and Kansas (for academics/market/basketball), that seems like a solid solution.

That audience analysis he did was terrible.   There are better ones on here with numbers people just made up to get internet laid.

[notre dame joe 170]

8 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

ND's football isn't included in the GoR, they have some agreement that they can't join another conference if its not the ACC, but they can likely buy that out.   Worst case they don't get Olympic payments, which I think is like $7m a year.   Their market value is astronomical compared to any move to date and no one left in the ACC comes close.   In short, if ND wants to move, there really isn't anything keeping them from moving that matters, unlike everyone else.

 

We keep ourselves where we are.  ND is a Catholic school, we have been chaining ourselves for 2000 years.

[Longboard Horn 39798]

On 7/11/2022 at 10:24 AM, DFW Horn said:

 

16 is plenty. I remember a few years ago the Lone Star Conference in D2 had a campaign stating, "19 in '19" meaning they would have 19 schools in the conference. However, only 10 or 11 had football. Still, that was way too many especially considering that a few schools were only soccer or track and field members. 

[Dewey 3266]

That means they add Clemson, Miami and FSU a year from now.

[Longboard Horn 39798]

4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

We keep ourselves where we are.  ND is a Catholic school, we have been chaining ourselves for 2000 years.

Yet you guys are in the Big Ten for hockey and ACC for every other sport...

[JFKFC 4875]

1 hour ago, Longboard Horn said:

16 is plenty.

No, it isn't. The end game here is not about maximizing a regular season tv rights deal.

The end game is getting control of the national title game $ and all of the money from the top bowls. To do that, the SEC and the Big 10 need to have every team that can be taken seriously in the national championship conversation. One of these 2 conference really needs to get Clemson, and since than means blowing up the ACC, you might as well grab FSU, Miami and any other number of schools so that the ACC GOR is flushed. This will convince the Big 10 to grab ND, Oregon and maybe Washington.

Let's say both the Big 10 and SEC go to 22 teams each. Nationally, no one will question it when they decide to have their 2 conference champs play and they will call it the national championship. They will also have their best teams match up in the top Bowls. The Big 10 & SEC will monopolize the $ from the top Bowls and the national title game. They will get all of the best high school recruits. That is the end game.

[statsman 5352]

That’s a great point. Adjacent to it is the gamesmanship between the two conferences. Why did the SEC break its handshake agreement with the Ags and take Texas? Because it kept the B10 from taking Texas. That could also be a factor in evaluating the ACC schools for B10 and SEC membership. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by statsman

[bullet 1596]

8 hours ago, Gidnik said:

 

I'm skeptical of this guys numbers.  Why does the ACC get such a disproportionate boost in 2026?  Big 10 and SEC have new members and new contracts.  Big 12 and Pac 12 will have new contracts.  ACC is stuck with the same one.

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, Longboard Horn said:

16 is plenty. I remember a few years ago the Lone Star Conference in D2 had a campaign stating, "19 in '19" meaning they would have 19 schools in the conference. However, only 10 or 11 had football. Still, that was way too many especially considering that a few schools were only soccer or track and field members. 

And the conference quickly split.

[Eugene11 375]

28 minutes ago, bullet said:

I'm skeptical of this guys numbers.  Why does the ACC get such a disproportionate boost in 2026?  Big 10 and SEC have new members and new contracts.  Big 12 and Pac 12 will have new contracts.  ACC is stuck with the same one.

The fine print is counting on a 12 team playoff that year.  All conferences in his scenario get a boost that year.  Some more then others. 

[Longboard Horn 39798]

Fuck it, someone here mentioned super regions. That could work. Or honestly, just gives us what we all REALLY  want; reunite the SWC and Big 8. lol 

[Longboard Horn 39798]

39 minutes ago, bullet said:

And the conference quickly split.

Yup! Texas A&M - Commerce moved up to the Southland in D1. A few other schools left for the GAC in D2. 

[Pimphand 5502]

On 7/5/2022 at 3:30 PM, Texas Wahoo said:

 

If they begin before Texas/OU leave, it would be 20 teams...

I mean I think gutting the PDF is probably the only path forward for the B12 given the ACC GoR runs until something like 2036 and the BDF doesn't have the appeal to lure teams into massive buyouts so unless there is an agreement between the $EC and B1G to dismantle the ACC in unison so that the GoR doesn't apply the BDF likely won't be poaching ACC teams.

[JFKFC 4875]

12 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

I mean I think gutting the PDF is probably the only path forward for the B12 given the ACC GoR runs until something like 2036 and the BDF doesn't have the appeal to lure teams into massive buyouts so unless there is an agreement between the $EC and B1G to dismantle the ACC in unison so that the GoR doesn't apply the BDF likely won't be poaching ACC teams.

Here we go....

[Uncle Nate 2097]

31 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

I mean I think gutting the PDF is probably the only path forward for the B12 given the ACC GoR runs until something like 2036 and the BDF doesn't have the appeal to lure teams into massive buyouts so unless there is an agreement between the $EC and B1G to dismantle the ACC in unison so that the GoR doesn't apply the BDF likely won't be poaching ACC teams.

The ACC isn't going to make it to 2036.  It's not going to make it to 2026.  The Big12 is in a stronger position now than previously thought, and if 4-6 PAC10 schools do end up defecting, the dominos are going to start to fall and the ACC GoR will go the way of the dodo.

Of course every conference is saying what they are saying right now because there's a lot of legal two-stepping they have to do in this dance.  But the ACC House of Cards is going to come down soon.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Uncle Nate

[PilotsError 2234]

Trollsby..

[DanTheHorn 4849]

Siap

My post seems to not have made it.

I read article that said Clemson has to pay $120M exit fee plus lose TV rights worth $436M which makes it a total of $556M. Any one have reputable numbers? I know they can pay less after being tied up in court for years. So it seems only way out is they need to dissolve and I have yet to see someone say the contract contains a provision for dissolving the ACC. Anyone know the actual path out as folks did when it came to the BIG XII?

[closetohumping 17258]

9 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Siap

My post seems to not have made it.

I read article that said Clemson has to pay $120M exit fee plus lose TV rights worth $436M which makes it a total of $556M. Any one have reputable numbers? I know they can pay less after being tied up in court for years. So it seems only way out is they need to dissolve and I have yet to see someone say the contract contains a provision for dissolving the ACC. Anyone know the actual path out as folks did when it came to the BIG XII?

Seems like we're in same predicament, though not as shitty as their situation.  When we leave in 2025, I think we still pay a buyout.  So the issue is ou needs that time to save money?