On the main board I've seen a multitude of comments stating that money would continue to flow into CFB despite economic and demographic trends. How the mega corps like Amazon and Google would rain money down on the sport like manna from heaven and keep the party going.

I honestly just don't see it. It's not that such companies won't enter the market, but they aren't going to throw 2-3X money at the sport like it's burning a hole in their metaphorical pocket. They'll bid 20-30% more to secure the bid; enough to out-price the competition.

As Disney has removed ESPN's only real challenger in the CFB media realm, the WWL find itself in a unique position to stabilize the sport and lock it up for the next 20 years by offering a nominal increase to the B12 while informing the ACC, SEC and B1G that the valuations for adding OU and UTX aren't as much as they think.

The same reasons it makes no sense to expand the B12 via G5 cheap content that is already owned are mimicked with a B12 school to another P4 conference. If ESPN makes the Longhorns and the Sooners an offer they can't refuse and no other conference can accept, how do those two stalwarts go move forward with a Sisyphean task of making the B12 better? Is it even possible?

[quote='vandiver49' pid='14996064' dateline='1516152833']
On the main board I've seen a multitude of comments stating that money would continue to flow into CFB despite economic and demographic trends. How the mega corps like Amazon and Google would rain money down on the sport like manna from heaven and keep the party going.

Well it's the main board and the quality of poster there has taken a dip. Wait did I say that correctly? Maybe what I meant to say is that there some new posters there who are dips. I'm not sure. Anyway the quality of the main board has slipped a bit. We still have some stellar posters, but we have a whole lot of group think peat and repeat tweet guys. So take the main board with a grain of salt.

I honestly just don't see it. It's not that such companies won't enter the market, but they aren't going to throw 2-3X money at the sport like it's burning a hole in their metaphorical pocket. They'll bid 20-30% more to secure the bid; enough to out-price the competition.
I think it more likely that if a new competitor comes in the raises they offer will more likely be in the 10% range than the 30% range.

As Disney has removed ESPN's only real challenger in the CFB media realm, the WWL find itself in a unique position to stabilize the sport and lock it up for the next 20 years by offering a nominal increase to the B12 while informing the ACC, SEC and B1G that the valuations for adding OU and UTX aren't as much as they think.

Why would they want to? If Disney doesn't push for a P4 they won't be able to protect their investment in the Bowls. All of this clamor for an 8 school playoff is unwanted and won't go away until Disney does itself a favor in multiple ways and pushes for the P4 Champs Only format. It gives the CFP a guaranteed entrant from each of the four viewing regions. It preserves quality teams for the bowls. It forces N.D. to go all in with the ACC where ESPN profits from their presence. And Vandiver it is cheaper to pay Texas the same 50 million, pay their traveling companion (if anyone other than Oklahoma) an additional 15 million, to pay Okahoma an additional 7 million and their traveling companion an additional 15 million than to pay everyone in the Big 12 another 7 million which is what they will push for. At 50 million the new conference would be only getting a bump of 4 million each if it is the SEC and around 2 million if it's the Big 10. Either way the added brand on brand games more than covers that.

What ESPN doesn't want is to pay 42 million for Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., West Virginia, Kansas, and Oklahoma State, while they continue to pay 15 million for the LHN, and would need to pick up OU's T3 which has been with FOX for another 7 million.

The same reasons it makes no sense to expand the B12 via G5 cheap content that is already owned are mimicked with a B12 school to another P4 conference. If ESPN makes the Longhorns and the Sooners an offer they can't refuse and no other conference can accept, how do those two stalwarts go move forward with a Sisyphean task of making the B12 better? Is it even possible?



They won't. It's not profitable to utilize them this way. Texas and OU will push to stay where they are. The financial discussions will then follow in secret. Oklahoma and Texas both want better games on the schedule. If they move to the SEC or Big 10 it will be for brand competition. My bet is that geography will play more of a role, especially for minor sports, than people give it credit as a determining factor.

I'm not sure they can be. I think it would take a perfect storm to save them.

While ESPN wouldn't necessarily be interested in giving another league a boost should OU and UT join, I think they would be less interested in maintaining the current bloated payouts of the Big 12 as it is constituted. Several schools in that lineup just aren't worth what they're being paid, but the networks wanted stability at the time. So Texas and Oklahoma may never be committed to saving the Big 12 because the market will not be kind to this league should another set of negotiations go forward.

If somehow the Big 12 powers could drop about half the schools and then maybe add a few strategic partners then maybe the league would be worth a decent amount, but I don't think it would be much more than they're getting now.

I completely agree with your take on Amazon and Google. Thus far, they haven't shown the willingness to dive into sports that someone else isn't already producing. The production costs would be significant for any new player whereas ESPN already has the infrastructure. I could maybe see Amazon getting in on the production side, but I think they would be looking to make a safer bet for their first real foray.

Honestly, if Amazon was going to get into college sports then I would look to buy the PAC Network. It should be fairly cheap given its performance to date and it wouldn't be hard to incorporate something like that into your Amazon Prime offering. I think that would be a safer and more economical bet than investing in the Big 12.

The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. ESPN and UT might come to some deal on the Longhorn network and roll it into a Big 12 network. They won't expand because the NCAA reduce the number of teams needed for a championship game.

(01-16-2018 10:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. ESPN and UT might come to some deal on the Longhorn network and roll it into a Big 12 network. They won't expand because the NCAA reduce the number of teams needed for a championship game.

Big 12 is fine. They have strong football and the deepest basketball conference. They are getting paid well. So unless Texas pisses more schools off, the Big 12 will be around for quite a while.

(01-17-2018 02:10 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. ESPN and UT might come to some deal on the Longhorn network and roll it into a Big 12 network. They won't expand because the NCAA reduce the number of teams needed for a championship game.

Big 12 is fine. They have strong football and the deepest basketball conference. They are getting paid well. So unless Texas pisses more schools off, the Big 12 will be around for quite a while.

I'm not so sure they have the deepest basketball conference. The SEC is looking pretty strong this year.

(01-17-2018 02:10 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. ESPN and UT might come to some deal on the Longhorn network and roll it into a Big 12 network. They won't expand because the NCAA reduce the number of teams needed for a championship game.

Big 12 is fine. They have strong football and the deepest basketball conference. They are getting paid well. So unless Texas pisses more schools off, the Big 12 will be around for quite a while.

They are only guaranteed to get paid until the end of their current contract which NO ONE has even dreamed about the possibility of renewal.

(01-16-2018 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why would they want to? If Disney doesn't push for a P4 they won't be able to protect their investment in the Bowls. All of this clamor for an 8 school playoff is unwanted and won't go away until Disney does itself a favor in multiple ways and pushes for the P4 Champs Only format. It gives the CFP a guaranteed entrant from each of the four viewing regions. It preserves quality teams for the bowls. It forces N.D. to go all in with the ACC where ESPN profits from their presence. And Vandiver it is cheaper to pay Texas the same 50 million, pay their traveling companion (if anyone other than Oklahoma) an additional 15 million, to pay Okahoma an additional 7 million and their traveling companion an additional 15 million than to pay everyone in the Big 12 another 7 million which is what they will push for. At 50 million the new conference would be only getting a bump of 4 million each if it is the SEC and around 2 million if it's the Big 10. Either way the added brand on brand games more than covers that.

What ESPN doesn't want is to pay 42 million for Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., West Virginia, Kansas, and Oklahoma State, while they continue to pay 15 million for the LHN, and would need to pick up OU's T3 which has been with FOX for another 7 million.

So I haven't looked at conference disbursements in a while: as such my math might be off:

2016 SEC: $44M
2016 B1G: $48M
2016 B12: $35M

I can't see how the B1G or the SEC would accept new member(s) without wanting at least a $7M increase in team disbursements as well. ESPN saves approximately $28M just by virtue of the difference in conference size alone (10 versus 14).

Second, getting to a P4 does allow a champs only model under the current system, but an expanded conference would enable the SEC and B1G to host their own semis. That is money that could go directly to the WWL pockets if the CFP expanded to 6 or 8 teams.

Finally, I just don't see how OU and TX are going to be able to leave the B12 scott free. Come 2021, BAY and TCU and other members are going to want commitments from the Blue Bloods that are more than just hot air. When they don't materialize I think the politicians and lawyers will be mobilized in a very public and ugly manner. ESPN might not want to pay the $42M per school to keep the B12 afloat, but isn't that easier than facing Discovery in some trial? I imagine that the B1G and SEC want no part of being dragged into that either.

Quote:They won't. It's not profitable to utilize them this way. Texas and OU will push to stay where they are. The financial discussions will then follow in secret. Oklahoma and Texas both want better games on the schedule. If they move to the SEC or Big 10 it will be for brand competition. My bet is that geography will play more of a role, especially for minor sports, than people give it credit as a determining factor.

I agree that those schools want better schedules, but they don't want to see the likes of Ole Miss, MSST, ILL, MINN and IOWA coming into town. Switching conferences in itself doesn't guarantee the desired improvements. Keep the CCG, but drop to playing only 8 conference game a year. That give the Sooners and Longhorns 3 games to improve their schedule along with a cupcake to maintain 7 home games a year.

(01-17-2018 05:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:10 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. ESPN and UT might come to some deal on the Longhorn network and roll it into a Big 12 network. They won't expand because the NCAA reduce the number of teams needed for a championship game.

Big 12 is fine. They have strong football and the deepest basketball conference. They are getting paid well. So unless Texas pisses more schools off, the Big 12 will be around for quite a while.

They are only guaranteed to get paid until the end of their current contract which NO ONE has even dreamed about the possibility of renewal.

That is because we are still in the proverbial negotiation trough. It will start to swell around 2020 and will crest in 2023. People will track planes so meticulously that execs and commissioners will have to travel by car for any meetings.

(01-17-2018 02:10 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. ESPN and UT might come to some deal on the Longhorn network and roll it into a Big 12 network. They won't expand because the NCAA reduce the number of teams needed for a championship game.

Big 12 is fine. They have strong football and the deepest basketball conference. They are getting paid well. So unless Texas pisses more schools off, the Big 12 will be around for quite a while.

And they won't expand either. The money doesn't seem to be there.

As much as content is talked about, it's the market model that continues to pump dollars into the SEC and B1G through their networks. We'll see about the ACC's income when their network debuts in 2019, but the chance that the Big 12 will get any sort of revenue bump, or that the B1G or SEC will get any revenue increases is beyond hopeful without adding new eyeballs.
The SEC is out of populous places to go without invading the B1G or the ACC.
Since the B1G is kind-of out of the question assume ESPN engineers a swap with the ACC to get more subscribers to both the SECN and the ACCN. You won't get anything more in Florida or Georgia with adds, so that leaves North Carolina and Virginia.
If the ACC lets Virginia Tech and NC State go, they would have to be replaced from the SEC or the Big 12 otherwise some monies would have to flow from the SEC to the ACC for compensation. Since North Carolina is the 9th most populous state and Virginia is the 12th even the addition of Vanderbilt (Tennessee #16) and Auburn (Alabama #24) is hardly equal compensation, and we really wouldn't want Auburn anyway. Texas #2 and Missouri #18 would be an equal trade.
The SEC could go with: NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU to get to 16.
The ACC with: Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Vanderbilt to just about get an even split on population increases.
This is a way to squeeze more money out of the SECN and ACCN without adding too much more footprint.
You could divide the ACC up something like this:

Missouri, Florida State, Wake Forest, Syracuse
Texas, Louisville, Miami, Boston College
Georgia Tech, Clemson, Duke, Vanderbilt
Notre Dame, UVa, Carolina, Pittsburgh

Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State
Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida
LSU, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma and any one of Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor

That pretty much maximizes to coverage in the existing ACC/SEC footprint.

(01-17-2018 10:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  As much as content is talked about, it's the market model that continues to pump dollars into the SEC and B1G through their networks. We'll see about the ACC's income when their network debuts in 2019, but the chance that the Big 12 will get any sort of revenue bump, or that the B1G or SEC will get any revenue increases is beyond hopeful without adding new eyeballs.
The SEC is out of populous places to go without invading the B1G or the ACC.
Since the B1G is kind-of out of the question assume ESPN engineers a swap with the ACC to get more subscribers to both the SECN and the ACCN. You won't get anything more in Florida or Georgia with adds, so that leaves North Carolina and Virginia.
If the ACC lets Virginia Tech and NC State go, they would have to be replaced from the SEC or the Big 12 otherwise some monies would have to flow from the SEC to the ACC for compensation. Since North Carolina is the 9th most populous state and Virginia is the 12th even the addition of Vanderbilt (Tennessee #16) and Auburn (Alabama #24) is hardly equal compensation, and we really wouldn't want Auburn anyway. Texas #2 and Missouri #18 would be an equal trade.
The SEC could go with: NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU to get to 16.
The ACC with: Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Vanderbilt to just about get an even split on population increases.
This is a way to squeeze more money out of the SECN and ACCN without adding too much more footprint.
You could divide the ACC up something like this:

Missouri, Florida State, Wake Forest, Syracuse
Texas, Louisville, Miami, Boston College
Georgia Tech, Clemson, Duke, Vanderbilt
Notre Dame, UVa, Carolina, Pittsburgh

Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State
Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida
LSU, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma and any one of Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor

That pretty much maximizes to coverage in the existing ACC/SEC footprint.

Nice try X, but what you are really asking for is 4 AAU schools in exchange for 4 non AAU schools.

Besides when the SEC and Big 10 can't earn more money we will still be making a lot more than the ACC and once again, time, pressure and economic disparity will do their work.

(01-17-2018 06:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why would they want to? If Disney doesn't push for a P4 they won't be able to protect their investment in the Bowls. All of this clamor for an 8 school playoff is unwanted and won't go away until Disney does itself a favor in multiple ways and pushes for the P4 Champs Only format. It gives the CFP a guaranteed entrant from each of the four viewing regions. It preserves quality teams for the bowls. It forces N.D. to go all in with the ACC where ESPN profits from their presence. And Vandiver it is cheaper to pay Texas the same 50 million, pay their traveling companion (if anyone other than Oklahoma) an additional 15 million, to pay Okahoma an additional 7 million and their traveling companion an additional 15 million than to pay everyone in the Big 12 another 7 million which is what they will push for. At 50 million the new conference would be only getting a bump of 4 million each if it is the SEC and around 2 million if it's the Big 10. Either way the added brand on brand games more than covers that.

What ESPN doesn't want is to pay 42 million for Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., West Virginia, Kansas, and Oklahoma State, while they continue to pay 15 million for the LHN, and would need to pick up OU's T3 which has been with FOX for another 7 million.

So I haven't looked at conference disbursements in a while: as such my math might be off:

2016 SEC: $44M
2016 B1G: $48M
2016 B12: $35M

I can't see how the B1G or the SEC would accept new member(s) without wanting at least a $7M increase in team disbursements as well. ESPN saves approximately $28M just by virtue of the difference in conference size alone (10 versus 14).

Second, getting to a P4 does allow a champs only model under the current system, but an expanded conference would enable the SEC and B1G to host their own semis. That is money that could go directly to the WWL pockets if the CFP expanded to 6 or 8 teams.

Finally, I just don't see how OU and TX are going to be able to leave the B12 scott free. Come 2021, BAY and TCU and other members are going to want commitments from the Blue Bloods that are more than just hot air. When they don't materialize I think the politicians and lawyers will be mobilized in a very public and ugly manner. ESPN might not want to pay the $42M per school to keep the B12 afloat, but isn't that easier than facing Discovery in some trial? I imagine that the B1G and SEC want no part of being dragged into that either.

Quote:They won't. It's not profitable to utilize them this way. Texas and OU will push to stay where they are. The financial discussions will then follow in secret. Oklahoma and Texas both want better games on the schedule. If they move to the SEC or Big 10 it will be for brand competition. My bet is that geography will play more of a role, especially for minor sports, than people give it credit as a determining factor.

I agree that those schools want better schedules, but they don't want to see the likes of Ole Miss, MSST, ILL, MINN and IOWA coming into town. Switching conferences in itself doesn't guarantee the desired improvements. Keep the CCG, but drop to playing only 8 conference game a year. That give the Sooners and Longhorns 3 games to improve their schedule along with a cupcake to maintain 7 home games a year.

First as to the Math. This year will be the first in which the Big 10 gets their contract renewal money. It should bump them to around that 45-46 range. The SEC with it's escalation should get around 43-44. It will be the first year since the SECN opened that the Big 10 moves ahead of us in TV revenue. The SEC will move back ahead when CBS is redone in 2023. But that said the addition of Texas to the Big 10 would be worth about 2.5 million per school and they would be worth about 2.0 million per school to the SEC. Why the difference? The SEC already has A&M. The addition of Oklahoma to either conference is worth about 2 million. The reason I picked 50 million for the SEC or Big 10 revenues if we landed them is because that's about how much Texas makes with the LHN added to their present T1 & T2 contract. And since it would take about 2 years to pull off a move the SEC would be making around 46 and the Big 10 maybe 2 more than that. So the arguments about the costs could be plus or minus 28 million depending upon the starting point.

If the CCG's expand it is true the conferences will make more, but so too will the network that carries them. They still get the ad rates and they still pay for the game. But a CCG game does not take away a bowl candidate. Increasing the playoffs does. It does because no school presently wants to have 3 straight destination road trips. The fans can't afford it. So if we have conference semis, or an expanded playoff then most likely those first round games will be played at campus sites.

But I certainly see the logic in what you propose. I just believe that ESPN's investment in the bowls will be a factor in what they do.

(01-17-2018 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 10:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  As much as content is talked about, it's the market model that continues to pump dollars into the SEC and B1G through their networks. We'll see about the ACC's income when their network debuts in 2019, but the chance that the Big 12 will get any sort of revenue bump, or that the B1G or SEC will get any revenue increases is beyond hopeful without adding new eyeballs.
The SEC is out of populous places to go without invading the B1G or the ACC.
Since the B1G is kind-of out of the question assume ESPN engineers a swap with the ACC to get more subscribers to both the SECN and the ACCN. You won't get anything more in Florida or Georgia with adds, so that leaves North Carolina and Virginia.
If the ACC lets Virginia Tech and NC State go, they would have to be replaced from the SEC or the Big 12 otherwise some monies would have to flow from the SEC to the ACC for compensation. Since North Carolina is the 9th most populous state and Virginia is the 12th even the addition of Vanderbilt (Tennessee #16) and Auburn (Alabama #24) is hardly equal compensation, and we really wouldn't want Auburn anyway. Texas #2 and Missouri #18 would be an equal trade.
The SEC could go with: NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU to get to 16.
The ACC with: Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Vanderbilt to just about get an even split on population increases.
This is a way to squeeze more money out of the SECN and ACCN without adding too much more footprint.
You could divide the ACC up something like this:

Missouri, Florida State, Wake Forest, Syracuse
Texas, Louisville, Miami, Boston College
Georgia Tech, Clemson, Duke, Vanderbilt
Notre Dame, UVa, Carolina, Pittsburgh

Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State
Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida
LSU, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma and any one of Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor

That pretty much maximizes to coverage in the existing ACC/SEC footprint.

Nice try X, but what you are really asking for is 4 AAU schools in exchange for 4 non AAU schools.

Besides when the SEC and Big 10 can't earn more money we will still be making a lot more than the ACC and once again, time, pressure and economic disparity will do their work.

I didn't even consider the AAU thing JR, but isn't it interesting that even water seeks it's own level.

The last information that I received about the networks........the ACCN might just jet past the SECN from the opening bell. Then we'll see about the time, pressure and economic disparity when the shoe is on the other foot.

(01-17-2018 06:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

Quote:They won't. It's not profitable to utilize them this way. Texas and OU will push to stay where they are. The financial discussions will then follow in secret. Oklahoma and Texas both want better games on the schedule. If they move to the SEC or Big 10 it will be for brand competition. My bet is that geography will play more of a role, especially for minor sports, than people give it credit as a determining factor.

I agree that those schools want better schedules, but they don't want to see the likes of Ole Miss, MSST, ILL, MINN and IOWA coming into town. Switching conferences in itself doesn't guarantee the desired improvements. Keep the CCG, but drop to playing only 8 conference game a year. That give the Sooners and Longhorns 3 games to improve their schedule along with a cupcake to maintain 7 home games a year.

The thing about improving a schedule via switching conferences is that it's a mixed bag. There's no conference you could play where each game would be considered marquee.

The question is how many better games do you get compared to what you have now...

For a school like Texas, here is their annual schedule

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia

Some of these aren't bad, but a healthy portion of them are average at best in most years...as far as the quality of competition and the innate ability to draw eyeballs and ticket sales. A move to the SEC would mean keeping some of the ones you most care about on your annual schedule while adding schools like Texas A&M, Arkansas, and LSU back to the annual slate. Meanwhile, you likely get annual or semi-annual games against Eastern powers because there are quite a few of them compared to the Big 12.

Consider also just how isolated UT and OU are with their conference schedule. If they don't schedule a marquee non-conference game then their reach is very limited simply because every single school is in a 5 state footprint and the vast majority of those markets represented are not impressive. All the impressive ones are already in TX and so you don't need the Big 12 conference to give you access to those. You're always taking them with you.

It's true that schools like Ole Miss and Mississippi State wouldn't be considered premier competition, but take for example the fact that UT scheduled a home and home with Ole Miss within the last decade. That would suggest such a match-up was fairly desirable being that your conference office wasn't the one that mandated you play them.

I would agree though that the Big Ten doesn't offer as many good games. The bulk of Texas' or Oklahoma's schedule would come against the fairly pedestrian B1G West schools. That and they wouldn't be able to take as many regional partners with them. They'd still make more money though so it's still a legitimate consideration.

(01-17-2018 03:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  The last information that I received about the networks........the ACCN might just jet past the SECN from the opening bell.

I'll believe that when I see it.

But hey, you've got our number when this thing inevitably doesn't work out. Keep in touch.

(01-17-2018 03:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 10:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  As much as content is talked about, it's the market model that continues to pump dollars into the SEC and B1G through their networks. We'll see about the ACC's income when their network debuts in 2019, but the chance that the Big 12 will get any sort of revenue bump, or that the B1G or SEC will get any revenue increases is beyond hopeful without adding new eyeballs.
The SEC is out of populous places to go without invading the B1G or the ACC.
Since the B1G is kind-of out of the question assume ESPN engineers a swap with the ACC to get more subscribers to both the SECN and the ACCN. You won't get anything more in Florida or Georgia with adds, so that leaves North Carolina and Virginia.
If the ACC lets Virginia Tech and NC State go, they would have to be replaced from the SEC or the Big 12 otherwise some monies would have to flow from the SEC to the ACC for compensation. Since North Carolina is the 9th most populous state and Virginia is the 12th even the addition of Vanderbilt (Tennessee #16) and Auburn (Alabama #24) is hardly equal compensation, and we really wouldn't want Auburn anyway. Texas #2 and Missouri #18 would be an equal trade.
The SEC could go with: NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU to get to 16.
The ACC with: Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Vanderbilt to just about get an even split on population increases.
This is a way to squeeze more money out of the SECN and ACCN without adding too much more footprint.
You could divide the ACC up something like this:

Missouri, Florida State, Wake Forest, Syracuse
Texas, Louisville, Miami, Boston College
Georgia Tech, Clemson, Duke, Vanderbilt
Notre Dame, UVa, Carolina, Pittsburgh

Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State
Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida
LSU, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma and any one of Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor

That pretty much maximizes to coverage in the existing ACC/SEC footprint.

Nice try X, but what you are really asking for is 4 AAU schools in exchange for 4 non AAU schools.

Besides when the SEC and Big 10 can't earn more money we will still be making a lot more than the ACC and once again, time, pressure and economic disparity will do their work.

I didn't even consider the AAU thing JR, but isn't it interesting that even water seeks it's own level.

The last information that I received about the networks........the ACCN might just jet past the SECN from the opening bell. Then we'll see about the time, pressure and economic disparity when the shoe is on the other foot.

The ACCN will jet past the PACN and maybe earn you enough to pass the Big 12. But remember even a rapidly deflating balloon has a quick start.

(01-17-2018 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First as to the Math. This year will be the first in which the Big 10 gets their contract renewal money. It should bump them to around that 45-46 range. The SEC with it's escalation should get around 43-44. It will be the first year since the SECN opened that the Big 10 moves ahead of us in TV revenue. The SEC will move back ahead when CBS is redone in 2023. But that said the addition of Texas to the Big 10 would be worth about 2.5 million per school and they would be worth about 2.0 million per school to the SEC. Why the difference? The SEC already has A&M. The addition of Oklahoma to either conference is worth about 2 million. The reason I picked 50 million for the SEC or Big 10 revenues if we landed them is because that's about how much Texas makes with the LHN added to their present T1 & T2 contract. And since it would take about 2 years to pull off a move the SEC would be making around 46 and the Big 10 maybe 2 more than that. So the arguments about the costs could be plus or minus 28 million depending upon the starting point.

And I thought my price bumps for new additions was conservative. Going with your values I can see why disbanding the B12 provides the better value.

Quote:If the CCG's expand it is true the conferences will make more, but so too will the network that carries them. They still get the ad rates and they still pay for the game. But a CCG game does not take away a bowl candidate. Increasing the playoffs does. It does because no school presently wants to have 3 straight destination road trips. The fans can't afford it. So if we have conference semis, or an expanded playoff then most likely those first round games will be played at campus sites.

I understand the travel constraints but the idea that the higher seed host won't sell out the quarter-final games is specious IMO. Besides, the major brands have proven that they will travel for two games. What the current CFP system is engineered to ensure ESPN doesn't have to find out if TCU or UCF will travel in a similar manner.

Quote:But I certainly see the logic in what you propose. I just believe that ESPN's investment in the bowls will be a factor in what they do.

I admit that I didn't account for the bowls beneath the NY6 in my analysis. I find it hard the appreciate the value ESPN gets from the minor bowls.

(01-17-2018 06:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why would they want to? If Disney doesn't push for a P4 they won't be able to protect their investment in the Bowls. All of this clamor for an 8 school playoff is unwanted and won't go away until Disney does itself a favor in multiple ways and pushes for the P4 Champs Only format. It gives the CFP a guaranteed entrant from each of the four viewing regions. It preserves quality teams for the bowls. It forces N.D. to go all in with the ACC where ESPN profits from their presence. And Vandiver it is cheaper to pay Texas the same 50 million, pay their traveling companion (if anyone other than Oklahoma) an additional 15 million, to pay Okahoma an additional 7 million and their traveling companion an additional 15 million than to pay everyone in the Big 12 another 7 million which is what they will push for. At 50 million the new conference would be only getting a bump of 4 million each if it is the SEC and around 2 million if it's the Big 10. Either way the added brand on brand games more than covers that.

What ESPN doesn't want is to pay 42 million for Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., West Virginia, Kansas, and Oklahoma State, while they continue to pay 15 million for the LHN, and would need to pick up OU's T3 which has been with FOX for another 7 million.

So I haven't looked at conference disbursements in a while: as such my math might be off:

2016 SEC: $44M
2016 B1G: $48M
2016 B12: $35M

I can't see how the B1G or the SEC would accept new member(s) without wanting at least a $7M increase in team disbursements as well. ESPN saves approximately $28M just by virtue of the difference in conference size alone (10 versus 14).

Second, getting to a P4 does allow a champs only model under the current system, but an expanded conference would enable the SEC and B1G to host their own semis. That is money that could go directly to the WWL pockets if the CFP expanded to 6 or 8 teams.

Finally, I just don't see how OU and TX are going to be able to leave the B12 scott free. Come 2021, BAY and TCU and other members are going to want commitments from the Blue Bloods that are more than just hot air. When they don't materialize I think the politicians and lawyers will be mobilized in a very public and ugly manner. ESPN might not want to pay the $42M per school to keep the B12 afloat, but isn't that easier than facing Discovery in some trial? I imagine that the B1G and SEC want no part of being dragged into that either.

Admittedly, I was never great at math so any numbers I come up with will be purely speculation, but I think there's something you're missing here.

The Big 12 is currently being overpaid because it was bleeding membership and the whole world of college athletics was on the brink with all the varying possibilities.

The networks stepped in to create some calm and give everyone(mostly themselves) time to evaluate their options. Let's also remember that ESPN has essentially gutted Fox since that time. You already mentioned that, but I think you're forgetting that a lack of a threat to ESPN's perch means no one is there to drive up the price. That means when the Big 12 goes back to the negotiating table, it will essentially be ESPN bidding against themselves and they won't spend more than they have to.

You might have followed the Big East fiasco a few years ago. That league almost survived because ESPN was willing to give them a superb raise. Instead, the Big East leaders went to the open market and found no one else was willing to give them money anywhere close to that. Members started bailing, Fox lured away the Catholic 7, and everything else is history.

So my point is that ESPN won't have a motivation to pay a competitive rate to the entire Big 12 because they could get the same content for less.

What it will take for the Big 12 to survive is for Texas and Oklahoma to say that they are fully committed to the conference no matter what they get paid or could get paid elsewhere. I just find it hard to believe they'll stick around because they were quite possibly the most valuable members of the Big 12 before schools started leaving and, with the exception of Colorado, the ones that left are getting paid more now. I think that says something about the value of UT and OU if they were to be added to a different collective.

More than that, if ESPN was interested in locking up the Big 12 for essentially what they are making now then they would save themselves the trouble and sign a new long term deal. Actually, they probably would have done it a few years ago. That's ESPN's pattern as they did the same thing with the SEC and ACC. The fact that they haven't done that would suggest they would rather not pay the same rate. The problem for the Big 12 then becomes a matter of time. As their contract grows towards expiration, they're in a weaker position because most of the league doesn't have options. They'll have to take whatever ESPN offers.

It also means that UT and OU will be faced with the stark reality that they'll have to take a pay cut to maintain the status quo. I don't see them signing up for that although I could be wrong.

The thing about the CFP is that I actually don't think we'll see a champs-only playoff until the Power leagues form their own division. It will be too risky politically. What they can do, however, is cut some of the fat from within their own ranks and that would represent a healthy portion of the Big 12. That means the CFP money gets spread across fewer mouths and so everybody gets a pay raise just from that.

If you have 4 Power leagues then you have a de facto champs-only CFP instead of a de jure champs-only system. Every now and then a 2nd team from one league might get in, but most of the time it will be one from each league. So on that front, we pretty much maintain status quo.

(01-17-2018 03:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First as to the Math. This year will be the first in which the Big 10 gets their contract renewal money. It should bump them to around that 45-46 range. The SEC with it's escalation should get around 43-44. It will be the first year since the SECN opened that the Big 10 moves ahead of us in TV revenue. The SEC will move back ahead when CBS is redone in 2023. But that said the addition of Texas to the Big 10 would be worth about 2.5 million per school and they would be worth about 2.0 million per school to the SEC. Why the difference? The SEC already has A&M. The addition of Oklahoma to either conference is worth about 2 million. The reason I picked 50 million for the SEC or Big 10 revenues if we landed them is because that's about how much Texas makes with the LHN added to their present T1 & T2 contract. And since it would take about 2 years to pull off a move the SEC would be making around 46 and the Big 10 maybe 2 more than that. So the arguments about the costs could be plus or minus 28 million depending upon the starting point.

And I thought my price bumps for new additions was conservative. Going with your values I can see why disbanding the B12 provides the better value.

Quote:If the CCG's expand it is true the conferences will make more, but so too will the network that carries them. They still get the ad rates and they still pay for the game. But a CCG game does not take away a bowl candidate. Increasing the playoffs does. It does because no school presently wants to have 3 straight destination road trips. The fans can't afford it. So if we have conference semis, or an expanded playoff then most likely those first round games will be played at campus sites.

I understand the travel constraints but the idea that the higher seed host won't sell out the quarter-final games is specious IMO. Besides, the major brands have proven that they will travel for two games. What the current CFP system is engineered to ensure ESPN doesn't have to find out if TCU or UCF will travel in a similar manner.

Quote:But I certainly see the logic in what you propose. I just believe that ESPN's investment in the bowls will be a factor in what they do.

I admit that I didn't account for the bowls beneath the NY6 in my analysis. I find it hard the appreciate the value ESPN gets from the minor bowls.

I didn't say they wouldn't sell out the quarterfinals if they were hosted by the higher seed whether those are conference semis or additional playoff games. My point is that they could not be hosted in bowls. And if they were three week's worth of neutral site tickets (most of which are packaged with hotel accommodations) would absolutely be a week too much for the fans.

So if we move to an 8 school playoff at some point and they are hosted where they should be (at the home of the higher seed) the bowls will suffer.

ESPN uses the bowls to fill the dead space between the CCG's and New Year's games. That's their advertising revenue in the dead space. Without some big name runners up in their respective conferences the whole bowl structure's profitability would collapse. And since the conference commissioners count on those pairings each year to be a dependable revenue stream, and the coaches like them for the extra practice time, I don't think anyone in the system wants to do something that will alter that structure or curtail that revenue.