(01-15-2020 06:56 PM)Wedge Wrote: (01-15-2020 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-15-2020 05:28 PM)Wedge Wrote: OK, let's take a few of these.
(01-15-2020 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: Well if you replace an Auburn and Alabama, or a Michigan and Ohio State with Texas and Oklahoma the difference isn't much now is it?
It is a difference. Try telling longtime Auburn fans. "You won't play Bama or Georgia ever again, but don't worry, we'll give you Michigan and Penn State instead."
(01-15-2020 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: 4. The old 8 to 10 school conference becomes the new 8 school division which is geographically grouped to contain many neighboring rivals.
That works in a few instances but doesn't work in many others.
Example: A lot of old-school fans in the west would like to have the Pac-8 back, but try telling Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah that even though they draw most of their out-of-state students from the west coast and send donating alumni back there, they won't be there any more and have to be in a "Great Plains Division" instead. Can't expand if those four schools vote no.
Or, try telling Virginia and Va Tech supporters that they should be happy to be in a "Yankee Division" of the ACC.
Also the example I mentioned above -- try convincing Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, etc. that they should be happy playing Ohio State at home in football once every 10 years. Minnesota's athletic budget is $125 million/year. Iowa's is $137 million/year. Those Big Ten schools already have so much TV money that they have very little incentive to vote for further expansion.
(01-15-2020 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: What you and Wedge really express is the fear of some conferences growing in power possibly at the expense of your own. In some cases the resistance is in an effort to remain the king of an unequal conference, much like Clemson finds itself in now. When has the Big 12 in recent years not be just Oklahoma?
It doesn't bother me if every SEC team gets a check for $1 billion every year. I don't need Pac-12 teams to have that either, because I don't get a penny of that money. The schools don't distribute TV money to alumni.
I do think that the decisionmakers, including the TV networks, look at these things differently. Among other things, the TV guys don't want conferences to acquire more of what you call "contractual leverage", so it's unlikely that they will encourage it. In fact, they can discourage it by offering UT and OU enough money that they'd rather stay put. They did that in 2010, they can easily do it again in two years or whenever they negotiate the next round of contracts.
1. We are a little smarter than that. "And try telling Auburn you won't ever play Bama again?" Really weak on your part. Hyperbole run amok on your part. The point is we will play everyone every four years and group rivals together.
2. That's a valid point, but one conferences need to be aware of solving when they make additions. But I do realize not all conferences can solve this easily.
3. Your own was referencing your conference, but I think you know that and just chose to play obtuse.
4. Networks might not want more leverage, but they may want the content additions more than they fear leverage. This aspect is a give and take.
TV doesn't want the conferences to have more leverage. I think that's important to them, especially ESPN.
The TV guys absolutely hate the leverage that the NFL has over them. It's as if the NFL is an organized crime syndicate and each network is a mom-and-pop convenience store. The NFL just sends over a wise guy to shake 'em down for more money any time the NFL feels like it. Look at what they do to ESPN, who pays the NFL almost $2 billion/year and, in return, gets one of the worst games every week for Monday night, plus the least valuable first-round playoff game. The TV networks don't ever want any college conference, or any other pro sport for that matter, to have that kind of leverage.
Look, ESPN has the SEC and ACC now. It's cheaper by far for them to take the 3 or 4 schools they want from the Big 12 than it is to pay for all of them.
But if you look at the map of all of the properties that ESPN holds their overall plan is quite clear. They own absolutely every P5 school and the top G5 schools South of a line stretching from Missouri through Kentucky and over to Virginia and South.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if they they wanted to acquire Kansas, Oklahoma and all of the P5 from Texas. That gives them such advertising leverage in the two best regions of the country for % of actual viewers to potential viewers in the nation and that's cash. Nobody else can dip a toe into those College Football Saturdays for advertising without going through ESPN.
If they could put the Texas 4 in the ACC and put Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. They get to roll over the LHN into the ACCN make that endeavor profitable for the ACC and possibly lure N.D. all in with time and get the maximized value for OU and KU content wise in the SEC where paying the Sooners for all three tiers of their rights costs them no more than the raise the current SEC is about to get. It's a bit more of a windfall for Kansas but still not much.
And with the Texas foursome they lock down a state of 28 million with A&M in the SEC, the Texas 4 in the ACC, and Houston and SMU in the AAC. That means ESPN gets to dip an average of 5 or 6 times a week in a football crazy state of 28 million plus 4 million more from Oklahoma that get action from the DFW area. For regional T2 contests that's a bunch of games with very nice shares for regional games. Certainly more than they get out of a much smaller state's rivalries. That's money and then when one of the major brands plays another brand that gold too.
Right now the split those rights with FOX but it will cost them 1 school over the half they are paying for now to move those 6 if they wanted to and the raise for those schools headed to the ACC would be small but it would be a gap narrowing raise for the ACC and if they did lure N.D. full in at some point that's even more.
Now take a look at the top dollar brands they would be controlling in that process:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, L.S.U., Miami (though fading), Notre Dame (partial) Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and that's just for football.
Arkansas, Duke, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, L.S.U., North Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia in Hoops.
That leaves just Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin as major brands for FOX and if FOX picks up the PAC they get to add U.S.C., Washington, and Oregon.
ESPN would be controlling almost 75% of the top 25 earners in college sports, would control the best recruiting brands in the nation, and an extremely high % of the national champions in football over the last 20 years.
So Wedge they've got a helluva lot more to gain even if it means a little bit of lost leverage. And from where I sit I'd say you don't have much of an argument.
Now if ESPN decides to buy 100% of the Big 12's rights it accomplishes the same thing, but doesn't add the content value of adding the key brands to other brands.
/
A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
