+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? (/thread-877377.html)
How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-05-2019 03:07 PM
Dave Matter answers fan question about Oklahoma going to the SEC:
St. Louis Dispatch
Quote:MATTER: I don't think expansion/realignment will be a serious topic until the next wave of media rights contracts comes open for renegotiations. Also, with all the cord-cutting that's happened, I'm not sure TV ratings will be the all-powerful measurement when conferences decide who they want to add in another round of realignment.
And even then, I'm not sure there are natural additions that would please the current SEC membership enough to make the move. Would Texas allow the Oklahoma schools to leave the Big 12 without putting up a fight? Right now, the Sooners are in a pretty good spot in the Big 12 with fewer conference teams to compete against and a fairly clean path to the playoff most years. I'm not sure OU is wild about joining an SEC West Division with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M in their way of a playoff spot.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - Gamecock - 06-05-2019 03:08 PM
I don't really think it makes sense for OU/Texas to leave either.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - Soobahk40050 - 06-05-2019 03:14 PM
(06-05-2019 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote: I don't really think it makes sense for OU/Texas to leave either.
Alot of things make sense for $20-30 million.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - JRsec - 06-05-2019 03:49 PM
(06-05-2019 03:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: Dave Matter answers fan question about Oklahoma going to the SEC:
St. Louis Dispatch
Quote:MATTER: I don't think expansion/realignment will be a serious topic until the next wave of media rights contracts comes open for renegotiations. Also, with all the cord-cutting that's happened, I'm not sure TV ratings will be the all-powerful measurement when conferences decide who they want to add in another round of realignment.
And even then, I'm not sure there are natural additions that would please the current SEC membership enough to make the move. Would Texas allow the Oklahoma schools to leave the Big 12 without putting up a fight? Right now, the Sooners are in a pretty good spot in the Big 12 with fewer conference teams to compete against and a fairly clean path to the playoff most years. I'm not sure OU is wild about joining an SEC West Division with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M in their way of a playoff spot.
The article was written by a pro Big 12 guy writing to an audience fearful of being left behind. You always have to place these things in a context to get what it is the writer is trying to accomplish.
I found it not well reasoned. For instance if Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC we would either be going divisionless or Alabama and Auburn would be moving to the East. Second, at no point ever will the value of a school be separated from ratings when ratings drive advertising rates which generate revenue. That little remark simply illustrated the ignorance of the writer as to how revenue is generated. If anything subscription fees were not ratings. What he should have said is that market additions are no longer preferred but national brands (which are called that because the general public tunes in to watch them) are. But, subscription fees which may be set obliquely by ratings are not paid for viewing but rather simply having the channel.
Here is the long and short of this matter. The closer we get to 2024 without an extension of the GOR the more likely we are to have movement. And by that time Texas and Oklahoma will know what the SEC's new T1 contract will be paying and what the Big 10's FOX renewal will be paying. When they have all of the information they will either refuse to sign the GOR extension which means they are planning to move, or they will extend which means they are staying. Everything else reported on this matter is fluff and click bait.
I think a looming wild card in all of this is whether or not we fall into recession. If money, particularly at the state level, gets even tighter than it is now, they'll not only want to move, but will insist on their little brother's move as well. If money and stocks are fine, they'll be less incentive to move. Remember the big moves of 2012 got rolling in the aftermath of the banking crisis from 2006-8. Inquiries were made by 2009, serious talk by 2010, and the rest is history.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-05-2019 04:00 PM
EDIT: Took me a while to type this up, but Matter's statement got me thinking.
----------------
The reason I posted this is it's a plausible notion that the Big 12 sticks together at least for a little while longer. With their recent deal with ESPN+, their future may be tied to streaming more than a traditional broadcast deal.
I don't think they're getting a network or anything, but I think the future of the conference network(any conference network) may not be as bright as its past.
We'll see what the ACC Network produces in the next couple of years, but I have this feeling it won't be that impressive.
ACC revenue has been relatively stagnant during this period of tumult and other than whatever the ACCN produces, that's all the league is going to get until the 2030s. In other words, Swofford sold off the future of the ACC to the overlords of Bristol. Whatever happens to the ACC going forward will essentially be the will of ESPN.
Well, right now the SEC Network is still a strong property, but its value has shrunk a little since it started. Figures haven't even been reported in a couple of years as far as I can tell. The Big Ten Network is suffering even bigger problems in addition to never having equal value with the SECN in the first place. Meanwhile, the PAC 12 Networks are barely off the ground all these years later.
Cord cutting seems to have slowed a bit, but there's also the reality that the linear cable model has been wounded in the past several years. With the advent of streaming and cable-replacement, that trend may continue.
So what's my point?
The Big 12 is already generating more revenue than the ACC. As odd as it seems, the core of the Big 12 is more valuable than the core of the ACC. Yes, the Big 12 doesn't offer much value beyond a small number of programs and most of the TV value is in the state of TX, but that doesn't mean the ACC is necessarily stronger. While the Big 12 is in a precarious position, the ACC is not out of the woods yet. The value of the ACC is spread out a bit more, and thus could provide a feeder for several leagues going forward.
The ACC is the easiest to divide up because so many of the parts would be desirable to other leagues. Geographically and athletically, it works to parse out the ACC and in so doing to complement the core of 2 or 3 other leagues.
While the ACC has signed a GOR, what that really means is that ESPN gets to do with them whatever they want. For now, that means an ACC Network, but in the future I think it could mean a college sports-based network that combines powers of multiple leagues.
What I'm predicting is that the SEC Network we currently know and watch might not survive in the way we've come to know. The Big 12 needs a place to show T3 content and ESPN is not going to drop money on another linear feed. The ACC is still a valuable commodity, but probably doesn't pull enough subscriptions on its own to be truly valuable.
So perhaps ESPN could partner with multiple leagues on a singular channel that gets a high sub rate in multiple large markets around the country. Split the money much like it works now, but with added security that markets all around the country(multiple regions) will be interested rather than just trying to sell one league at a time.
This would also free up more content for ESPN+ as you obviously can't show all the T3 content from 3 or 4 leagues on a single network.
It would also create more loyalty from the leagues themselves as they perhaps could be leery of breaking away from a partnership that gets them paid by relying on content from other leagues.
So if the conference network as we know it may not continue to thrive then what does it matter if the ACC is parsed out or not?
Well, it's still Tier 1 and Tier 2 money.
The ACC is not catching up even if their network is a smashing success. That means, some key rivals of SEC schools will be feeling a lot of pressure about 10 years from now.
So with the fact that certain ACC schools may have problems going forward then I think it's a distinct possibility that the Big 12 will wait a few more years in hopes that certain ACC schools become available. At that point, their favored league can become stronger and more competitive with the SEC and Big Ten. The SEC can benefit as well with some additions they've always wanted.
Step 1. The Big 12 waits to see how successful the ACC Network is.
Step 2. The Big 12 signs a new deal with ESPN closer to the expiration of their GOR that includes additions from the ACC.
Step 3. The SEC also makes additions from the ACC and signs a new long term T1 deal. CBS would presumably partner on the deal.
Step 4. The SEC/Big 12 partnership is increased by sharing revenue from a T3 network.
Step 5. The Big Ten makes a couple of key additions as well and throws a higher percentage of their rights to ESPN.
The timing here is the key. All we have to do is wait a short period of time and all of these moves could be accomplished within a couple of years of each other.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - JRsec - 06-05-2019 04:41 PM
(06-05-2019 04:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: EDIT: Took me a while to type this up, but Matter's statement got me thinking.
----------------
The reason I posted this is it's a plausible notion that the Big 12 sticks together at least for a little while longer. With their recent deal with ESPN+, their future may be tied to streaming more than a traditional broadcast deal.
I don't think they're getting a network or anything, but I think the future of the conference network(any conference network) may not be as bright as its past.
We'll see what the ACC Network produces in the next couple of years, but I have this feeling it won't be that impressive.
ACC revenue has been relatively stagnant during this period of tumult and other than whatever the ACCN produces, that's all the league is going to get until the 2030s. In other words, Swofford sold off the future of the ACC to the overlords of Bristol. Whatever happens to the ACC going forward will essentially be the will of ESPN.
Well, right now the SEC Network is still a strong property, but its value has shrunk a little since it started. Figures haven't even been reported in a couple of years as far as I can tell. The Big Ten Network is suffering even bigger problems in addition to never having equal value with the SECN in the first place. Meanwhile, the PAC 12 Networks are barely off the ground all these years later.
Cord cutting seems to have slowed a bit, but there's also the reality that the linear cable model has been wounded in the past several years. With the advent of streaming and cable-replacement, that trend may continue.
So what's my point?
The Big 12 is already generating more revenue than the ACC. As odd as it seems, the core of the Big 12 is more valuable than the core of the ACC. Yes, the Big 12 doesn't offer much value beyond a small number of programs and most of the TV value is in the state of TX, but that doesn't mean the ACC is necessarily stronger. While the Big 12 is in a precarious position, the ACC is not out of the woods yet. The value of the ACC is spread out a bit more, and thus could provide a feeder for several leagues going forward.
The ACC is the easiest to divide up because so many of the parts would be desirable to other leagues. Geographically and athletically, it works to parse out the ACC and in so doing to complement the core of 2 or 3 other leagues.
While the ACC has signed a GOR, what that really means is that ESPN gets to do with them whatever they want. For now, that means an ACC Network, but in the future I think it could mean a college sports-based network that combines powers of multiple leagues.
What I'm predicting is that the SEC Network we currently know and watch might not survive in the way we've come to know. The Big 12 needs a place to show T3 content and ESPN is not going to drop money on another linear feed. The ACC is still a valuable commodity, but probably doesn't pull enough subscriptions on its own to be truly valuable.
So perhaps ESPN could partner with multiple leagues on a singular channel that gets a high sub rate in multiple large markets around the country. Split the money much like it works now, but with added security that markets all around the country(multiple regions) will be interested rather than just trying to sell one league at a time.
This would also free up more content for ESPN+ as you obviously can't show all the T3 content from 3 or 4 leagues on a single network.
It would also create more loyalty from the leagues themselves as they perhaps could be leery of breaking away from a partnership that gets them paid by relying on content from other leagues.
So if the conference network as we know it may not continue to thrive then what does it matter if the ACC is parsed out or not?
Well, it's still Tier 1 and Tier 2 money.
The ACC is not catching up even if their network is a smashing success. That means, some key rivals of SEC schools will be feeling a lot of pressure about 10 years from now.
So with the fact that certain ACC schools may have problems going forward then I think it's a distinct possibility that the Big 12 will wait a few more years in hopes that certain ACC schools become available. At that point, their favored league can become stronger and more competitive with the SEC and Big Ten. The SEC can benefit as well with some additions they've always wanted.
Step 1. The Big 12 waits to see how successful the ACC Network is.
Step 2. The Big 12 signs a new deal with ESPN closer to the expiration of their GOR that includes additions from the ACC.
Step 3. The SEC also makes additions from the ACC and signs a new long term T1 deal. CBS would presumably partner on the deal.
Step 4. The SEC/Big 12 partnership is increased by sharing revenue from a T3 network.
Step 5. The Big Ten makes a couple of key additions as well and throws a higher percentage of their rights to ESPN.
The timing here is the key. All we have to do is wait a short period of time and all of these moves could be accomplished within a couple of years of each other.
Nothing is impossible, but this will have no degree of likelihood unless the courts do finally rule that taxpayers (who shoulder the burden of funding state higher education) cannot be bound to contracts that lock them into an inferior position. This was a point I argued when the GOR's were slapped on the Big 12 and ACC. It's just nobody was willing to challenge them probably because the stakes weren't high enough to justify the legal expense. But with the Big 10 nearly doubling the ACC revenue those days may have now passed.
I totally agree that UT, OU, and Kansas are easier to build a conference around than are UVa, UNC, Duke, and Wake Forest who are the ones that control the ACC.
I also agree that it is only a matter of time before Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State will want out. Miami and Syracuse might as well. The problem is that it takes 12 of the 15 schools (N.D. has a vote) to dissolve that conference or amend the GOR. If UNC /Duke/ UVa/ and Wake along with B.C. don't want it then it is defeated. So a court ruling making state schools signing GOR's null would bust it wide open in the ACC.
In that world seeing the SEC move to 20 would not be unlikely. F.S.U. and Miami would give us control in Florida. Picking up Clemson and Georgia Tech give us total control over the Deep South. Adding a North Carolina and Virginia school give us two more large states. There's your 20. That said personally I would rather we add South Florida than Miami. I think they are the better long range bet.
I'm not sure how well the Big 12 grows out of the remnants but it would open up Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Boston College, and possibly Notre Dame joining WVU for larger presence in the Northeast.
The Big 10 would have Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and possibly Notre Dame.
You can play with it and see what you like but it is true that if the PAC stays a unit that rebuilding the Big 12, strengthening the SEC and Big 10, all out of the ACC make much more sense.
After pondering this for years he is what I would suggest because if one conference goes to 20 there just isn't enough for the other 2 to grow logically and killing off the ACC altogether would be the best way to go about it. This format takes care of 14 of the 15 ACC schools:
SEC: (18)
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Big 12: (18)
Baylor, Georgia Tech*, Miami*, Texas, T.C.U.*, Texas Tech
Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
*Outliers? Yes. But all major air hubs so easily accommodated.
Big 10: (18)
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Purdue, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
PAC: Stays as is.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - 10thMountain - 06-06-2019 02:31 PM
They have a conference they 100% control and is as dependent on them for survival as a newborn is on its mother. That’s the big plus
The X factors will be this:
1) even with LHN supplementing, UT will not be on par with what B10 and SEC members are making after the next contracts are finalized. Are the other L10 teams willing to take a pay cut to give OU and UT a boost that keeps them even?
2) The schedule. UT and OU fans hate it and both are scheduling SEC and other P5 power teams like crazy to make up for the SOS and lack of appeal that comes from a L10 schedule outside the RRSO game which is never a home game for either school. More pressing is the effect of this schedule in the playoff as playing nothing but L10 defenses doesn’t prepare you for the playofffs and is why the L10 has never advanced beyond the first game in the years they are included which are usually years where the B1G or PAC champ give their slot away at the last minute like Ohio State did last season
So the real question becomes: is total control enough if the money and competition to get it is s handicap when it comes to the playoffs
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-06-2019 03:16 PM
(06-06-2019 02:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote: They have a conference they 100% control and is as dependent on them for survival as a newborn is on its mother. That’s the big plus
The X factors will be this:
1) even with LHN supplementing, UT will not be on par with what B10 and SEC members are making after the next contracts are finalized. Are the other L10 teams willing to take a pay cut to give OU and UT a boost that keeps them even?
2) The schedule. UT and OU fans hate it and both are scheduling SEC and other P5 power teams like crazy to make up for the SOS and lack of appeal that comes from a L10 schedule outside the RRSO game which is never a home game for either school. More pressing is the effect of this schedule in the playoff as playing nothing but L10 defenses doesn’t prepare you for the playofffs and is why the L10 has never advanced beyond the first game in the years they are included which are usually years where the B1G or PAC champ give their slot away at the last minute like Ohio State did last season
So the real question becomes: is total control enough if the money and competition to get it is s handicap when it comes to the playoffs
The Big 12 has approximately 6 more years left on their deal. June of 2025 is the expiration. That's not a long time.
To me, it could be a matter of patience. Are Texas and Oklahoma patient enough to wait for an opportunity to save the Big 12? Or will they take the first train out of town? In other words, how much do they love the Big 12? Their flirtations with the PAC 12 a few years back would indicate it's not so much love as convenience.
I think ultimately the GOR was an agreement foisted by the networks because they were losing control in a rapidly changing environment. Now, the networks have time to prepare for a big reshuffling so I think a great deal of what happens next will be a matter of what the media companies want for the long term.
If the ACC Network isn't making good money in a couple of years then that presents an opportunity for the Big 12 to be saved. The timeline is tight, but I do think it's plausible.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-06-2019 03:18 PM
Let me add this...
What makes the networks the most money?
Is it an ACC Network? Probably not.
Is it some amalgamation of the SEC, Big 12, and ACC re-purposed into 2 conferences? That's probably more likely to make the most money.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - JRsec - 06-06-2019 03:21 PM
(06-06-2019 03:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:(06-06-2019 02:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote: They have a conference they 100% control and is as dependent on them for survival as a newborn is on its mother. That’s the big plus
The X factors will be this:
1) even with LHN supplementing, UT will not be on par with what B10 and SEC members are making after the next contracts are finalized. Are the other L10 teams willing to take a pay cut to give OU and UT a boost that keeps them even?
2) The schedule. UT and OU fans hate it and both are scheduling SEC and other P5 power teams like crazy to make up for the SOS and lack of appeal that comes from a L10 schedule outside the RRSO game which is never a home game for either school. More pressing is the effect of this schedule in the playoff as playing nothing but L10 defenses doesn’t prepare you for the playofffs and is why the L10 has never advanced beyond the first game in the years they are included which are usually years where the B1G or PAC champ give their slot away at the last minute like Ohio State did last season
So the real question becomes: is total control enough if the money and competition to get it is s handicap when it comes to the playoffs
The Big 12 has approximately 6 more years left on their deal. June of 2025 is the expiration. That's not a long time.
To me, it could be a matter of patience. Are Texas and Oklahoma patient enough to wait for an opportunity to save the Big 12? Or will they take the first train out of town? In other words, how much do they love the Big 12? Their flirtations with the PAC 12 a few years back would indicate it's not so much love as convenience.
I think ultimately the GOR was an agreement foisted by the networks because they were losing control in a rapidly changing environment. Now, the networks have time to prepare for a big reshuffling so I think a great deal of what happens next will be a matter of what the media companies want for the long term.
If the ACC Network isn't making good money in a couple of years then that presents an opportunity for the Big 12 to be saved. The timeline is tight, but I do think it's plausible.
I'd take Oklahoma and Texas to cement the preeminence of the SEC.
But I would much rather expand out of the ACC. The fits would be a lot more natural. And if we continue to grow we need to encapsulate some of the rivalries.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - EvilVodka - 06-06-2019 06:24 PM
(06-06-2019 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:(06-06-2019 03:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:(06-06-2019 02:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote: They have a conference they 100% control and is as dependent on them for survival as a newborn is on its mother. That’s the big plus
The X factors will be this:
1) even with LHN supplementing, UT will not be on par with what B10 and SEC members are making after the next contracts are finalized. Are the other L10 teams willing to take a pay cut to give OU and UT a boost that keeps them even?
2) The schedule. UT and OU fans hate it and both are scheduling SEC and other P5 power teams like crazy to make up for the SOS and lack of appeal that comes from a L10 schedule outside the RRSO game which is never a home game for either school. More pressing is the effect of this schedule in the playoff as playing nothing but L10 defenses doesn’t prepare you for the playofffs and is why the L10 has never advanced beyond the first game in the years they are included which are usually years where the B1G or PAC champ give their slot away at the last minute like Ohio State did last season
So the real question becomes: is total control enough if the money and competition to get it is s handicap when it comes to the playoffs
The Big 12 has approximately 6 more years left on their deal. June of 2025 is the expiration. That's not a long time.
To me, it could be a matter of patience. Are Texas and Oklahoma patient enough to wait for an opportunity to save the Big 12? Or will they take the first train out of town? In other words, how much do they love the Big 12? Their flirtations with the PAC 12 a few years back would indicate it's not so much love as convenience.
I think ultimately the GOR was an agreement foisted by the networks because they were losing control in a rapidly changing environment. Now, the networks have time to prepare for a big reshuffling so I think a great deal of what happens next will be a matter of what the media companies want for the long term.
If the ACC Network isn't making good money in a couple of years then that presents an opportunity for the Big 12 to be saved. The timeline is tight, but I do think it's plausible.
I'd take Oklahoma and Texas to cement the preeminence of the SEC.
But I would much rather expand out of the ACC. The fits would be a lot more natural. And if we continue to grow we need to encapsulate some of the rivalries.
Whatever happens, I'd like to see Virgina Tech, FSU, and Clemson land in a good spot, whether that's the Big XII or SEC
If the SEC went to 20, by adding Texas & OU along with FSU, VT, and Clemson and someone else, that would be a strong conference
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - JRsec - 06-06-2019 11:05 PM
Well ATU Transic posted some news in the P5 section that claims the PAC has a 750 million dollar buy-in in hand that they are considering That kind of cash infusion if divided 13 ways (1 for the conference operation) could distribute 57.7 million or roughly in line with the SEC's T1 increase where the low figure is would NET us around 58 million per school. With the Big 10 already at 54 pending their renewal that puts the Big 12 roughly 20 million behind and the ACC roughly 26 million behind.
Now obviously the PAC money would dip initially if Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State came on board, but then the added content and markets could spur the difference. Especially if what the Big 12 brings is only divided 6 ways.
So you wanted some speculation. How about a P3 of 54 schools or a P4 of 72 schools should a new conference be formed?
So which 4 from the ACC for the SEC? And which 4 from the ACC for the Big 10?
And how would you form a new conference of 18?
For me Clemson and Florida State with Virginia Tech and any of the top 3 schools from North Carolina for the SEC.
For the Big 10 Notre Dame, Virginia, possibly North Carolina and Duke.
New P4:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
East Carolina, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Of course it is a short term infusion and represents a 15% stake in the PAC so Texas and company might have some profound reservations. Still it's an interesting break in the considerations.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-07-2019 10:28 AM
(06-06-2019 11:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: Well ATU Transic posted some news in the P5 section that claims the PAC has a 750 million dollar buy-in in hand that they are considering That kind of cash infusion if divided 13 ways (1 for the conference operation) could distribute 57.7 million or roughly in line with the SEC's T1 increase where the low figure is would NET us around 58 million per school. With the Big 10 already at 54 pending their renewal that puts the Big 12 roughly 20 million behind and the ACC roughly 26 million behind.
Now obviously the PAC money would dip initially if Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State came on board, but then the added content and markets could spur the difference. Especially if what the Big 12 brings is only divided 6 ways.
So you wanted some speculation. How about a P3 of 54 schools or a P4 of 72 schools should a new conference be formed?
So which 4 from the ACC for the SEC? And which 4 from the ACC for the Big 10?
And how would you form a new conference of 18?
For me Clemson and Florida State with Virginia Tech and any of the top 3 schools from North Carolina for the SEC.
For the Big 10 Notre Dame, Virginia, possibly North Carolina and Duke.
New P4:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
East Carolina, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Of course it is a short term infusion and represents a 15% stake in the PAC so Texas and company might have some profound reservations. Still it's an interesting break in the considerations.
Well, according to Fluge the other day, the offers the PAC was getting were "ugly." I'm not a business aficionado, but this offer doesn't sound too ugly to me.
That and the strongest indicator to me that fortunes might be turning is that these investment groups would be doing their homework and would require access to a lot of accounting data. If they're giving up that kind of money then it does make sense that the PAC perhaps has a bead on how strong their next media deal is going to be.
Perhaps Amazon or someone like that is going to drop a lot of money on them? Someone would basically have to do that in order for the investment in the PAC's NewCo to really pay off.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - vandiver49 - 06-07-2019 05:47 PM
(06-07-2019 10:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: Well, according to Fluge the other day, the offers the PAC was getting were "ugly." I'm not a business aficionado, but this offer doesn't sound too ugly to me.
That and the strongest indicator to me that fortunes might be turning is that these investment groups would be doing their homework and would require access to a lot of accounting data. If they're giving up that kind of money then it does make sense that the PAC perhaps has a bead on how strong their next media deal is going to be.
Perhaps Amazon or someone like that is going to drop a lot of money on them? Someone would basically have to do that in order for the investment in the PAC's NewCo to really pay off.
Hasn't Amazon's perspective always been one of separating the wheat from the chaff with regard to desirable assets? Going all in with just the PAC doesn't appear to create the desired outcome.
Granted, I've always been dubious of the NFL-lite plan Amazon wants for CFB. A decent schedule matters and that is more than simply banding together the top 70 CFB schools under one umbrella to play a mostly intercession schedule.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-07-2019 08:51 PM
(06-07-2019 05:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(06-07-2019 10:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: Well, according to Fluge the other day, the offers the PAC was getting were "ugly." I'm not a business aficionado, but this offer doesn't sound too ugly to me.
That and the strongest indicator to me that fortunes might be turning is that these investment groups would be doing their homework and would require access to a lot of accounting data. If they're giving up that kind of money then it does make sense that the PAC perhaps has a bead on how strong their next media deal is going to be.
Perhaps Amazon or someone like that is going to drop a lot of money on them? Someone would basically have to do that in order for the investment in the PAC's NewCo to really pay off.
Hasn't Amazon's perspective always been one of separating the wheat from the chaff with regard to desirable assets? Going all in with just the PAC doesn't appear to create the desired outcome.
Granted, I've always been dubious of the NFL-lite plan Amazon wants for CFB. A decent schedule matters and that is more than simply banding together the top 70 CFB schools under one umbrella to play a mostly intercession schedule.
I don't see Amazon having success culling a ton of college programs as the relationships between the schools are far more than business. Pro leagues exist purely to make a profit so it's more in Amazon's wheelhouse.
Nonetheless, a college conference would be an interesting property because it would offer a backlog of content potentially and that might keep viewers coming back.
That interview from a year or two back...I'm not sure how accurate that info was. I don't think anyone really knows what Amazon wants to do with college sports, if anything. In Britain, Amazon purchased some exclusive rights to a few EPL matches although it was admittedly a small number. Right now, I think they are experimenting with how sports broadcasting would work. Once they get the technical side down then I think they'll be more concerned with the type of property they're investing in.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them jump into exclusive sports rights over here, and the PAC would be an interesting experiment at that, but it will probably be a few years before we know.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - vandiver49 - 06-08-2019 08:39 AM
Honestly, the best college deal for Amazon would be SEC on CBS package. The problem is that to see the kind ROI that they want they would need an OTA broadcast.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - JRsec - 06-08-2019 09:01 AM
(06-08-2019 08:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Honestly, the best college deal for Amazon would be SEC on CBS package. The problem is that to see the kind ROI that they want they would need an OTA broadcast.
If they ever get into it they will have to start with something like the PAC, a desperate situation. Stable iconic conferences won't risk what they have to try them. It is not in their natures to take those kinds of risks. The PAC however is a brand that probably is open to risk because they floundering.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - vandiver49 - 06-08-2019 12:45 PM
(06-08-2019 09:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:(06-08-2019 08:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Honestly, the best college deal for Amazon would be SEC on CBS package. The problem is that to see the kind ROI that they want they would need an OTA broadcast.
If they ever get into it they will have to start with something like the PAC, a desperate situation. Stable iconic conferences won't risk what they have to try them. It is not in their natures to take those kinds of risks. The PAC however is a brand that probably is open to risk because they floundering.
True, but as the PAC’s desperation is borne of fan indifference to the project, such investment won’t generate the windfall they are looking for. As Amazon’s business model is one of short losses in order to drive out competition, the West Coast market doesn’t have the juice to change the marketplace.
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - USAFMEDIC - 06-08-2019 03:02 PM
(06-06-2019 02:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote: They have a conference they 100% control and is as dependent on them for survival as a newborn is on its mother. That’s the big plusTrue fact,Tenth. It is always what makes UT and OU happy. It has been since they joined my old Big Eight. The rest of us were just along for the ride. Some of us got tired of it.
The X factors will be this:
1) even with LHN supplementing, UT will not be on par with what B10 and SEC members are making after the next contracts are finalized. Are the other L10 teams willing to take a pay cut to give OU and UT a boost that keeps them even?
2) The schedule. UT and OU fans hate it and both are scheduling SEC and other P5 power teams like crazy to make up for the SOS and lack of appeal that comes from a L10 schedule outside the RRSO game which is never a home game for either school. More pressing is the effect of this schedule in the playoff as playing nothing but L10 defenses doesn’t prepare you for the playofffs and is why the L10 has never advanced beyond the first game in the years they are included which are usually years where the B1G or PAC champ give their slot away at the last minute like Ohio State did last season
So the real question becomes: is total control enough if the money and competition to get it is s handicap when it comes to the playoffs
RE: How reasonable is it that the Big 12 would stay together? - AllTideUp - 06-08-2019 03:17 PM
There were rumors that Amazon was on and off again about investing in the RSNs that were up for sale in the last year.
When the first bid came out, it was said they were involved. It ended up being that they were investing in the spin-off of the YES Network. Later on, it was rumored they could be partnering with Sinclair to buy the others. That ended up not happening, but I get the impression Sinclair was ready to move without them and just found another partner.
So who knows exactly what their involvement was?
If Amazon jumps into the sports market then I wouldn't be surprised if they just outright bought an existing network. After all, they'll need an adequate production facility to pull it off. Until they make that sort of move then I think the only move they make is joining up with some leagues to simulcast an existing feed.
Then again, going with a college conference that already has in-house production facilities might be their ideal move. They could invest less on the venture up front and use the individual schools to do a lot of the work for them. A significant portion of their retail business works that way already. They use affiliates in a variety of industries to feed products to them and Amazon acts as a traditional retailer...they just do everything online.
They are certainly producing scripted content for Amazon Prime, but maybe they find it useful to sign up schools with existing broadcasting infrastructure?