I think if anybody moves first it's the Big10.

There is a little inside track for them if they do.

If the Big10 poaches two teams from the Big12 the conference is almost certain to collapse. If the Big10 were to take Kansas and Oklahoma suddenly the scenario works entirely in their favour.

Such a scenario would essentially cut every other conference out of getting anything they really wanted.

The PAC wants a package, that's off the table now. Texas is likely to bolt on their own since the package deal with Oklahoma and others is now dead. Texas Tech is the mostly likely come-a-long there for the PAC to keep things even, although BYU may also be a target at which point Texas and BYU make it the PAC-14.

Alternatively, Texas bolts east to the ACC, which could be a great move for them and an act that would guarantee the ACC's survival and actually put them in a major position of strength.

The Big10 or course scores one of the biggest names in basketball and football while adding serious markets and tapping into a whole new revenue stream. It almost doesn't get any better for them from a business standpoint.

The SEC gets left out in the cold because our favorite targets would remain safe over in the ACC which is now better than merely alive. The remnants of the Big12 aren't real targets for us. Such a move would effectively isolate the SEC. The only possible additions would be Tech and WVU, which the SEC has shown zero interest in and are also teams that don't really fit the dynamic.

If the other conferences wanted to curtail the SEC's dominance that wouldn't be a bad way to start.

I doubt that the B1G could pull that off right now. Unless and until KSU and OSU have safe landing spots prepared for them, I think it'd be hard for KU and OU to move unilaterally. Since it would also preclude combinations that other conferences would find attractive to take them off the table, I don't know if other conferences would make the necessary moves to void the GoR.

Actually, while I haven't had much time to stop and think about this whole exercise, in what little thought I've given to it I'm finding it hard to parse things out in a way that would make everyone happy enough to do something prior to the expiration of the GoR.

(02-07-2014 04:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I doubt that the B1G could pull that off right now. Unless and until KSU and OSU have safe landing spots prepared for them, I think it'd be hard for KU and OU to move unilaterally. Since it would also preclude combinations that other conferences would find attractive to take them off the table, I don't know if other conferences would make the necessary moves to void the GoR.

Actually, while I haven't had much time to stop and think about this whole exercise, in what little thought I've given to it I'm finding it hard to parse things out in a way that would make everyone happy enough to do something prior to the expiration of the GoR.

I think what you just said, from the financial standpoint, is why the most likely conference to draw first blood is the Big10, who is most likely to soak up the financial consequences.

(02-07-2014 04:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I doubt that the B1G could pull that off right now. Unless and until KSU and OSU have safe landing spots prepared for them, I think it'd be hard for KU and OU to move unilaterally. Since it would also preclude combinations that other conferences would find attractive to take them off the table, I don't know if other conferences would make the necessary moves to void the GoR.

Actually, while I haven't had much time to stop and think about this whole exercise, in what little thought I've given to it I'm finding it hard to parse things out in a way that would make everyone happy enough to do something prior to the expiration of the GoR.

Without PAC participation I think waiting out the GOR is a foregone conclusion. The only other way around it would be for the ACC and SEC to move to 18 a piece. I think what you will see is the networks dig in their heels until the remaining buyout of the GOR is reasonable, say 5 or 6 years. And then, I expect the product to shake out according to network contract obligations. Fox has Oklahoma T3 at about 7 million a year and ESPN has Kansas T3 at about the same. Those two could hold form or get swapped. I feel confident that Texas will wind up in an ESPN controlled conference and one of the two others. The buyouts on the remaining schools T3 rights is negligible by comparison.

Now the other work around is fairly simple. Any moving school makes 50% more in their new conference so they live off of that plus the difference between the Big 12's payout and their new payout. They surrender their home game income at the rate of the Big 12. The Big 12 still has to pay them and they pick up the difference. This works especially if the networks reward those left behind at full contract. Exit fees are owed and the Big 12's level of compensation for the home games and the move happens anyway.

(02-07-2014 01:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The whole expansion game is pure speculation and guesswork. It's hardly anything to be upset about, as H1 and X see, to be.

Wait just a minute! Is it a good thing or a bad thing to be lumped in with H1?

It's always a good thing bro, always. Even when people don't mean it as a compliment, it's a compliment. Trust me.

(02-07-2014 04:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I doubt that the B1G could pull that off right now. Unless and until KSU and OSU have safe landing spots prepared for them, I think it'd be hard for KU and OU to move unilaterally. Since it would also preclude combinations that other conferences would find attractive to take them off the table, I don't know if other conferences would make the necessary moves to void the GoR.

Actually, while I haven't had much time to stop and think about this whole exercise, in what little thought I've given to it I'm finding it hard to parse things out in a way that would make everyone happy enough to do something prior to the expiration of the GoR.

You're right. Most realignment discussions are meaningless until the GORs near expiration. The GORs are solid legally and will be a huge obstacle to moves before expiration. The exception would be something on the order of a conference voting to dissolve, which would effectively end the GOR for that conference. But no dissolution vote would pass unless a sufficient number of conference members (8 of 10 in the Big 12's case, for example) found acceptable landing spots.

(02-08-2014 02:03 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 04:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I doubt that the B1G could pull that off right now. Unless and until KSU and OSU have safe landing spots prepared for them, I think it'd be hard for KU and OU to move unilaterally. Since it would also preclude combinations that other conferences would find attractive to take them off the table, I don't know if other conferences would make the necessary moves to void the GoR.

Actually, while I haven't had much time to stop and think about this whole exercise, in what little thought I've given to it I'm finding it hard to parse things out in a way that would make everyone happy enough to do something prior to the expiration of the GoR.

You're right. Most realignment discussions are meaningless until the GORs near expiration. The GORs are solid legally and will be a huge obstacle to moves before expiration. The exception would be something on the order of a conference voting to dissolve, which would effectively end the GOR for that conference. But no dissolution vote would pass unless a sufficient number of conference members (8 of 10 in the Big 12's case, for example) found acceptable landing spots.

I honestly doubt it would happen without landing spots for all of the schools. The leaving behind of one or two schools would be VERY costly for those schools and signing a contract like the GoR to only go and dissolve the conference itself a couple years later would open up those schools left behind to proceeding with some very sizeable litigation against those that left them behind.

Homes would have to be found for all.

It only takes 8 to dissolve the conference and end the GOR. There would be no lawsuits that would be successful because the terms are clearly set forth in the Big 12 bylaws for the necessary steps to dissolve. So I do not adhere to the must find homes for all 10 way of thinking from a legal perspective. Now for the purposes of keeping cordial relations perhaps they might feel that all 10 needed homes. But seriously I don't think that T.C.U.'s quick and unexpected upgrade to P5 necessarily means that they should automatically merit a spot over a Connecticut, or Cincinnati, or over B.Y.U. if they could settle issues with the PAC. Baylor, West Virginia, Iowa State, Texas Tech and Kansas State are an entirely different matter and all should be found homes.

If the PAC fails to take them and the networks were willing to pay for their inclusion then another conference or perhaps two should be permitted to accommodate them and move to 18.

There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

(02-13-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

(02-13-2014 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

Kansas State and Kansas as a pair are not a good add for anyone, unfortunately. The market is just to small and KU dominates the KC media market. Adding KSU along with Kansas just gives nothing to a conference except another mouth to feed. KSU's value lies in being a new market to a conference with a network like the PAC or ACC (if they get one), IMO. B1G is not an option for KSU due to B1G academic requirements and the SEC already has MU who has a similar number of alums as KSU in KC (KU has more than both combined). Having MU actually detracts from both Kansas schools value to the SEC, as far as markets are concerned, due to MU's presence in the KC media market; however, Kansas helps you get great BB match-ups for ESPN and the conference network that will draw eyes nationally as a blue blood BB program to help offset this. KSU is probably the least valuable B12 public school that could be added to the SEC because of MU and KU having such strong presences in KC.

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

Kansas State and Kansas as a pair are not a good add for anyone, unfortunately. The market is just to small and KU dominates the KC media market. Adding KSU along with Kansas just gives nothing to a conference except another mouth to feed. KSU's value lies in being a new market to a conference with a network like the PAC or ACC (if they get one), IMO. B1G is not an option for KSU due to B1G academic requirements and the SEC already has MU who has a similar number of alums as KSU in KC (KU has more than both combined). Having MU actually detracts from both Kansas schools value to the SEC, as far as markets are concerned, due to MU's presence in the KC media market; however, Kansas helps you get great BB match-ups for ESPN and the conference network that will draw eyes nationally as a blue blood BB program to help offset this. KSU is probably the least valuable B12 public school that could be added to the SEC because of MU and KU having such strong presences in KC.

It's why I had them originally in the ACC portion of the divide. But that said the division of the Big 12 between any two conferences leads to duplication. The motive however for doing it is the elimination of the fifth share of the playoff money, the acquisition of Big 12 bowl contracts, the added content for networks, and the achieving of the 8 necessary votes. Added all up if the networks do nothing else but provide the baseline of their present payout the rest is easily covered. Especially if you are really only duplicating 1 market and landing any kind of national brand in the process.

(02-13-2014 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

Kansas State and Kansas as a pair are not a good add for anyone, unfortunately. The market is just to small and KU dominates the KC media market. Adding KSU along with Kansas just gives nothing to a conference except another mouth to feed. KSU's value lies in being a new market to a conference with a network like the PAC or ACC (if they get one), IMO. B1G is not an option for KSU due to B1G academic requirements and the SEC already has MU who has a similar number of alums as KSU in KC (KU has more than both combined). Having MU actually detracts from both Kansas schools value to the SEC, as far as markets are concerned, due to MU's presence in the KC media market; however, Kansas helps you get great BB match-ups for ESPN and the conference network that will draw eyes nationally as a blue blood BB program to help offset this. KSU is probably the least valuable B12 public school that could be added to the SEC because of MU and KU having such strong presences in KC.

It's why I had them originally in the ACC portion of the divide. But that said the division of the Big 12 between any two conferences leads to duplication. The motive however for doing it is the elimination of the fifth share of the playoff money, the acquisition of Big 12 bowl contracts, the added content for networks, and the achieving of the 8 necessary votes. Added all up if the networks do nothing else but provide the baseline of their present payout the rest is easily covered. Especially if you are really only duplicating 1 market and landing any kind of national brand in the process.

Agree. More consolidation gives the remaining conferences more power in future TV deals as fewer sources for quality content are available. In the end that is driving this to a large extent. That is why eventually I see all the surviving conferences working together in a new association and negotiating like the NFL does. They will get much more money if they can work together and give the networks only one source for all their college sports content while splitting up that content among multiple networks.

(02-13-2014 10:59 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

Kansas State and Kansas as a pair are not a good add for anyone, unfortunately. The market is just to small and KU dominates the KC media market. Adding KSU along with Kansas just gives nothing to a conference except another mouth to feed. KSU's value lies in being a new market to a conference with a network like the PAC or ACC (if they get one), IMO. B1G is not an option for KSU due to B1G academic requirements and the SEC already has MU who has a similar number of alums as KSU in KC (KU has more than both combined). Having MU actually detracts from both Kansas schools value to the SEC, as far as markets are concerned, due to MU's presence in the KC media market; however, Kansas helps you get great BB match-ups for ESPN and the conference network that will draw eyes nationally as a blue blood BB program to help offset this. KSU is probably the least valuable B12 public school that could be added to the SEC because of MU and KU having such strong presences in KC.

It's why I had them originally in the ACC portion of the divide. But that said the division of the Big 12 between any two conferences leads to duplication. The motive however for doing it is the elimination of the fifth share of the playoff money, the acquisition of Big 12 bowl contracts, the added content for networks, and the achieving of the 8 necessary votes. Added all up if the networks do nothing else but provide the baseline of their present payout the rest is easily covered. Especially if you are really only duplicating 1 market and landing any kind of national brand in the process.

Agree. More consolidation gives the remaining conferences more power in future TV deals as fewer sources for quality content are available. In the end that is driving this to a large extent. That is why eventually I see all the surviving conferences working together in a new association and negotiating like the NFL does. They will get much more money if they can work together and give the networks only one source for all their college sports content while splitting up that content among multiple networks.

Absolutely, and then we could derive decent television revenue from the basketball tournament and some from baseball as well.

(02-13-2014 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is another business angle to consider. ESPN is in a unique position to create value for their total product line by encouraging movement. The LHN would be worth much much more as an ACCN in an ACC that included Texas than it will ever be worth as just the LHN in a conference where Texas only has two or three real competitors and in which there is only 1 compelling match up. The revenue that ESPN could derive from a Texas home game against Notre Dame would be significant. Conference games against North Carolina, Miami, F.S.U., Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be excellent as well. If Texas played Oklahoma in a crossover game then every other year the ACCN or ACC would reap the RRR profit on that one too.

There are too many profitable considerations here for ESPN to permit Texas to stay in the Big 12 until the GOR expires, because at that point the risk of losing them entirely as a product increases significantly.

Let's assume for the moment that the SEC lands Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The SEC picks up 8 million viewers for the SECN, two AAU schools, one national brand in hoops and one in football, and 4 more quality basketball programs.

With Texas as a hybrid and fully under contract to them, the ACC picks up Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and West Virginia. The ACC picks up the top national brand, 5 competitive football schools, two strong basketball programs and 3 more competitive basketball programs. The extra cost to ESPN to maintain control of Texas and the other properties is about 50 million a year (or the half of the total figure that they were being paid in the Big 12 which amounts to FOX's share), a figure that could be dwarfed by a successful ACCN marketed to 30 million more homes than the present footprint.

With Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC the amount that ESPN would be paying out in initial expense would be about 20 million per team over an above the their present share of the Big 12 contract. And once again the SECN with Kansas, Oklahoma, and better basketball should be worth at least the cost of the four schools inclusion.

We are talking about an initial outlay of 130 million for programming that would save them their investment in the LHN and monetize the product of the ACC like never before. And in the world of television production the total expenditure is still way lower for popular programming than other network endeavors in entertainment would cost.

FOX can't really make or monetize this kind of move. They don't own the PAC and have only a 51% ownership of the BTN. ESPN alone is in a position by dissolving the Big 12 and relocating 9 of those schools in the SEC and in the ACC to better round the SEC product, and to vastly improve the ACC, a move that brings the ACC's earnings in line with the Big 10 for the foreseeable future and eliminates the threat of poaching that remains as long as the ACC product is significantly less valued than that of the Big 10.

It makes no business sense to leave the product of the Big 12, which does have an avid following, and that of the ACC, which has the best market footprint, both either impaired in ability to grow into competition economically, or lacking the compelling content to do so, hanging in the balance for 12 years while their competition figures out ways to lure them away after the expiration of present contracts. If the short term outlay bothers ESPN then all they have to do is simply to make this final move, renegotiate both the SEC and ACC contract, and renew the duration of the contract for 25 years, with with incentives in place, to essentially lock down the best property for both money sports and baseball long enough to thwart the risk from FOX. Pieces of the Big 12 enhance significantly the ACC and enhance the total quality of the SEC. And since ESPN is the only of the two networks in the position to enhance their own profits by dissolving the Big 12, I have to wonder when they do it.

Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

Kansas State and Kansas as a pair are not a good add for anyone, unfortunately. The market is just to small and KU dominates the KC media market. Adding KSU along with Kansas just gives nothing to a conference except another mouth to feed. KSU's value lies in being a new market to a conference with a network like the PAC or ACC (if they get one), IMO. B1G is not an option for KSU due to B1G academic requirements and the SEC already has MU who has a similar number of alums as KSU in KC (KU has more than both combined). Having MU actually detracts from both Kansas schools value to the SEC, as far as markets are concerned, due to MU's presence in the KC media market; however, Kansas helps you get great BB match-ups for ESPN and the conference network that will draw eyes nationally as a blue blood BB program to help offset this. KSU is probably the least valuable B12 public school that could be added to the SEC because of MU and KU having such strong presences in KC.

It's why I had them originally in the ACC portion of the divide. But that said the division of the Big 12 between any two conferences leads to duplication. The motive however for doing it is the elimination of the fifth share of the playoff money, the acquisition of Big 12 bowl contracts, the added content for networks, and the achieving of the 8 necessary votes. Added all up if the networks do nothing else but provide the baseline of their present payout the rest is easily covered. Especially if you are really only duplicating 1 market and landing any kind of national brand in the process.

JR-
Elimination of the 5th share of the playoff money...?
If in theory you divide the Big 12 and every team ends up with a home (that is to say all 65 teams end up in a P5/P4 conference) how will that actually increase the per team payout? You are still dividing the same amount of money between the same number of teams.

(02-14-2014 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  Would it make sense to swap Kansas State and Oklahoma State?
As it is now, Kansas State is an island, with the swap the ACC pod would be contiguous.

The issue with that is not my issue it is the issue of the OU/OSU/UT arrangement. In that deal OU and UT can be together, OU and OSU can be together, but OSU and UT cannot be together and allow OU to play both UT and OSU with only utilizing 1 OOC game. Since the SEC is economically not as advantaged with this workaround I would think that OU would not be negotiable. They would, in the scenario be the most valuable of the four suggested and would make both Oklahoma State and Iowa State's inclusion possible.

The issue is Iowa State has 3.5 million potential viewers, but is physically only connected to Missouri so if including them the SEC would be the only conference outside of the Big 10 that could give them a home and possibly make it pay. Their attendance, and academics and agricultural fit are all pluses, as is basketball, but that's about it. Kansas isn't going for the SEC offer unless KState is taken care of. The geographical break between Texas and Kansas is not that great and barely much through Oklahoma's panhandle area. So for Texas Tech and T.C.U. not much of an issue. I think that this option is probably as close as we get without having the difficulty of a swap.

Kansas State and Kansas as a pair are not a good add for anyone, unfortunately. The market is just to small and KU dominates the KC media market. Adding KSU along with Kansas just gives nothing to a conference except another mouth to feed. KSU's value lies in being a new market to a conference with a network like the PAC or ACC (if they get one), IMO. B1G is not an option for KSU due to B1G academic requirements and the SEC already has MU who has a similar number of alums as KSU in KC (KU has more than both combined). Having MU actually detracts from both Kansas schools value to the SEC, as far as markets are concerned, due to MU's presence in the KC media market; however, Kansas helps you get great BB match-ups for ESPN and the conference network that will draw eyes nationally as a blue blood BB program to help offset this. KSU is probably the least valuable B12 public school that could be added to the SEC because of MU and KU having such strong presences in KC.

It's why I had them originally in the ACC portion of the divide. But that said the division of the Big 12 between any two conferences leads to duplication. The motive however for doing it is the elimination of the fifth share of the playoff money, the acquisition of Big 12 bowl contracts, the added content for networks, and the achieving of the 8 necessary votes. Added all up if the networks do nothing else but provide the baseline of their present payout the rest is easily covered. Especially if you are really only duplicating 1 market and landing any kind of national brand in the process.

JR-
Elimination of the 5th share of the playoff money...?
If in theory you divide the Big 12 and every team ends up with a home (that is to say all 65 teams end up in a P5/P4 conference) how will that actually increase the per team payout? You are still dividing the same amount of money between the same number of teams.

Because XLance playoff money is divided among conferences not teams. A 1/5th share is estimated to be about 95.7 million. Divide that by 4 conferences and then by the number of teams in each conference and in a 20 team SEC or ACC that still comes out as an additional 1.2 million per school in your conference more than what they were making already. Then you get the extra bowl slot revenue and any additional market or content boost. All ESPN has to do to make this kind of workaround fly is to agree to pay all departing Big 12 members the base income of the conference they are going to. The other items will take care of the rest. Any way you slice it its still a great buy for ESPN. Now the general cut for the revenue would be much higher per team per conference if the teams were parsed out evenly. But it is what it is.

For instance if the ACC, SEC, and Big 10 each only moved to 16 then 95.7 divided by 4 divided by 16 would come to about 1.5 million more per team. One reason the PAC may be content to not add anyone is that if the ACC, SEC and Big 10 take enough Big 12 schools to dissolve the conference the PAC's per team increase from their share would be almost 2 million per team. So additional teams have to be worth more than the $100,000 or so they would cost each member team to be worth the addition. Most, but not all, teams would be worth that.