I've been thinking about the issues with the PAC 12's media model and that of the Big 12 as well. The root causes are well-documented and nothing new. Both of these leagues draw from limited audiences in a select few states.

In the past, I have championed the value of collective bargaining when it comes to dealing with TV networks. The more leverage you have when approaching your payer, the more money you're going to get. The weakness of college athletics as it pertains to obtaining a reasonable value from TV networks lies in the reality that leagues are competing against each other for exposure and dollars. Remove their competition with each other and you create a system where TV networks are competing with each other for your attention rather than the other way around.

For example, you don't have 5 versions of the NFL competing against each other. You don't have 5 professional basketball leagues competing against each other. You don't have 5 versions of MLB vying for TV time and dollars.

I think you could solve the problem to a significant degree if the major college leagues would combine their media rights and negotiate as one entity. The strength of collective bargaining is evident in the marketplace.

As I examine this idea further, one thing becomes clear when you look at the richest sports leagues in the country:

They span multiple regions to become a national league.

The premise is simple from there. A league that touches markets around the country garners the interest of fans around the country. If networks know they can garner a national audience when they purchase your content then they are willing to pay more for the right to do so.

Leagues or sports that don't appeal to a large percentage of the population from coast to coast simply don't bring down big money from TV networks. There's no reason to pay them, quite frankly. If you can't garner a national audience for companies that are trying to sell their product across the country then they have little reason to invest.

College football and college sports in general will have significant difficulties in the long term if the sport isn't nationalized.

We don't like that idea because we grew up in a world where regional leagues competed against each other for pride and supremacy. It will be short-sighted, however, to presume a game focused in a region or two will remain just as popular and therefore just as prosperous as a national game.

We have to be realistic and see the money in the game right now is based on larger national audiences. Even if certain regions contribute to that audience at a disproportionate rate, you'll find college sports effectively marketed in every region.

I don't necessarily have a structural answer to this problem, but one thing is clear:

Colleges cannot limit themselves to marketing within one region because TV networks have no motivation to pay national rates for a regional product. If college sports are the product then we have to create dynamics where that product can be sold in as many markets as possible.

(02-27-2020 10:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've been thinking about the issues with the PAC 12's media model and that of the Big 12 as well. The root causes are well-documented and nothing new. Both of these leagues draw from limited audiences in a select few states.

In the past, I have championed the value of collective bargaining when it comes to dealing with TV networks. The more leverage you have when approaching your payer, the more money you're going to get. The weakness of college athletics as it pertains to obtaining a reasonable value from TV networks lies in the reality that leagues are competing against each other for exposure and dollars. Remove their competition with each other and you create a system where TV networks are competing with each other for your attention rather than the other way around.

For example, you don't have 5 versions of the NFL competing against each other. You don't have 5 professional basketball leagues competing against each other. You don't have 5 versions of MLB vying for TV time and dollars.

I think you could solve the problem to a significant degree if the major college leagues would combine their media rights and negotiate as one entity. The strength of collective bargaining is evident in the marketplace.

As I examine this idea further, one thing becomes clear when you look at the richest sports leagues in the country:

They span multiple regions to become a national league.

The premise is simple from there. A league that touches markets around the country garners the interest of fans around the country. If networks know they can garner a national audience when they purchase your content then they are willing to pay more for the right to do so.

Leagues or sports that don't appeal to a large percentage of the population from coast to coast simply don't bring down big money from TV networks. There's no reason to pay them, quite frankly. If you can't garner a national audience for companies that are trying to sell their product across the country then they have little reason to invest.

College football and college sports in general will have significant difficulties in the long term if the sport isn't nationalized.

We don't like that idea because we grew up in a world where regional leagues competed against each other for pride and supremacy. It will be short-sighted, however, to presume a game focused in a region or two will remain just as popular and therefore just as prosperous as a national game.

We have to be realistic and see the money in the game right now is based on larger national audiences. Even if certain regions contribute to that audience at a disproportionate rate, you'll find college sports effectively marketed in every region.

I don't necessarily have a structural answer to this problem, but one thing is clear:

Colleges cannot limit themselves to marketing within one region because TV networks have no motivation to pay national rates for a regional product. If college sports are the product then we have to create dynamics where that product can be sold in as many markets as possible.

You may be standing so close to the idea that you don't recognize the potential of your own solution. You don't have to sacrifice regional scheduling to get national money. You just need a structure that produces your playoff participants and scheduling that crosses regional lines just enough in the regular season to raise that national interest.

So the answer is simple, bargain as one, but have 4 equally divided divisions set up to produce playoff participants. Rivalries that are maintained keep the tradition established fan bases would revolt over if lost, but then at least 3 non divisional games are played by every team every year, 1 against each of the other divisions. Play 9 games in your own division (think old conferences and the divisions could even keep the branding of the conferences), play your three out of division games, send the top non playoff teams to the bowls and have your playoff.

You see the only problem is not bargaining as a whole.

And what's more you don't have to sell all of your product to one network either. You can bid pieces of it out to increase exposure.

(02-28-2020 12:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2020 10:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've been thinking about the issues with the PAC 12's media model and that of the Big 12 as well. The root causes are well-documented and nothing new. Both of these leagues draw from limited audiences in a select few states.

In the past, I have championed the value of collective bargaining when it comes to dealing with TV networks. The more leverage you have when approaching your payer, the more money you're going to get. The weakness of college athletics as it pertains to obtaining a reasonable value from TV networks lies in the reality that leagues are competing against each other for exposure and dollars. Remove their competition with each other and you create a system where TV networks are competing with each other for your attention rather than the other way around.

For example, you don't have 5 versions of the NFL competing against each other. You don't have 5 professional basketball leagues competing against each other. You don't have 5 versions of MLB vying for TV time and dollars.

I think you could solve the problem to a significant degree if the major college leagues would combine their media rights and negotiate as one entity. The strength of collective bargaining is evident in the marketplace.

As I examine this idea further, one thing becomes clear when you look at the richest sports leagues in the country:

They span multiple regions to become a national league.

The premise is simple from there. A league that touches markets around the country garners the interest of fans around the country. If networks know they can garner a national audience when they purchase your content then they are willing to pay more for the right to do so.

Leagues or sports that don't appeal to a large percentage of the population from coast to coast simply don't bring down big money from TV networks. There's no reason to pay them, quite frankly. If you can't garner a national audience for companies that are trying to sell their product across the country then they have little reason to invest.

College football and college sports in general will have significant difficulties in the long term if the sport isn't nationalized.

We don't like that idea because we grew up in a world where regional leagues competed against each other for pride and supremacy. It will be short-sighted, however, to presume a game focused in a region or two will remain just as popular and therefore just as prosperous as a national game.

We have to be realistic and see the money in the game right now is based on larger national audiences. Even if certain regions contribute to that audience at a disproportionate rate, you'll find college sports effectively marketed in every region.

I don't necessarily have a structural answer to this problem, but one thing is clear:

Colleges cannot limit themselves to marketing within one region because TV networks have no motivation to pay national rates for a regional product. If college sports are the product then we have to create dynamics where that product can be sold in as many markets as possible.

You may be standing so close to the idea that you don't recognize the potential of your own solution. You don't have to sacrifice regional scheduling to get national money. You just need a structure that produces your playoff participants and scheduling that crosses regional lines just enough in the regular season to raise that national interest.

So the answer is simple, bargain as one, but have 4 equally divided divisions set up to produce playoff participants. Rivalries that are maintained keep the tradition established fan bases would revolt over if lost, but then at least 3 non divisional games are played by every team every year, 1 against each of the other divisions. Play 9 games in your own division (think old conferences and the divisions could even keep the branding of the conferences), play your three out of division games, send the top non playoff teams to the bowls and have your playoff.

You see the only problem is not bargaining as a whole.

I agree that's the main problem, but we will also need a mechanism that ensures a reasonable degree of parity across the nation.

Having equal participation in the CFP will help, but if the "Southern" representative, for example, keeps winning then the validity of teams in other regions will wane and with it a fair chunk of the fan support in those regions. That would be true regardless of which division the Southern rep came from.

It's true that the economics of fan support in the South helps our product tremendously, but we may all suffer in the end if fans in other regions have no local product that's relevant.

We don't want what was once a national game to become something akin to NASCAR.

(02-28-2020 12:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And what's more you don't have to sell all of your product to one network either. You can bid pieces of it out to increase exposure.

I agree. Negotiating as one entity will give us the power to pit networks against each other in more ways than one.

(02-28-2020 02:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 12:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2020 10:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've been thinking about the issues with the PAC 12's media model and that of the Big 12 as well. The root causes are well-documented and nothing new. Both of these leagues draw from limited audiences in a select few states.

In the past, I have championed the value of collective bargaining when it comes to dealing with TV networks. The more leverage you have when approaching your payer, the more money you're going to get. The weakness of college athletics as it pertains to obtaining a reasonable value from TV networks lies in the reality that leagues are competing against each other for exposure and dollars. Remove their competition with each other and you create a system where TV networks are competing with each other for your attention rather than the other way around.

For example, you don't have 5 versions of the NFL competing against each other. You don't have 5 professional basketball leagues competing against each other. You don't have 5 versions of MLB vying for TV time and dollars.

I think you could solve the problem to a significant degree if the major college leagues would combine their media rights and negotiate as one entity. The strength of collective bargaining is evident in the marketplace.

As I examine this idea further, one thing becomes clear when you look at the richest sports leagues in the country:

They span multiple regions to become a national league.

The premise is simple from there. A league that touches markets around the country garners the interest of fans around the country. If networks know they can garner a national audience when they purchase your content then they are willing to pay more for the right to do so.

Leagues or sports that don't appeal to a large percentage of the population from coast to coast simply don't bring down big money from TV networks. There's no reason to pay them, quite frankly. If you can't garner a national audience for companies that are trying to sell their product across the country then they have little reason to invest.

College football and college sports in general will have significant difficulties in the long term if the sport isn't nationalized.

We don't like that idea because we grew up in a world where regional leagues competed against each other for pride and supremacy. It will be short-sighted, however, to presume a game focused in a region or two will remain just as popular and therefore just as prosperous as a national game.

We have to be realistic and see the money in the game right now is based on larger national audiences. Even if certain regions contribute to that audience at a disproportionate rate, you'll find college sports effectively marketed in every region.

I don't necessarily have a structural answer to this problem, but one thing is clear:

Colleges cannot limit themselves to marketing within one region because TV networks have no motivation to pay national rates for a regional product. If college sports are the product then we have to create dynamics where that product can be sold in as many markets as possible.

You may be standing so close to the idea that you don't recognize the potential of your own solution. You don't have to sacrifice regional scheduling to get national money. You just need a structure that produces your playoff participants and scheduling that crosses regional lines just enough in the regular season to raise that national interest.

So the answer is simple, bargain as one, but have 4 equally divided divisions set up to produce playoff participants. Rivalries that are maintained keep the tradition established fan bases would revolt over if lost, but then at least 3 non divisional games are played by every team every year, 1 against each of the other divisions. Play 9 games in your own division (think old conferences and the divisions could even keep the branding of the conferences), play your three out of division games, send the top non playoff teams to the bowls and have your playoff.

You see the only problem is not bargaining as a whole.

I agree that's the main problem, but we will also need a mechanism that ensures a reasonable degree of parity across the nation.

Having equal participation in the CFP will help, but if the "Southern" representative, for example, keeps winning then the validity of teams in other regions will wane and with it a fair chunk of the fan support in those regions. That would be true regardless of which division the Southern rep came from.

It's true that the economics of fan support in the South helps our product tremendously, but we may all suffer in the end if fans in other regions have no local product that's relevant.

We don't want what was once a national game to become something akin to NASCAR.

(02-28-2020 12:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And what's more you don't have to sell all of your product to one network either. You can bid pieces of it out to increase exposure.

I agree. Negotiating as one entity will give us the power to pit networks against each other in more ways than one.

I have said on this board many times that even for the B1G & SEC to make the most over the long term this needs to happen. It might not generate the most revenue for those leagues the next tv contract but to long term to maximize the sport its best because it will grow the overall pie the most.