(11-23-2020 08:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say the SEC gets Texas and Oklahoma (with or without Oklahoma St and Texas Tech)

What does that do to the rest of college football? can the other 3 major conferences keep up if the SEC is making vastly more in tv rights? How does a 4 team playoff work when you have a super conference that might have 2 or even 3 legitimate candidates for the field?

How is that different than the state of affairs now? Does 2017 ring a bell?

(11-23-2020 09:03 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 08:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say the SEC gets Texas and Oklahoma (with or without Oklahoma St and Texas Tech)

What does that do to the rest of college football? can the other 3 major conferences keep up if the SEC is making vastly more in tv rights? How does a 4 team playoff work when you have a super conference that might have 2 or even 3 legitimate candidates for the field?

How is that different than the state of affairs now? Does 2017 ring a bell?

The Big 10’s finances are comparable to the SEC’s. Add those 2 powerhouses and the SEC ends up light years ahead of the field

(11-23-2020 09:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 09:03 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 08:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say the SEC gets Texas and Oklahoma (with or without Oklahoma St and Texas Tech)

What does that do to the rest of college football? can the other 3 major conferences keep up if the SEC is making vastly more in tv rights? How does a 4 team playoff work when you have a super conference that might have 2 or even 3 legitimate candidates for the field?

How is that different than the state of affairs now? Does 2017 ring a bell?

The Big 10’s finances are comparable to the SEC’s. Add those 2 powerhouses and the SEC ends up light years ahead of the field

Muskie herein lies the issue that network execs will have to deal with moving forward. They want to concentrate brands for audience strength. But they can't afford to alienate audiences. So if they want to concentrate branding they probably can't afford to add too many to either the SEC or Big 10 or they risk winding up with only two conferences of interest. Toss in any fox agenda vs ESPN agenda and it doesn't look promising. Use Texas and Oklahoma to siphon off the best brands of the PAC and it could if Fox and ESPN split the rights to the PAC/B12 rights.

However if they don't the competition for Texas favors ESPN and Oklahoma may well go with them since the FOX RSN's are no more. That favors the SEC picking up both.

Now consider another scenario. FOX abandons their desire for college athletics and concentrates heavily on Pro contracts and ESPN picks up the remaining Big 10 rights and all of the Big 12 rights. Now they are positioned to cull the upper tier and to shape the conferences competitively. Here is where keeping the pay low for the ACC and PAC comes into play. Motivation exists for both to consider moves.

A 3 x 20 makes sense or even a 3 x 18 as the moves can be used to connect the 3 remaining conferences to the richest recruiting fields while keeping all areas of the country involved.

Merge the PAC with the Big 12 and the ACC with both the SEC and Big 10. Now you have enough football brands in the SEC to enhance value without giving them dominance, you have the key West Coast schools tied into better markets so you can keep them engaged and you give the Big 10 recruiting presence to at least North Carolina if not Georgia.

But this only works if ESPN is in soul control.

So until we know the disposition of the next round of contracts and how much they are for and who it is that holds the rights there are no definitive answers. But since ESPN holds the bowls and the CFP I look for them to go all out for the upper tier rights, to use the Big 12 to land the solid PAC brands, and for the Big 10 and SEC to be enhanced out of the ACC. We'll see.

Personally I find more value in 3 x 18 and like the set up better than in a 4 x 20. I also don't look for any movement out of the SEC or Big 10 although a move in the courts to pay for play might change things there as well.

There's a lot more change coming and by 2023 we should know a lot more than we do today.

One thing to consider though is, once ESPN has bought up all the rights and then consolidated their inventory into 3 mega-conferences, ESPN is going to artificially keep the market price down.

The P5 need Fox to stay in the game to keep the rights prices up.

I tend to see things moving towards a Fox (Big Ten, PAC 12) and ESPN (SEC, ACC) orientation. Both networks have a high dollar and a discount conference. I could be totally wrong on this and underestimating ESPN’s willingness to commit to several big contracts in 2024 while they reshuffle the deck, merge properties, and drop some less valuable brands.

ESPN’s relationship with Texas increases the chances that Texas plays in an ESPN conference in 2025.

What about the possibility of a conference going rogue and expanding without the blessing of their media partner?

(11-23-2020 11:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  One thing to consider though is, once ESPN has bought up all the rights and then consolidated their inventory into 3 mega-conferences, ESPN is going to artificially keep the market price down.

The P5 need Fox to stay in the game to keep the rights prices up.

I tend to see things moving towards a Fox (Big Ten, PAC 12) and ESPN (SEC, ACC) orientation. Both networks have a high dollar and a discount conference. I could be totally wrong on this and underestimating ESPN’s willingness to commit to several big contracts in 2024 while they reshuffle the deck, merge properties, and drop some less valuable brands.

ESPN’s relationship with Texas increases the chances that Texas plays in an ESPN conference in 2025.

What about the possibility of a conference going rogue and expanding without the blessing of their media partner?

The SEC's new contract will take them to 68 million at the least. The rights values in three conferences go up, not down. If ESPN owns them all then they will expire at roughly the same time. By then Disney will likely have jettisoned ESPN and who knows what streaming companies may enter the fray. It's not downhill from here on anything but high school football recruits. The decline in the sport is at the grass roots level and mostly due to CTE's. In the South and Southwest this is not the cultural phenomenon it is along the coasts and in the Northwest. And this is why tying the Big 10 and PAC to the SWest and SEast is so crucial to the survival of the game and its competitiveness.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

This would be a nice balance. But if we needed to move to 20 maybe something more like this:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Texas Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Christian
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Something like this for 20 makes those regions a bit broader in reach.

Debatable issues might be Miami for West Virginia but if a private drops down our out that works itself out.

(11-23-2020 07:36 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 07:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 03:18 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 02:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SEC is hands down the most profitable option for Texas:

Annual games with TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas would all be instant classics

If they can maintain Oklahoma as an OOC game that means at least 6 and as many as 9 games per year in Texas. (4 home conference games, @TTU or TAMU, vs Oklahoma, and then 3 OOC games either at home or @ another Texas school like Rice, Baylor, or TCU)

What makes Texas to the SEC problematic is that Texas won’t be the one calling the shots and Austin isn’t comfortable with that just yet but money talks and the SEC has a lot of it.

It remains to be known if the networks are going to keep overpaying for T1 Big 12 content.

Or if the SEC adds Oklahoma along with Texas...

Assuming they keep 8 home games and Oklahoma/Texas counts as a conference game then either Texas will have 4 home games in Austin or 3 home games in Austin and 1 in Dallas. In the years they have 4 home games in Austin, they play Oklahoma in Dallas (it would be considered Oklahoma's "home" game). In the years they are the "home" team for the RRR, they can arrange to be at Texas A&M. This would guarantee them five SEC games in Texas every year. Then they can play three of their four non conference games in Austin or other state venues (San Antonio, Dallas, Houston) and still be able to travel to one out of state non conference game a season so they can get a big non conference game with maybe an Ohio State once in a while. That would allow UT to play eight games in the state of Texas every season (nine if they don't play an OOC game outside of Texas in a season).

It seems like no one else here at CSNBBS other than me wants the SEC to add both Oklahoma AND Texas, it's either one or the other.

https://new-cdn.mamamia.com.au/mamamia-p...803473.jpg

Both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC? .......Ain't gonna happen!

Why not? Would Texas and Oklahoma not want to be in the same conference? They are now. Would the SEC not want to add both teams because it would be too strong? If ESPN (or another network(s)) give them enough $$$$, the SEC's arms could be twisted in the other direction.

Right now ESPN is in a vulnerable position.
The network is in a real position of being jettisoned by Disney as they attempt to shed overhead and remain profitable. Their model is flawed and unfortunately for all of collegiate athletics the biggest game in town. Instead of broadcasting sports at the college level, ESPN has become the promoter/producer of college sports on TV, paying schools like they were professional teams, and unfortunately greedy administrators let them manipulate their athletic departments to help supplement their costs.
The problem is that ESPN has fewer dollars to spend and lots of mouths to feed. So far their strategy appears to be to pay more for fewer mouths. The problem with this move is that if they can't keep some regional balance in the marketplace, they will loose national appeal.
ESPN can't allow both Texas and Oklahoma to move to the SEC or the B1G as a unit for fear of making one conference too strong and alienating their largest pool of casual viewers.

(11-24-2020 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 07:36 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 07:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 03:18 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 02:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SEC is hands down the most profitable option for Texas:

Annual games with TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas would all be instant classics

If they can maintain Oklahoma as an OOC game that means at least 6 and as many as 9 games per year in Texas. (4 home conference games, @TTU or TAMU, vs Oklahoma, and then 3 OOC games either at home or @ another Texas school like Rice, Baylor, or TCU)

What makes Texas to the SEC problematic is that Texas won’t be the one calling the shots and Austin isn’t comfortable with that just yet but money talks and the SEC has a lot of it.

It remains to be known if the networks are going to keep overpaying for T1 Big 12 content.

Or if the SEC adds Oklahoma along with Texas...

Assuming they keep 8 home games and Oklahoma/Texas counts as a conference game then either Texas will have 4 home games in Austin or 3 home games in Austin and 1 in Dallas. In the years they have 4 home games in Austin, they play Oklahoma in Dallas (it would be considered Oklahoma's "home" game). In the years they are the "home" team for the RRR, they can arrange to be at Texas A&M. This would guarantee them five SEC games in Texas every year. Then they can play three of their four non conference games in Austin or other state venues (San Antonio, Dallas, Houston) and still be able to travel to one out of state non conference game a season so they can get a big non conference game with maybe an Ohio State once in a while. That would allow UT to play eight games in the state of Texas every season (nine if they don't play an OOC game outside of Texas in a season).

It seems like no one else here at CSNBBS other than me wants the SEC to add both Oklahoma AND Texas, it's either one or the other.

https://new-cdn.mamamia.com.au/mamamia-p...803473.jpg

Both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC? .......Ain't gonna happen!

Why not? Would Texas and Oklahoma not want to be in the same conference? They are now. Would the SEC not want to add both teams because it would be too strong? If ESPN (or another network(s)) give them enough $$$$, the SEC's arms could be twisted in the other direction.

Right now ESPN is in a vulnerable position.
The network is in a real position of being jettisoned by Disney as they attempt to shed overhead and remain profitable. Their model is flawed and unfortunately for all of collegiate athletics the biggest game in town. Instead of broadcasting sports at the college level, ESPN has become the promoter/producer of college sports on TV, paying schools like they were professional teams, and unfortunately greedy administrators let them manipulate their athletic departments to help supplement their costs.
The problem is that ESPN has fewer dollars to spend and lots of mouths to feed. So far their strategy appears to be to pay more for fewer mouths. The problem with this move is that if they can't keep some regional balance in the marketplace, they will loose national appeal.
ESPN can't allow both Texas and Oklahoma to move to the SEC or the B1G as a unit for fear of making one conference too strong and alienating their largest pool of casual viewers.

Your analysis isn't off but your depth perception is. Disney isn't getting out of sports broadcasting. Sooner or later the Mouse will figure out the streaming business and all of that overpaid talking head crowd at ESPN will go along with Bristol most likely. Disney will retain the rights and likely broaden them. They'll figure out that since ESPN encouraged every campus to build production facilities and since every fan base loves their local announcers that they can add more zing to the games by allowing the campuses to produce their own games and their announcers to call them. All of that is footed by the school. Controlling College football and it's bowls and playoffs is in their best interest. It is pay for play that still stands to damage college athletics more than anything else on the horizon.

What Disney likely will adopt from ESPN are the rights packages and the desire to group the product in complimentary ways to enhance national audience. I think conferences will be maintained as regional brands provided they produce the viewership in sufficient numbers within their own regions. The PAC does not and the ACC lags. The conundrum is that while the ACC has more total viewers than the Big 12 the Big 12 has a higher % of viewers within their region especially in Texas and Oklahoma.

So the questions to be resolved is whether there is any regional appeal to adding PAC schools to the Big 12 or vice versa, or whether the best approach is to let the cheese stand alone (PAC) since its audience participation is so rotten both in terms of actual viewership and in % of total possible viewers. If that is the solution then the PAC will continue to slip versus the other P4 in terms of revenue, but the Big 12 can be used to bolster both the SEC and Big 10. The problem there again is that it relegates the ACC to an inferior position relative those two.

And none of that solves the long term issue of recruiting when most of the nation is suffering a decline in the number of boys playing football in high school, except for in the Deep South and Texas and Oklahoma and a few states in the Northern Midwest.

But remember this. Without a healthy college football program to draw from how long does that precious cash cow called the NFL last?

For that reason alone college football will be with us for quite sometime and while participation by the middle class has dropped it is still the brass ring to be grabbed for a lot of poor kids.

But because of where it is culturally popular tying the Big 10 and northern Big 12, and PAC if it is even feasible into the key recruiting grounds will become essential to its survival in popularity throughout the country. What we are seeing as the biggest risk to the game these past 20 years is that it is truly becoming just a regional sport. From Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio South it is played and relevant. From Nebraska and Colorado south it is played but loosing relevance and that sentiment engulfs the whole Pacific West. It is only played at a highly competitive rate from South Carolina and Tennessee south and the champions have predominantly been coming from South Carolina, Alabama and Florida with Ohio State asserting itself about once a decade. Oklahoma and Texas could get back into that mix.

My point here X is that if it becomes a regional game then Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC makes the most sense and the only sense. In fact it could be argued that if the SEC expanded by 6 teams you could hold the championships within one conference. Clemson, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State and possibly Penn State would round out a 20 school league that has produced football at sustained levels of play and with sufficient followings to merit even higher ticket prices and cable packages without the overhead of trying to prop up the rest of the nation.

There is a reason that Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana State, Clemson and Florida State, along with Ohio State have won big. It's because those are where the recruits are and Ohio produces recruits and Ohio State recruits the Southeast. And frankly if the state of Texas wasn't trying to support 5P schools and 2 more in the AAC then UT and A&M would have a lot more talent headed their way as would Oklahoma. Right now you have 9 college programs trying to thrive out of 2 states. North Carolina or North Carolina State would field competitive teams if there weren't 5 schools drawing out of North Carolina.

If ESPN gets spun off, does that likely mean that ABC stops showing college football?

If I were Disney, I’d try to keep some sports properties with the flagship:

the SEC game of the week

the alternating 1/2 pick from the Big Ten

This would assure ABC/Disney what probably amounts to 2 of 3 most watched games each week.

What ESPN/ABC and FOX (and CBS) do going forward depends on how much money they have and how much money they're willing to spend. I'm surprised the SEC contract details haven't been made public yet. All of the networks' #1 priority has to be the NFL. Once that is cleared, then the networks can settle the Big Ten. ESPN/ABC has media deals with the SEC and ACC already in addition to whatever they paid for the NFL (if any). They also have the NBA, FOX has MLB. There's also other sports deals that I probably don't have the energy to keep track of. I had more faith in FOX going all in to the Big Ten before this season after screwing the Big Ten in FOX games this season (this season they've aired more Big 12 and Pathetic 12 games on the broadcast network than Big Ten games since the Big Ten restarted, 3 Big Ten, 4 Pac-12, and SIX Big 12 in five weeks, keeping in mind the Pathetic 12 only played 3 of those 5 weeks). In fact, ABC has been better with the Big Ten as they've aired more Big Ten games (5 games on ABC vs. 3 on FOX). But once ESPN gets the SEC, I see the SEC being their first priority. If I'm the Big Ten, I'd want to go to CBS and ask them for the old SEC slot. It worked for them for over 20 years, why not us? But if it comes down to a bidding war, I'd bet on FOX.

How does this affect Texas/Oklahoma? FOX would have more $$$ to add Texas/Oklahoma to the Big Ten than ESPN would to add them to the SEC and I've said before the "underdog" always have more motivation to unseat the champ than the champ does to stay on top. Or as Jason Kelce of the Eagles said "Hungry dogs run faster". The Red River Showdown has aired on FOX the last three years running, maybe FOX values it more. You can mention the Longhorn Network but the LHN is very in favor of UT and a money loser for ESPN. If FOX gives Texas enough money to forget about LHN, ESPN will gladly let UT out of the LHN. The LHN isn't going to stop Texas from going to the Big Ten or FOX, ESPN would love to get out of the LHN. Of course they'd like to keep UT under their umbrella. Maybe ESPN can offer UT enough from an SEC+Texas+Oklahoma that they can get them to tear up the LHN contract. But that will cost them megabucks and they also have the ACC to take care of while FOX's current commitments will expire at the end of the 2025-26 season (MWC). Again, if it's a bidding war for UT/UO, FOX will have the edge. I've also read/heard about Texas having "academic snobbery" when it comes to the SEC, could that prevent a Texas/SEC marriage and could that help the Big Ten?

(11-24-2020 01:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  What ESPN/ABC and FOX (and CBS) do going forward depends on how much money they have and how much money they're willing to spend. I'm surprised the SEC contract details haven't been made public yet. All of the networks' #1 priority has to be the NFL. Once that is cleared, then the networks can settle the Big Ten. ESPN/ABC has media deals with the SEC and ACC already in addition to whatever they paid for the NFL (if any). They also have the NBA, FOX has MLB. There's also other sports deals that I probably don't have the energy to keep track of. I had more faith in FOX going all in to the Big Ten before this season after screwing the Big Ten in FOX games this season (this season they've aired more Big 12 and Pathetic 12 games on the broadcast network than Big Ten games since the Big Ten restarted, 3 Big Ten, 4 Pac-12, and SIX Big 12 in five weeks, keeping in mind the Pathetic 12 only played 3 of those 5 weeks). In fact, ABC has been better with the Big Ten as they've aired more Big Ten games (5 games on ABC vs. 3 on FOX). But once ESPN gets the SEC, I see the SEC being their first priority. If I'm the Big Ten, I'd want to go to CBS and ask them for the old SEC slot. It worked for them for over 20 years, why not us? But if it comes down to a bidding war, I'd bet on FOX.

How does this affect Texas/Oklahoma? FOX would have more $$$ to add Texas/Oklahoma to the Big Ten than ESPN would to add them to the SEC and I've said before the "underdog" always have more motivation to unseat the champ than the champ does to stay on top. Or as Jason Kelce of the Eagles said "Hungry dogs run faster". The Red River Showdown has aired on FOX the last three years running, maybe FOX values it more. You can mention the Longhorn Network but the LHN is very in favor of UT and a money loser for ESPN. If FOX gives Texas enough money to forget about LHN, ESPN will gladly let UT out of the LHN. The LHN isn't going to stop Texas from going to the Big Ten or FOX, ESPN would love to get out of the LHN. Of course they'd like to keep UT under their umbrella. Maybe ESPN can offer UT enough from an SEC+Texas+Oklahoma that they can get them to tear up the LHN contract. But that will cost them megabucks and they also have the ACC to take care of while FOX's current commitments will expire at the end of the 2025-26 season (MWC). Again, if it's a bidding war for UT/UO, FOX will have the edge. I've also read/heard about Texas having "academic snobbery" when it comes to the SEC, could that prevent a Texas/SEC marriage and could that help the Big Ten?

1. CBS bowed out of the bidding on the SEC when it passed 305 million. How in the hell could they afford the Big 10 T1 contract? The SEC is the better product and they couldn't afford them. Big 10 T1 rights aren't worth as much because the league is only 7 or 8 deep. Still it's better than any of the other remaining conferences, but their T1 probably isn't worth as much as the SEC's.

2. Being second and having more motivation is anecdotal at best and cracker barrel B.S. at worst. FOX's current T3 platform is the BTN and nothing else as it has all been sold. FOX is going heavy for professional sports. Why would they want to bid up the BTen contract to add Texas who won't head North to play and Oklahoma which is still taking a long hard look at Nebraska's Big 10 woes? They won't. This is a fairy tale scenario for the Big 10 where Texas is concerned. And their best shot at Oklahoma would be if Texas wanted the SEC and insisted on Tech and the SEC was firm at sticking at 16. Then and only then would Oklahoma take a hard look at the Big 10 because they would literally have nowhere else to go that would be profitable for them.

3. Texas's myth of academic snobbery is all talk and no hat. The SWC had a worse aggregate academic standing than the SEC, yet Texas was happy as a bug in a rug with that set up. The Big 12 had academic standing and what happened? 4 AAU schools took a hike to get the hell away from a Texas that was unconcerned with their departure and quite happy to welcome T.C.U. and West Virginia. So the academic snobbery issue in practice is a dog that doesn't hunt.

So as usual what you have to say has nothing in actual events that backs it up as everyone knows Texas is quite happy with the Big 12, at least until Oklahoma bails and that would probably knock Texas off their perch and make them fly the coop. But when they do they are under contract to ESPN for well over 15 million a year since the contract was backloaded and will be until 2031.

4. The bottom line on the SEC's new contract is 68 million per school and could be as high as 73 million. There is no reason for the SEC or ESPN to release the details because it gives the competition something to shoot for. It's also rumored that the upper amount would be what is earned by each school should a very significant pair we are discussing decide to move. But with the LHN right now Texas earns about 53-4 million a year for all rights. If they joined the SEC the buyout of the LHN is eclipsed in a big way by the payout of 73 million a year if paired with OU. It would probably be about 71 million a year paired with anyone else.

Therefore if it takes Oklahoma leaving in order to make the Big 12 less valuable to get Texas to consider a move, and if it takes enough money to dwarf what Texas earns with the LHN to get them to move, and if Texas wants to maintain their business model of playing 7 to 8 games a year in the state of Texas and playing local easily acceptable travel circumstances for away games then it seems likely that they would opt for a conference that delivers all 3, and that's the SEC.

Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989, and they've been in talks with just about every other conference at some point since then, but their talks with the SEC remain intermittent. Their arrangement with ESPN/Disney is healthy. And their primary concerns are with keeping games on the slate their fans want to see and making sure their minor sports, basketball and baseball remains relatively local and competitive. Absorb all of that and it is clear that they will not be joining the Big 10 probably won't ally with the PAC for the simple reasons of travel and revenue, and they aren't gong to fly their minor sports to ACC country. They will keep the Big 12 as long as they can and if they can't they'll head to the SEC and have a wonderful cover story lined up for that move to make it look like the Horns did what they had to do to protect Tech, or to help A&M do what is best for the state of Texas. Whatever it is it will be whopper and the Longhorns will be the magnanimous martyrs.

I agree with most everything you’re saying but I think you underestimate the potential value of the Big Ten’s tier 1.

Yes, the SEC is a few schools deeper in terms of well followed, competitive programs but you’re Tier 1 package is the the upper crust and the top 5-6 schools usually dominate in terms of numbers of appearances and when you narrow things down I think the Big Ten can match the SEC.

Where the SEC has a big advantage is in tier 2. The SEC’s depth is hard to beat here. The SEC’s 3rd-5th best match ups each week are going to be way better than anyone else’s, including the Big Ten.

You’re absolutely right about SEC academics being a hogwash explanation for why Texas has resisted the SEC. it’s the power dynamics that keeps them out as they can’t swing their weight around the way they did in the SWC and Big 12’s 1.0 and 2.0. Money is a powerful motivator and I think ESPN can use the digits after the dollar sign to either keep Texas out of the SEC or push them towards it, depending on what their strategy is.

Fox’s level of commitment to collegiate football also a big factor in how things go, just like you said. It’s hard to say if they will double down on the Big Ten or if they will want to keep their media holdings more geographically diverse, with deals with pieces and parts of PAC 12 and Big 12 rights. My personal hope is that they try to strengthen the Big 10 by motivating them to make a deal with Oklahoma but I can’t predict what they are going to do.

We can’t talk about the networks without talking about the NFL. Right now ESPN and NBC have small but expensive packages that deliver exclusive time slots. Fox and CBS split the rest with FoX paying a bit more for the stronger NFC markets. Do you think that dynamic is likely to change in the next negotiation? If so, who’s getting (and paying for) a more expensive slice of the pie and who’s getting squeezed out (but now has more cash in hand to potentially invest in another sports property)?

(11-24-2020 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I agree with most everything you’re saying but I think you underestimate the potential value of the Big Ten’s tier 1.

Yes, the SEC is a few schools deeper in terms of well followed, competitive programs but you’re Tier 1 package is the the upper crust and the top 5-6 schools usually dominate in terms of numbers of appearances and when you narrow things down I think the Big Ten can match the SEC.

Where the SEC has a big advantage is in tier 2. The SEC’s depth is hard to beat here. The SEC’s 3rd-5th best match ups each week are going to be way better than anyone else’s, including the Big Ten.

You’re absolutely right about SEC academics being a hogwash explanation for why Texas has resisted the SEC. it’s the power dynamics that keeps them out as they can’t swing their weight around the way they did in the SWC and Big 12’s 1.0 and 2.0. Money is a powerful motivator and I think ESPN can use the digits after the dollar sign to either keep Texas out of the SEC or push them towards it, depending on what their strategy is.

Fox’s level of commitment to collegiate football also a big factor in how things go, just like you said. It’s hard to say if they will double down on the Big Ten or if they will want to keep their media holdings more geographically diverse, with deals with pieces and parts of PAC 12 and Big 12 rights. My personal hope is that they try to strengthen the Big 10 by motivating them to make a deal with Oklahoma but I can’t predict what they are going to do.

We can’t talk about the networks without talking about the NFL. Right now ESPN and NBC have small but expensive packages that deliver exclusive time slots. Fox and CBS split the rest with FoX paying a bit more for the stronger NFC markets. Do you think that dynamic is likely to change in the next negotiation? If so, who’s getting (and paying for) a more expensive slice of the pie and who’s getting squeezed out (but now has more cash in hand to potentially invest in another sports property)?

I basically agree with you about the T1 comparison they are 1 and 2 with a narrow degree of separation overall. The Big 10 has fewer T1 games by just a few, but the very top product of the Big 10 draws better even though the SEC will NET out more overall for those games. T2 is a different ball game. In the end the Big 10 will be close in revenue as well.

I expect FOX to go after the bigger slice of the NFL and I expect Disney/ABC/ESPN to go after the younger market, meaning college rights. If you think about it from a total programming standpoint Disney's investment in Hulu and the Disney streaming package ties in to their old holistic vision of marketing to families through points earned at Disneyland/Disney World and cruises to European and Asian vacations. College kids are the next generation of young families. Getting them hooked in through what has been ESPN's offering I believe fits their overall marketing strategy better.

FOX has nothing like that to push. They are gong after a national and international market. That's in keeping with their sale of the regional markets. And while they may keep a toe in the college game I think that will become the Disney niche in part in an effort to grow their next generation of a consumer base.

Now let's look at what a Disney push to land the rest of the Big 10 rights could mean. It would definitely put them in a position to balance the product between the conferences, particularly if they could keep Texas and Oklahoma put and grow the best of the PAC around them and convert the LHN into a network for all of them so they didn't have to touch that boondoggle of the PACN nor negotiate with the loons in the PAC office. That's where the serendipity is having the PAC GOR and Big 12 GOR expire with a few months of each other and because of that I wouldn't rule it out.

But in that world they could augment the Big 10 and SEC slightly and rebuild the ACC if they wanted to keep 4 conferences and hold conferences to 16. Or they could grow three fairly well balanced conferences out of the PAC and ACC (where they have the power to compensate the current ACC members that may be left behind at the promised rates until 2037 in order to make it happen).

With ballooning deficits from COVID 19 losses in athletic revenue everyone, even bluebloods, are going to be eyeing quick solutions to these problems. In that world they could use a promoted AAC to essentially create an upper tier of 3 conferences of between 18 to 20 and grow the competitiveness of the AAC and essentially eliminate the games nobody wants to see by limiting the 12 game schedules to just those schools. That enhances Athletic Department revenue by not have 3 buy games and it enhances the Network's profits by having schedules that are massively aligned to what the public wants to see.

ESPN bought all of those bowls. College football fills those venues. ESPN is in on the CFP, that their super bowl in two weekends. The ratings are great and the profits from advertising large. No it's not the NFL but again it is the demographic Disney wants to reach for other reasons.

So for those reasons I see ESPN/Disney going after all of the rights to the Big 10 and all of the rights to the Big 12 which might include PAC additions. If they have those the advertisers have to pay them prime rates to reach the middle aged parents with college kids, the college kids, and the recent graduates starting the families that Disney wants to own cradle to retirement.

(11-24-2020 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 07:36 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 07:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 03:18 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Or if the SEC adds Oklahoma along with Texas...

Assuming they keep 8 home games and Oklahoma/Texas counts as a conference game then either Texas will have 4 home games in Austin or 3 home games in Austin and 1 in Dallas. In the years they have 4 home games in Austin, they play Oklahoma in Dallas (it would be considered Oklahoma's "home" game). In the years they are the "home" team for the RRR, they can arrange to be at Texas A&M. This would guarantee them five SEC games in Texas every year. Then they can play three of their four non conference games in Austin or other state venues (San Antonio, Dallas, Houston) and still be able to travel to one out of state non conference game a season so they can get a big non conference game with maybe an Ohio State once in a while. That would allow UT to play eight games in the state of Texas every season (nine if they don't play an OOC game outside of Texas in a season).

It seems like no one else here at CSNBBS other than me wants the SEC to add both Oklahoma AND Texas, it's either one or the other.

https://new-cdn.mamamia.com.au/mamamia-p...803473.jpg

Both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC? .......Ain't gonna happen!

Why not? Would Texas and Oklahoma not want to be in the same conference? They are now. Would the SEC not want to add both teams because it would be too strong? If ESPN (or another network(s)) give them enough $$$$, the SEC's arms could be twisted in the other direction.

Right now ESPN is in a vulnerable position.
The network is in a real position of being jettisoned by Disney as they attempt to shed overhead and remain profitable. Their model is flawed and unfortunately for all of collegiate athletics the biggest game in town. Instead of broadcasting sports at the college level, ESPN has become the promoter/producer of college sports on TV, paying schools like they were professional teams, and unfortunately greedy administrators let them manipulate their athletic departments to help supplement their costs.
The problem is that ESPN has fewer dollars to spend and lots of mouths to feed. So far their strategy appears to be to pay more for fewer mouths. The problem with this move is that if they can't keep some regional balance in the marketplace, they will loose national appeal.
ESPN can't allow both Texas and Oklahoma to move to the SEC or the B1G as a unit for fear of making one conference too strong and alienating their largest pool of casual viewers.

Your analysis isn't off but your depth perception is. Disney isn't getting out of sports broadcasting. Sooner or later the Mouse will figure out the streaming business and all of that overpaid talking head crowd at ESPN will go along with Bristol most likely. Disney will retain the rights and likely broaden them. They'll figure out that since ESPN encouraged every campus to build production facilities and since every fan base loves their local announcers that they can add more zing to the games by allowing the campuses to produce their own games and their announcers to call them. All of that is footed by the school. Controlling College football and it's bowls and playoffs is in their best interest. It is pay for play that still stands to damage college athletics more than anything else on the horizon.

What Disney likely will adopt from ESPN are the rights packages and the desire to group the product in complimentary ways to enhance national audience. I think conferences will be maintained as regional brands provided they produce the viewership in sufficient numbers within their own regions. The PAC does not and the ACC lags. The conundrum is that while the ACC has more total viewers than the Big 12 the Big 12 has a higher % of viewers within their region especially in Texas and Oklahoma.

So the questions to be resolved is whether there is any regional appeal to adding PAC schools to the Big 12 or vice versa, or whether the best approach is to let the cheese stand alone (PAC) since its audience participation is so rotten both in terms of actual viewership and in % of total possible viewers. If that is the solution then the PAC will continue to slip versus the other P4 in terms of revenue, but the Big 12 can be used to bolster both the SEC and Big 10. The problem there again is that it relegates the ACC to an inferior position relative those two.

And none of that solves the long term issue of recruiting when most of the nation is suffering a decline in the number of boys playing football in high school, except for in the Deep South and Texas and Oklahoma and a few states in the Northern Midwest.

But remember this. Without a healthy college football program to draw from how long does that precious cash cow called the NFL last?

For that reason alone college football will be with us for quite sometime and while participation by the middle class has dropped it is still the brass ring to be grabbed for a lot of poor kids.

But because of where it is culturally popular tying the Big 10 and northern Big 12, and PAC if it is even feasible into the key recruiting grounds will become essential to its survival in popularity throughout the country. What we are seeing as the biggest risk to the game these past 20 years is that it is truly becoming just a regional sport. From Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio South it is played and relevant. From Nebraska and Colorado south it is played but loosing relevance and that sentiment engulfs the whole Pacific West. It is only played at a highly competitive rate from South Carolina and Tennessee south and the champions have predominantly been coming from South Carolina, Alabama and Florida with Ohio State asserting itself about once a decade. Oklahoma and Texas could get back into that mix.

My point here X is that if it becomes a regional game then Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC makes the most sense and the only sense. In fact it could be argued that if the SEC expanded by 6 teams you could hold the championships within one conference. Clemson, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State and possibly Penn State would round out a 20 school league that has produced football at sustained levels of play and with sufficient followings to merit even higher ticket prices and cable packages without the overhead of trying to prop up the rest of the nation.

There is a reason that Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana State, Clemson and Florida State, along with Ohio State have won big. It's because those are where the recruits are and Ohio produces recruits and Ohio State recruits the Southeast. And frankly if the state of Texas wasn't trying to support 5P schools and 2 more in the AAC then UT and A&M would have a lot more talent headed their way as would Oklahoma. Right now you have 9 college programs trying to thrive out of 2 states. North Carolina or North Carolina State would field competitive teams if there weren't 5 schools drawing out of North Carolina.

We've never disagreed on the analysis JR, just the strategy moving forward.

I’m concerned that younger audiences are not going to be as supportive of their alma maters and local teams the way older generations were. I think the networks are aware of this too. It’s also the sport becoming more regional as you’ve spelled out. If this indeed occurs, then ESPN loading all the most valuable properties into the SEC would make sense.

I’d do 24 though—with a 6 team Midwest Division—Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, ND, Iowa, Wisconsin

(11-24-2020 09:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m concerned that younger audiences are not going to be as supportive of their alma maters and local teams the way older generations were. I think the networks are aware of this too. It’s also the sport becoming more regional as you’ve spelled out. If this indeed occurs, then ESPN loading all the most valuable properties into the SEC would make sense.

I’d do 24 though—with a 6 team Midwest Division—Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, ND, Iowa, Wisconsin

I've actually mapped out that very division only without N.D. and with Nebraska which I think culturally would want in. I think I placed Notre Dame in with an ACC division.

Texas and Oklahoma to 16. The 6 from the Big 10 to 22 plus Clemson and Florida State minus Vandy plus Notre Dame.

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Notre Dame, South Carolina,

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

The problem is Notre Dame doesn't really fit with any division because they are more comfortable with the Northeastern teams which aren't that competitive. So I placed them with the Southeast grouping because of the recruiting grounds of Florida, South Carolina and Georgia.

(11-24-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  What ESPN/ABC and FOX (and CBS) do going forward depends on how much money they have and how much money they're willing to spend. I'm surprised the SEC contract details haven't been made public yet. All of the networks' #1 priority has to be the NFL. Once that is cleared, then the networks can settle the Big Ten. ESPN/ABC has media deals with the SEC and ACC already in addition to whatever they paid for the NFL (if any). They also have the NBA, FOX has MLB. There's also other sports deals that I probably don't have the energy to keep track of. I had more faith in FOX going all in to the Big Ten before this season after screwing the Big Ten in FOX games this season (this season they've aired more Big 12 and Pathetic 12 games on the broadcast network than Big Ten games since the Big Ten restarted, 3 Big Ten, 4 Pac-12, and SIX Big 12 in five weeks, keeping in mind the Pathetic 12 only played 3 of those 5 weeks). In fact, ABC has been better with the Big Ten as they've aired more Big Ten games (5 games on ABC vs. 3 on FOX). But once ESPN gets the SEC, I see the SEC being their first priority. If I'm the Big Ten, I'd want to go to CBS and ask them for the old SEC slot. It worked for them for over 20 years, why not us? But if it comes down to a bidding war, I'd bet on FOX.

How does this affect Texas/Oklahoma? FOX would have more $$$ to add Texas/Oklahoma to the Big Ten than ESPN would to add them to the SEC and I've said before the "underdog" always have more motivation to unseat the champ than the champ does to stay on top. Or as Jason Kelce of the Eagles said "Hungry dogs run faster". The Red River Showdown has aired on FOX the last three years running, maybe FOX values it more. You can mention the Longhorn Network but the LHN is very in favor of UT and a money loser for ESPN. If FOX gives Texas enough money to forget about LHN, ESPN will gladly let UT out of the LHN. The LHN isn't going to stop Texas from going to the Big Ten or FOX, ESPN would love to get out of the LHN. Of course they'd like to keep UT under their umbrella. Maybe ESPN can offer UT enough from an SEC+Texas+Oklahoma that they can get them to tear up the LHN contract. But that will cost them megabucks and they also have the ACC to take care of while FOX's current commitments will expire at the end of the 2025-26 season (MWC). Again, if it's a bidding war for UT/UO, FOX will have the edge. I've also read/heard about Texas having "academic snobbery" when it comes to the SEC, could that prevent a Texas/SEC marriage and could that help the Big Ten?

1. CBS bowed out of the bidding on the SEC when it passed 305 million. How in the hell could they afford the Big 10 T1 contract? The SEC is the better product and they couldn't afford them. Big 10 T1 rights aren't worth as much because the league is only 7 or 8 deep. Still it's better than any of the other remaining conferences, but their T1 probably isn't worth as much as the SEC's.

2. Being second and having more motivation is anecdotal at best and cracker barrel B.S. at worst. FOX's current T3 platform is the BTN and nothing else as it has all been sold. FOX is going heavy for professional sports. Why would they want to bid up the BTen contract to add Texas who won't head North to play and Oklahoma which is still taking a long hard look at Nebraska's Big 10 woes? They won't. This is a fairy tale scenario for the Big 10 where Texas is concerned. And their best shot at Oklahoma would be if Texas wanted the SEC and insisted on Tech and the SEC was firm at sticking at 16. Then and only then would Oklahoma take a hard look at the Big 10 because they would literally have nowhere else to go that would be profitable for them.

3. Texas's myth of academic snobbery is all talk and no hat. The SWC had a worse aggregate academic standing than the SEC, yet Texas was happy as a bug in a rug with that set up. The Big 12 had academic standing and what happened? 4 AAU schools took a hike to get the hell away from a Texas that was unconcerned with their departure and quite happy to welcome T.C.U. and West Virginia. So the academic snobbery issue in practice is a dog that doesn't hunt.

So as usual what you have to say has nothing in actual events that backs it up as everyone knows Texas is quite happy with the Big 12, at least until Oklahoma bails and that would probably knock Texas off their perch and make them fly the coop. But when they do they are under contract to ESPN for well over 15 million a year since the contract was backloaded and will be until 2031.

4. The bottom line on the SEC's new contract is 68 million per school and could be as high as 73 million. There is no reason for the SEC or ESPN to release the details because it gives the competition something to shoot for. It's also rumored that the upper amount would be what is earned by each school should a very significant pair we are discussing decide to move. But with the LHN right now Texas earns about 53-4 million a year for all rights. If they joined the SEC the buyout of the LHN is eclipsed in a big way by the payout of 73 million a year if paired with OU. It would probably be about 71 million a year paired with anyone else.

Therefore if it takes Oklahoma leaving in order to make the Big 12 less valuable to get Texas to consider a move, and if it takes enough money to dwarf what Texas earns with the LHN to get them to move, and if Texas wants to maintain their business model of playing 7 to 8 games a year in the state of Texas and playing local easily acceptable travel circumstances for away games then it seems likely that they would opt for a conference that delivers all 3, and that's the SEC.

Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989, and they've been in talks with just about every other conference at some point since then, but their talks with the SEC remain intermittent. Their arrangement with ESPN/Disney is healthy. And their primary concerns are with keeping games on the slate their fans want to see and making sure their minor sports, basketball and baseball remains relatively local and competitive. Absorb all of that and it is clear that they will not be joining the Big 10 probably won't ally with the PAC for the simple reasons of travel and revenue, and they aren't gong to fly their minor sports to ACC country. They will keep the Big 12 as long as they can and if they can't they'll head to the SEC and have a wonderful cover story lined up for that move to make it look like the Horns did what they had to do to protect Tech, or to help A&M do what is best for the state of Texas. Whatever it is it will be whopper and the Longhorns will be the magnanimous martyrs.

Isn't that "all hat and no cattle", JR?

(11-25-2020 05:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  What ESPN/ABC and FOX (and CBS) do going forward depends on how much money they have and how much money they're willing to spend. I'm surprised the SEC contract details haven't been made public yet. All of the networks' #1 priority has to be the NFL. Once that is cleared, then the networks can settle the Big Ten. ESPN/ABC has media deals with the SEC and ACC already in addition to whatever they paid for the NFL (if any). They also have the NBA, FOX has MLB. There's also other sports deals that I probably don't have the energy to keep track of. I had more faith in FOX going all in to the Big Ten before this season after screwing the Big Ten in FOX games this season (this season they've aired more Big 12 and Pathetic 12 games on the broadcast network than Big Ten games since the Big Ten restarted, 3 Big Ten, 4 Pac-12, and SIX Big 12 in five weeks, keeping in mind the Pathetic 12 only played 3 of those 5 weeks). In fact, ABC has been better with the Big Ten as they've aired more Big Ten games (5 games on ABC vs. 3 on FOX). But once ESPN gets the SEC, I see the SEC being their first priority. If I'm the Big Ten, I'd want to go to CBS and ask them for the old SEC slot. It worked for them for over 20 years, why not us? But if it comes down to a bidding war, I'd bet on FOX.

How does this affect Texas/Oklahoma? FOX would have more $$$ to add Texas/Oklahoma to the Big Ten than ESPN would to add them to the SEC and I've said before the "underdog" always have more motivation to unseat the champ than the champ does to stay on top. Or as Jason Kelce of the Eagles said "Hungry dogs run faster". The Red River Showdown has aired on FOX the last three years running, maybe FOX values it more. You can mention the Longhorn Network but the LHN is very in favor of UT and a money loser for ESPN. If FOX gives Texas enough money to forget about LHN, ESPN will gladly let UT out of the LHN. The LHN isn't going to stop Texas from going to the Big Ten or FOX, ESPN would love to get out of the LHN. Of course they'd like to keep UT under their umbrella. Maybe ESPN can offer UT enough from an SEC+Texas+Oklahoma that they can get them to tear up the LHN contract. But that will cost them megabucks and they also have the ACC to take care of while FOX's current commitments will expire at the end of the 2025-26 season (MWC). Again, if it's a bidding war for UT/UO, FOX will have the edge. I've also read/heard about Texas having "academic snobbery" when it comes to the SEC, could that prevent a Texas/SEC marriage and could that help the Big Ten?

1. CBS bowed out of the bidding on the SEC when it passed 305 million. How in the hell could they afford the Big 10 T1 contract? The SEC is the better product and they couldn't afford them. Big 10 T1 rights aren't worth as much because the league is only 7 or 8 deep. Still it's better than any of the other remaining conferences, but their T1 probably isn't worth as much as the SEC's.

2. Being second and having more motivation is anecdotal at best and cracker barrel B.S. at worst. FOX's current T3 platform is the BTN and nothing else as it has all been sold. FOX is going heavy for professional sports. Why would they want to bid up the BTen contract to add Texas who won't head North to play and Oklahoma which is still taking a long hard look at Nebraska's Big 10 woes? They won't. This is a fairy tale scenario for the Big 10 where Texas is concerned. And their best shot at Oklahoma would be if Texas wanted the SEC and insisted on Tech and the SEC was firm at sticking at 16. Then and only then would Oklahoma take a hard look at the Big 10 because they would literally have nowhere else to go that would be profitable for them.

3. Texas's myth of academic snobbery is all talk and no hat. The SWC had a worse aggregate academic standing than the SEC, yet Texas was happy as a bug in a rug with that set up. The Big 12 had academic standing and what happened? 4 AAU schools took a hike to get the hell away from a Texas that was unconcerned with their departure and quite happy to welcome T.C.U. and West Virginia. So the academic snobbery issue in practice is a dog that doesn't hunt.

So as usual what you have to say has nothing in actual events that backs it up as everyone knows Texas is quite happy with the Big 12, at least until Oklahoma bails and that would probably knock Texas off their perch and make them fly the coop. But when they do they are under contract to ESPN for well over 15 million a year since the contract was backloaded and will be until 2031.

4. The bottom line on the SEC's new contract is 68 million per school and could be as high as 73 million. There is no reason for the SEC or ESPN to release the details because it gives the competition something to shoot for. It's also rumored that the upper amount would be what is earned by each school should a very significant pair we are discussing decide to move. But with the LHN right now Texas earns about 53-4 million a year for all rights. If they joined the SEC the buyout of the LHN is eclipsed in a big way by the payout of 73 million a year if paired with OU. It would probably be about 71 million a year paired with anyone else.

Therefore if it takes Oklahoma leaving in order to make the Big 12 less valuable to get Texas to consider a move, and if it takes enough money to dwarf what Texas earns with the LHN to get them to move, and if Texas wants to maintain their business model of playing 7 to 8 games a year in the state of Texas and playing local easily acceptable travel circumstances for away games then it seems likely that they would opt for a conference that delivers all 3, and that's the SEC.

Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989, and they've been in talks with just about every other conference at some point since then, but their talks with the SEC remain intermittent. Their arrangement with ESPN/Disney is healthy. And their primary concerns are with keeping games on the slate their fans want to see and making sure their minor sports, basketball and baseball remains relatively local and competitive. Absorb all of that and it is clear that they will not be joining the Big 10 probably won't ally with the PAC for the simple reasons of travel and revenue, and they aren't gong to fly their minor sports to ACC country. They will keep the Big 12 as long as they can and if they can't they'll head to the SEC and have a wonderful cover story lined up for that move to make it look like the Horns did what they had to do to protect Tech, or to help A&M do what is best for the state of Texas. Whatever it is it will be whopper and the Longhorns will be the magnanimous martyrs.

Isn't that "all hat and no cattle", JR?

The vast majority of University Texas grads have only seen one steer. And very few of them wear the Ten Gallon Hat anymore. All hat and no cattle was a reference to their loss of contact with what made Texas in the first place. It once referred to oil tycoons who were fond of the garb but didn't know what life in Texas was like.

I'm afraid it is even more removed now. Now they don't even have the hat, but they still talk big. Austin is as removed from rustic Texas as most modern day adults are from the farm, or most modern day North Carolinians are from Tobacco and Ridge Running. They aren't ranchers anymore, and most only have the remotest connection to oil. They have become the most pitiful of creation, academics. Academics only believe what other academics say and none of them have any real world experience. All book leads to all talk and no hat because their heads seldom spend time in the sun. It was much better when there was big talk backed up by tough men. We are close to destruction Xlance because we have become a nation run by theorists rather than doers, which means we are now far from reality. That's a dangerous place to be. And not to single Texas out but most schools of our schools have professors who have no real life experience and regurgitating theories that either support or counter their own theories. All of them needed a couple of semesters working in the real world applications.

BTW: I'm glad somebody noticed the twist.

(11-25-2020 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-25-2020 05:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  What ESPN/ABC and FOX (and CBS) do going forward depends on how much money they have and how much money they're willing to spend. I'm surprised the SEC contract details haven't been made public yet. All of the networks' #1 priority has to be the NFL. Once that is cleared, then the networks can settle the Big Ten. ESPN/ABC has media deals with the SEC and ACC already in addition to whatever they paid for the NFL (if any). They also have the NBA, FOX has MLB. There's also other sports deals that I probably don't have the energy to keep track of. I had more faith in FOX going all in to the Big Ten before this season after screwing the Big Ten in FOX games this season (this season they've aired more Big 12 and Pathetic 12 games on the broadcast network than Big Ten games since the Big Ten restarted, 3 Big Ten, 4 Pac-12, and SIX Big 12 in five weeks, keeping in mind the Pathetic 12 only played 3 of those 5 weeks). In fact, ABC has been better with the Big Ten as they've aired more Big Ten games (5 games on ABC vs. 3 on FOX). But once ESPN gets the SEC, I see the SEC being their first priority. If I'm the Big Ten, I'd want to go to CBS and ask them for the old SEC slot. It worked for them for over 20 years, why not us? But if it comes down to a bidding war, I'd bet on FOX.

How does this affect Texas/Oklahoma? FOX would have more $$$ to add Texas/Oklahoma to the Big Ten than ESPN would to add them to the SEC and I've said before the "underdog" always have more motivation to unseat the champ than the champ does to stay on top. Or as Jason Kelce of the Eagles said "Hungry dogs run faster". The Red River Showdown has aired on FOX the last three years running, maybe FOX values it more. You can mention the Longhorn Network but the LHN is very in favor of UT and a money loser for ESPN. If FOX gives Texas enough money to forget about LHN, ESPN will gladly let UT out of the LHN. The LHN isn't going to stop Texas from going to the Big Ten or FOX, ESPN would love to get out of the LHN. Of course they'd like to keep UT under their umbrella. Maybe ESPN can offer UT enough from an SEC+Texas+Oklahoma that they can get them to tear up the LHN contract. But that will cost them megabucks and they also have the ACC to take care of while FOX's current commitments will expire at the end of the 2025-26 season (MWC). Again, if it's a bidding war for UT/UO, FOX will have the edge. I've also read/heard about Texas having "academic snobbery" when it comes to the SEC, could that prevent a Texas/SEC marriage and could that help the Big Ten?

1. CBS bowed out of the bidding on the SEC when it passed 305 million. How in the hell could they afford the Big 10 T1 contract? The SEC is the better product and they couldn't afford them. Big 10 T1 rights aren't worth as much because the league is only 7 or 8 deep. Still it's better than any of the other remaining conferences, but their T1 probably isn't worth as much as the SEC's.

2. Being second and having more motivation is anecdotal at best and cracker barrel B.S. at worst. FOX's current T3 platform is the BTN and nothing else as it has all been sold. FOX is going heavy for professional sports. Why would they want to bid up the BTen contract to add Texas who won't head North to play and Oklahoma which is still taking a long hard look at Nebraska's Big 10 woes? They won't. This is a fairy tale scenario for the Big 10 where Texas is concerned. And their best shot at Oklahoma would be if Texas wanted the SEC and insisted on Tech and the SEC was firm at sticking at 16. Then and only then would Oklahoma take a hard look at the Big 10 because they would literally have nowhere else to go that would be profitable for them.

3. Texas's myth of academic snobbery is all talk and no hat. The SWC had a worse aggregate academic standing than the SEC, yet Texas was happy as a bug in a rug with that set up. The Big 12 had academic standing and what happened? 4 AAU schools took a hike to get the hell away from a Texas that was unconcerned with their departure and quite happy to welcome T.C.U. and West Virginia. So the academic snobbery issue in practice is a dog that doesn't hunt.

So as usual what you have to say has nothing in actual events that backs it up as everyone knows Texas is quite happy with the Big 12, at least until Oklahoma bails and that would probably knock Texas off their perch and make them fly the coop. But when they do they are under contract to ESPN for well over 15 million a year since the contract was backloaded and will be until 2031.

4. The bottom line on the SEC's new contract is 68 million per school and could be as high as 73 million. There is no reason for the SEC or ESPN to release the details because it gives the competition something to shoot for. It's also rumored that the upper amount would be what is earned by each school should a very significant pair we are discussing decide to move. But with the LHN right now Texas earns about 53-4 million a year for all rights. If they joined the SEC the buyout of the LHN is eclipsed in a big way by the payout of 73 million a year if paired with OU. It would probably be about 71 million a year paired with anyone else.

Therefore if it takes Oklahoma leaving in order to make the Big 12 less valuable to get Texas to consider a move, and if it takes enough money to dwarf what Texas earns with the LHN to get them to move, and if Texas wants to maintain their business model of playing 7 to 8 games a year in the state of Texas and playing local easily acceptable travel circumstances for away games then it seems likely that they would opt for a conference that delivers all 3, and that's the SEC.

Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989, and they've been in talks with just about every other conference at some point since then, but their talks with the SEC remain intermittent. Their arrangement with ESPN/Disney is healthy. And their primary concerns are with keeping games on the slate their fans want to see and making sure their minor sports, basketball and baseball remains relatively local and competitive. Absorb all of that and it is clear that they will not be joining the Big 10 probably won't ally with the PAC for the simple reasons of travel and revenue, and they aren't gong to fly their minor sports to ACC country. They will keep the Big 12 as long as they can and if they can't they'll head to the SEC and have a wonderful cover story lined up for that move to make it look like the Horns did what they had to do to protect Tech, or to help A&M do what is best for the state of Texas. Whatever it is it will be whopper and the Longhorns will be the magnanimous martyrs.

Isn't that "all hat and no cattle", JR?

The vast majority of University Texas grads have only seen one steer. And very few of them wear the Ten Gallon Hat anymore. All hat and no cattle was a reference to their loss of contact with what made Texas in the first place. It once referred to oil tycoons who were fond of the garb but didn't know what life in Texas was like.

I'm afraid it is even more removed now. Now they don't even have the hat, but they still talk big. Austin is as removed from rustic Texas as most modern day adults are from the farm, or most modern day North Carolinians are from Tobacco and Ridge Running. They aren't ranchers anymore, and most only have the remotest connection to oil. They have become the most pitiful of creation, academics. Academics only believe what other academics say and none of them have any real world experience. All book leads to all talk and no hat because their heads seldom spend time in the sun. It was much better when there was big talk backed up by tough men. We are close to destruction Xlance because we have become a nation run by theorists rather than doers, which means we are now far from reality. That's a dangerous place to be. And not to single Texas out but most schools of our schools have professors who have no real life experience and regurgitating theories that either support or counter their own theories. All of them needed a couple of semesters working in the real world applications.

BTW: I'm glad somebody noticed the twist.

No need to pontificate, JR...everybody screws up every now and then.

(11-25-2020 01:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-25-2020 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-25-2020 05:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  What ESPN/ABC and FOX (and CBS) do going forward depends on how much money they have and how much money they're willing to spend. I'm surprised the SEC contract details haven't been made public yet. All of the networks' #1 priority has to be the NFL. Once that is cleared, then the networks can settle the Big Ten. ESPN/ABC has media deals with the SEC and ACC already in addition to whatever they paid for the NFL (if any). They also have the NBA, FOX has MLB. There's also other sports deals that I probably don't have the energy to keep track of. I had more faith in FOX going all in to the Big Ten before this season after screwing the Big Ten in FOX games this season (this season they've aired more Big 12 and Pathetic 12 games on the broadcast network than Big Ten games since the Big Ten restarted, 3 Big Ten, 4 Pac-12, and SIX Big 12 in five weeks, keeping in mind the Pathetic 12 only played 3 of those 5 weeks). In fact, ABC has been better with the Big Ten as they've aired more Big Ten games (5 games on ABC vs. 3 on FOX). But once ESPN gets the SEC, I see the SEC being their first priority. If I'm the Big Ten, I'd want to go to CBS and ask them for the old SEC slot. It worked for them for over 20 years, why not us? But if it comes down to a bidding war, I'd bet on FOX.

How does this affect Texas/Oklahoma? FOX would have more $$$ to add Texas/Oklahoma to the Big Ten than ESPN would to add them to the SEC and I've said before the "underdog" always have more motivation to unseat the champ than the champ does to stay on top. Or as Jason Kelce of the Eagles said "Hungry dogs run faster". The Red River Showdown has aired on FOX the last three years running, maybe FOX values it more. You can mention the Longhorn Network but the LHN is very in favor of UT and a money loser for ESPN. If FOX gives Texas enough money to forget about LHN, ESPN will gladly let UT out of the LHN. The LHN isn't going to stop Texas from going to the Big Ten or FOX, ESPN would love to get out of the LHN. Of course they'd like to keep UT under their umbrella. Maybe ESPN can offer UT enough from an SEC+Texas+Oklahoma that they can get them to tear up the LHN contract. But that will cost them megabucks and they also have the ACC to take care of while FOX's current commitments will expire at the end of the 2025-26 season (MWC). Again, if it's a bidding war for UT/UO, FOX will have the edge. I've also read/heard about Texas having "academic snobbery" when it comes to the SEC, could that prevent a Texas/SEC marriage and could that help the Big Ten?

1. CBS bowed out of the bidding on the SEC when it passed 305 million. How in the hell could they afford the Big 10 T1 contract? The SEC is the better product and they couldn't afford them. Big 10 T1 rights aren't worth as much because the league is only 7 or 8 deep. Still it's better than any of the other remaining conferences, but their T1 probably isn't worth as much as the SEC's.

2. Being second and having more motivation is anecdotal at best and cracker barrel B.S. at worst. FOX's current T3 platform is the BTN and nothing else as it has all been sold. FOX is going heavy for professional sports. Why would they want to bid up the BTen contract to add Texas who won't head North to play and Oklahoma which is still taking a long hard look at Nebraska's Big 10 woes? They won't. This is a fairy tale scenario for the Big 10 where Texas is concerned. And their best shot at Oklahoma would be if Texas wanted the SEC and insisted on Tech and the SEC was firm at sticking at 16. Then and only then would Oklahoma take a hard look at the Big 10 because they would literally have nowhere else to go that would be profitable for them.

3. Texas's myth of academic snobbery is all talk and no hat. The SWC had a worse aggregate academic standing than the SEC, yet Texas was happy as a bug in a rug with that set up. The Big 12 had academic standing and what happened? 4 AAU schools took a hike to get the hell away from a Texas that was unconcerned with their departure and quite happy to welcome T.C.U. and West Virginia. So the academic snobbery issue in practice is a dog that doesn't hunt.

So as usual what you have to say has nothing in actual events that backs it up as everyone knows Texas is quite happy with the Big 12, at least until Oklahoma bails and that would probably knock Texas off their perch and make them fly the coop. But when they do they are under contract to ESPN for well over 15 million a year since the contract was backloaded and will be until 2031.

4. The bottom line on the SEC's new contract is 68 million per school and could be as high as 73 million. There is no reason for the SEC or ESPN to release the details because it gives the competition something to shoot for. It's also rumored that the upper amount would be what is earned by each school should a very significant pair we are discussing decide to move. But with the LHN right now Texas earns about 53-4 million a year for all rights. If they joined the SEC the buyout of the LHN is eclipsed in a big way by the payout of 73 million a year if paired with OU. It would probably be about 71 million a year paired with anyone else.

Therefore if it takes Oklahoma leaving in order to make the Big 12 less valuable to get Texas to consider a move, and if it takes enough money to dwarf what Texas earns with the LHN to get them to move, and if Texas wants to maintain their business model of playing 7 to 8 games a year in the state of Texas and playing local easily acceptable travel circumstances for away games then it seems likely that they would opt for a conference that delivers all 3, and that's the SEC.

Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989, and they've been in talks with just about every other conference at some point since then, but their talks with the SEC remain intermittent. Their arrangement with ESPN/Disney is healthy. And their primary concerns are with keeping games on the slate their fans want to see and making sure their minor sports, basketball and baseball remains relatively local and competitive. Absorb all of that and it is clear that they will not be joining the Big 10 probably won't ally with the PAC for the simple reasons of travel and revenue, and they aren't gong to fly their minor sports to ACC country. They will keep the Big 12 as long as they can and if they can't they'll head to the SEC and have a wonderful cover story lined up for that move to make it look like the Horns did what they had to do to protect Tech, or to help A&M do what is best for the state of Texas. Whatever it is it will be whopper and the Longhorns will be the magnanimous martyrs.

Isn't that "all hat and no cattle", JR?

The vast majority of University Texas grads have only seen one steer. And very few of them wear the Ten Gallon Hat anymore. All hat and no cattle was a reference to their loss of contact with what made Texas in the first place. It once referred to oil tycoons who were fond of the garb but didn't know what life in Texas was like.

I'm afraid it is even more removed now. Now they don't even have the hat, but they still talk big. Austin is as removed from rustic Texas as most modern day adults are from the farm, or most modern day North Carolinians are from Tobacco and Ridge Running. They aren't ranchers anymore, and most only have the remotest connection to oil. They have become the most pitiful of creation, academics. Academics only believe what other academics say and none of them have any real world experience. All book leads to all talk and no hat because their heads seldom spend time in the sun. It was much better when there was big talk backed up by tough men. We are close to destruction Xlance because we have become a nation run by theorists rather than doers, which means we are now far from reality. That's a dangerous place to be. And not to single Texas out but most schools of our schools have professors who have no real life experience and regurgitating theories that either support or counter their own theories. All of them needed a couple of semesters working in the real world applications.

BTW: I'm glad somebody noticed the twist.

No need to pontificate, JR...everybody screws up every now and then.

No kitty litter, just a world view with an intentional twist. If there's one thing I have it is a cogent understanding of the devolution of our society. I've witnessed it on the corporate, military, and familial levels. Also having lived in San Antonio and having traveled or lived in 47 of the 48 contiguous (no trip to Rhode Island) I've seen it up close.

(11-23-2020 11:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 11:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  One thing to consider though is, once ESPN has bought up all the rights and then consolidated their inventory into 3 mega-conferences, ESPN is going to artificially keep the market price down.

The P5 need Fox to stay in the game to keep the rights prices up.

I tend to see things moving towards a Fox (Big Ten, PAC 12) and ESPN (SEC, ACC) orientation. Both networks have a high dollar and a discount conference. I could be totally wrong on this and underestimating ESPN’s willingness to commit to several big contracts in 2024 while they reshuffle the deck, merge properties, and drop some less valuable brands.

ESPN’s relationship with Texas increases the chances that Texas plays in an ESPN conference in 2025.

What about the possibility of a conference going rogue and expanding without the blessing of their media partner?

The SEC's new contract will take them to 68 million at the least. The rights values in three conferences go up, not down. If ESPN owns them all then they will expire at roughly the same time. By then Disney will likely have jettisoned ESPN and who knows what streaming companies may enter the fray. It's not downhill from here on anything but high school football recruits. The decline in the sport is at the grass roots level and mostly due to CTE's. In the South and Southwest this is not the cultural phenomenon it is along the coasts and in the Northwest. And this is why tying the Big 10 and PAC to the SWest and SEast is so crucial to the survival of the game and its competitiveness.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

This would be a nice balance. But if we needed to move to 20 maybe something more like this:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Texas Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Christian
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Something like this for 20 makes those regions a bit broader in reach.

Debatable issues might be Miami for West Virginia but if a private drops down our out that works itself out.

If you re-worked that 3 X 20 into a 4 X 15, you might just have something there JR.

Maybe something like this, using your own breakdowns:

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia
Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Texas Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Christian

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina