JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,413
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8076
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: It's costing OU, Texas less to leave the B12 than initially thought
(09-24-2023 11:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: (09-24-2023 12:43 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: (09-23-2023 03:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (09-22-2023 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-22-2023 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote: Apparently ESPN wasn't giving the SEC any more money. May have had something to do with the GOR. But they were giving OU and UT money directly.
Sounds like it was all a pretty complicated deal.
It's not complicated at all. They replaced OU and UT with double the inventory lost, negotiated down the Big 12 payout, and ESPN greased the skids for OU and UT. They'll get pro rata in the SEC but the SEC will make more from the SECN subscriptions and minor sports revenue, and nobody still knows the final payout to the SEC.
Trust the leadership at OU/UT, Sankey, and ESPN. It's getting done. And how it is getting done is being utilized by the ACC, and likely with some similar results. The Network had a stickier wicket with the Big 12 and FOX than it has with the ACC where only ESPN is the rights holder.
All that transpired here is that ESPN handled the help with the buyout instead of the SEC. ESPN will recoup that by not paying the pro rata share for 2024-5 and ESPN arranged ancillary compensation for UT and OU which has not been disclosed. They will both get an equal share in 2025-6, and they have full voting in 2024.
While I agree that if everybody wants something to happen with the ACC it will, I do not agree that FSU, Clemson or UNC are the same situation as OUT. ESPN has full rights to the ACC rather than 63% of them, their ACC deal isn't expiring soon like the Big 12 deal was when things were finalized for OUT's 1 year early exit back in the spring, and the the Big 3 from the ACC aren't particularly close in value to OUT. I think that the ACC is strongly against a move and they have the ability to block it, and the additional money earned by ESPN, if any, from shifting some schools to the SEC would be completely wiped out by the devaluation of the ACC deal. IE, ESPN has little incentive to get involved in that situation, especially in light of their desire to control the CFP, and they'll sit back and let FSU/etc and the ACC work things out amongst themselves. Now, if FSU and friends are able to come to some sort of agreement with the ACC, and all it needs is ESPN's blessing...sure, they'd probably do that. 2024? 2034? Some time in between? The timing could easily be accommodated.
Bryanw, the ACC has already determined what it wants to be, and quite frankly, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and quite frankly anyone else who makes $$'s off of football really doesn't belong either. If they don't really belong, how can you say that the ACC is really losing anything?? As for what could replace those schools, the ACC does have an option, IMO, but it will have to work fast, a word not generally found in an ACC's president's vocabulary, IMO. The option is Kansas, but ESPN will have a much stiffer challenge here, again, IMO. Or the ACC could do what has been theorized about for years: create the Magnolia League, and join the Ivy League and the Patriot League in using AI (aka the academic index and not artificial intelligence) for athletes.
The Ivy League, the Patriot League - or whatever this mythical Magnolia League would be - don't win championships. But the ACC has in various sports. Counting Clemson, also in football. Yes, the "real" ACC brags about academic acumen but never at the expense of competing in various sports. In that sense, Stanford fits like a tee, despite geography.
Now, there's something to be said about the different institutions and how that type of diversity affects conference cohesion down the road. But to say that the conference doesn't care about winning in any sport is off base - many simply don't worship at the altar of the goalposts like some fanbases here. And even those that do have gone through years without success.
Florida State, Miami and Clemson have benefited from being members of the club. However, these institutions face insane pressure from factions within their respective fanbases. Even with legacy members there are factions within them that think they deserve better. That doesn't portend an ideal situation for the ACC but I just don't get the enthusiasm from outsiders to see that conference break apart, right after what we saw with the PAC. It's a huge disruption for everyone involved.
Stability is always preferred until the time that status quo becomes the worse option.
Well the bolded part is the question. With the expanded playoffs coming that time may be shorter than most think.
What is the sympathy for the PAC 12 about? Assuaging guilt? They were mangled by the actions of FOX, ESPN and the Big 10 alike. Then the New Big 12 offered Colorado an incentive. It was a hatchet job. But to the defense of the Big 10 I don't think they sought it until FOX wanted it. And lost in the shuffle were the opportunities for the PAC 12 to expand which never happened for various reasons involving their member schools.
Meanwhile the ACC has added 3 schools in anticipation of losses. A model which they followed after the Big 12 which added 4 before releasing Texas and Oklahoma. I'd say the ACC was actin in preparation. Which brings us back to when. I suspect by 2025 and maybe as early as next Summer now that a few milestones have been passed this year.
We'll see.
But, to you I'll pose this question. Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington have run for higher ground leaving the Big 12 and PAC 12 changed forever. 2 years ago, Swarbrick, Warren, and other ADs all said that the world of college football would revolve around the Big 10 and SEC. People in the same offices now point to the changes in the playoff as bringing even more change, which some have referred to as greater than the change we've seen. So Transic, what exactly points to stasis? It's not what has seismically happened already. It's not what those in the know are talking about whether as a prognostication or something to which they frequently allude. It's not what 7 schools in the ACC have chirped about with FSU being the loudest.
I see nothing which is going to stop further consolidation of brands. I don't even see the ACC expecting anything different. They know what's coming. Their own schools have served a kind of notice. I suspect that what they are doing is arranging places for everyone. And with the Networks needing to bolster their business models while they transition to direct-to-consumer approaches, perhaps with their own version of "season ticket to college football", the pressure to attain the inventory they want in the format which they deem most effective for market reach and ensuring T1 status for the vast majority of games offered to those willing to pay for OTA games with live advertising is likely a priority.
And should some of those schools wind up in the Big 10 or SEC it will be because of the Networks more than the conferences. It will be because a handful of schools decided they didn't want to get left out of the new setups which have been proposed.
There is simply too much money to be made with the new setup for movement to stop. Add that to the unfavorable demographics which they face in low birth rate generations coming up through high schools, and tight state and federal budgets and that lure seems more appealing, and especially safer than what they are looking at now.
And that's how I see it. There is no stability in stasis.
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2023 12:10 AM by JRsec.)
|
|
/
It's costing OU, Texas less to leave the B12 than initially thought
