Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. And just like that, conference realignment has ended: Sources: Chicago Bears to hire Kevin Warren as president, CEO
  2. Right, withdrawn, nice catch. I think the rest holds up though.
  3. Artificially preventing? You had three conference champs and OSU. And, what would have ended differently? TCU beat Michigan, who beat OSU, who barely lost to Georgia. So Georgia curb stomping TCU negates everything else? By that logic imagine how much Georgia would have pisspounded Michigan in the championship game after they took out the Buckeyes, again.
  4. I expected a beating, I did not expect that beating. What caught me most wasn't that Georgia was bigger, we all knew that, it was that Bennett picked TCU apart like a hotel staff pulling out the green M&Ms for Halen.
  5. And forcing athletes to never play at home, making it hard on employees who work games, etc etc etc. It just doesn't seem likely in any stretch of the imagination, outside the fact that I don't think they could even do it that way. Not to mention just invite lawsuits and put the buyout in question. Can they make OU travel to Orlando, yes. Can they make OU travel to every game...of course not.
  6. The assumption is there is a big payday. If those 4 schools and USC/UCLA were work $75m per team, the Pac 12's media negotiations would have been A LOT different than they were. You're talking a 450m/year contract for just those six. They're barely sniffing $350m at ten without USC/UCLA, so there is no big payday. Something has to give and money and exposure are it. If you're not OSU/Michigan/Penn State/USC, you're already going to be giving up exposure in the current deal. Adding 4 more erodes it further. My point is the presidents likely knew this and that's why they pumped the brakes.
  7. I don't even think this is possible. I order to make two teams play all away games there would need to be something in the rules that says its ok, which means the 12 other teams could find themselves in that spot. No one is going to agree to that, especially not on how it looks to the athlete. There isn't really a need to either. The new 4, well maybe not Houston, will sell out their stadiums regardless of who they play. Its too new. I also don't think the remaining eight want no more games. This battle for leverage isn't really between the Big 12 and OU/Texas, its between the Big 12/Fox and ESPN. The River will remain, and Fox will get one more. Everything else is "how can ESPN create value for Fox/B12 to leave early"
  8. They would have because they'd start getting diminishing returns. And the only way to pay for it left was to put more games on bad slots. The Purdues and Iowas and Indianas of the world know that would mean less exposure for them...or more time on BTN. The only thing left for them to add to pay for the new schools is an after dark block with ESPN, which isn't paying $75m a team and is likely going to be made up of a lot of coastal + non brand match ups.
  9. I think the reason we don't see a schedule yet is because 2023 is still on the table. It will include concessions, however, like long term made for TV OOC pairings between the Big 12 and SEC, including Bedlam and Tech/Texas, so that Fox gets more extended value - including, perhaps, getting the River in 23 or 24 outside of the ESPN contract. It won't help with the buyout, but if Fox is happy and ESPN is happy and the Big 12 isn't losing money, then the GoR won't be necessary.
  10. are knee braces not allowed in malls on Christmas?
  11. That's a way better job. Not sure anyone has stirred the pot more in the shortest amount of time.
  12. Well, in those metrics in those years, it is. What you're seeing is the effect of which teams played during the pandemic and who is paying for not playing.
  13. For some chuckles, or arguments, or whatever... They used the revenue generated from football along with conference revenues reported to Equity in Athletics for Title IX purposes, which captures public and private. It is not total revenue and doesn't include things like boosters, etc. Clearly there are some things "off" but what I found interesting with this one, they do them yearly, was it showed the impact of the pandemic years. Some schools did well, some did not. In the not camp you can see Ohio State's loss of $63m in the 2021 Fiscal Year.
  14. Wouldn't shock me if ESPN was spun off before 2024. Disney is such a huge IP company now and doesn't want to get messy in gambling. Cash in.
  15. Yeah, its not though. USC and Oklahoma's situation is not Texas' situation, by any stretch of the imagination. First, a renegotiated deal in the Big 12 with Texas/OU would have netted around $60m per school, about 20% less than the B1G/SEC, BEFORE LHN, which at this point is adding about $18m on top. So that's $78m. The Big Ten/SEC are looking at $75m, reaching $100m after additional moneys like the NCAA/playoffs/etc that we're not adding in at this point. There are schools with a revenue threat here, but Texas is not one of them. Second, in the last reported fiscal Texas already made $100m more than Mississippi State and $80m more than Illinois - also $80m more than USC and $90m more than UCLA. Texas would have made more without a TV deal, without any conference money - just from tickets and boosters, then nearly every school. The athletic department is that that sound. Even making that B1G TV deal, none of those schools will catch Texas without a TV deal. It's not the same game. Outside big gifts making yearly numbers look strange, only Ohio State is really in the +$200m/year revenue tier as Texas. Michigan and Alabama are all within throwing distance, everyone else has some work to do, even with their advantages. Third, in that same reporting period, Texas ran with a $30m profit - or a 17% margin. That's the size of Texas State's entire athletics budget and almost half of teams like Washington State or Oregon State. So making $20-30m more is going to do what exactly? If expenses are already covered by a sizable amount, and you're pretty much already buying everything you can, what is $30m more going to do? Schools cannot provide NIL directly, so its not that. Put another TV in each locker? What this is about for Texas is the most important thing in TV contracts.... exposure, period. Playing Alabama this year provided more exposure than the entire B12 schedule, including the OU game. Exposure is like free marketing, and it is the key to all of this because it adds up to billions in value to the entire university, not tiny little millions of dollars in a yearly check. With the move, Texas will now have like 4 Red Rivers a year, instead of one. THAT matters. Even if moving to the SEC paid nothing, the exposure is worth it and then some. Exposure does more than just help schools, exposure is what drives recruiting. The exposure the SEC receives is much, much higher than the Big 12. Only the Big Ten is close. A&M saw an explosion of exposure moving to the SEC and it started to drain long held advantages. In 2010 Texas had 21 blue chips in that class, in 2014 they had 8. There were more blue chips from 2010-2012, than 2013-2016. And a lot of those went to A&M and other SEC teams. Granted, still the 800lb gorilla in the state, but there are now schools who were getting more exposure coming in to snipe players they never could sniff before. So, while Texas doesn't need more money, is Oklahoma moving for money? Definitely. They're top ten revenue, but they spend all they make. Most importantly though, they rely heavily on being 2 hours from DFW and are at greater risk of losing out of top end talent without more exposure. Without Texas their recruiting goes to shit. This is why they choose the River over their long time rivalry with Nebraska when they joined the Big 12. Big game is nice, but long term health is all about recruiting. The only way increased revenue matters here for Texas, literally the only way, is if the P5 moves to a situation where they are paying players directly. The Big Ten has hinted it's on its radar. Once that happens, this entire game changes, again. And while the Indianas and UCLAs of the world will be positioned better to handle it than before, they still won't be able to compete with Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, or Texas.
  16. Still going to argue it had nothing to do with money, at least for Texas. This was all about stopping a recruiting advantage that the SEC had built. Now they can't say, "But do you SEC bro?" It should cut into Aggy and LSU's gains. Teams in the top five consistently can pull from everywhere, but now there is more protection at home.
  17. Yeah the B1G and ACC probably would have been a bit bigger, had they not shared a slot. Well, the B1G probably would have had more.
  18. Can't find the damn ratings thread, so I'll put it in this catchall as its basically the reason for realignment any more: Couple notes: Big Brands helped the SEC and B1G, that's why you get them A great game helped the Big 12. The closer the game is at the end, with highly ranked teams, with something on the line, explodes audiences Friday is just not good to the PAC, neither is a blow out The ACC is closer to the AAC in numbers than the Pac The Numbers: Here's the difference in spread between the SEC, in number one, and each position below: B1G - 2.59% smaller audience B12 - 14.68% smaller PAC - 53.30% smaller ACC - 125.98% smaller AAC - 239.08% smaller MWC - 335.66% smaller Here's the difference in spread between the place directly above: B1G - 2.59% smaller than SEC audience B12 - 12.02% smaller than B1G PAC - 36.61% smaller than B12 ACC - 41.90% smaller than PAC AAC - 22.27% smaller than ACC MWC - 28.09% smaller than AAC
  19. Not to mention the fact that, outside ND, I don't think there is a single property in the ACC, much like the Pac or Big 12, that commands $75m, let alone 100m. They may be able to get close with a UVA/UNC/GTech/FSU, but only because of BTN - and 60% of that is Fox's now. That would net them four rapidly growing states, but the only major DMA is Atlanta, which is half of LA's. If it didn't make sense to grab NoCal, which is bigger than Atlanta, then why would this make sense?
  20. This. If you think the nation is going to rally behind 3 loss LSU or 2 loss Clemson, just because they play bigger brands, you're really missing how brands get built in the first place. Wins is everything. And in the new Big Ten and SEC there are some brands that will multiply their appeal, but many who will see it evaporate too as success fades. Ask Colorado or Nebraska how it doesn't matter to lose to different teams. Having a brand and playing other brands helps the regular season, in regard to how much it pays out. It doesn't mean losses don't matter. In this new playoff format, you'll see the Big Ten and SEC get 3 teams in constantly, but it will come off the backs of 13 who don't. Meanwhile six teams in other conferences will find themselves in the position of drinking from a marketing firehose.
  21. It will be revalued for 2025 to include it, but, at that size, it may not matter if it is 8 or 9. So much content is flowing to SECN that they'll probably need to start an SECN2
  22. So much for having that TV deal before the end of the year: UC Board of Regents delays decision on UCLA move to Big Ten
×
×
  • Create New...