Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17,453]

29 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 

That's the $64 million dollar question.   Texas for example wants the benefits of beating Tech and SMU but not paying them a conference share.  The fans have always cared as long as the B schools played in the same league as the blue bloods.  Teams like 6-6 Oregon State could fill a stadium because they know they get: regular visits from USC, an annual game against their rival Oregon, and a major Bowl   once a generation. 

 

Under the NFL-Lite model, that is all gone because the big boys left and were corralled into super conferences.  So why would the fans of the University of Arizona pay attention at all?  The media take over of the sport has removed everything they used to play for?

 

We want nothing to do with smu.  We’d play them if we did.  Same with coogar high. 
 

as far as fair share, it was us and ou that agreed to rev sharing, not Nebraska.  When aggy and mizzou left, Texas and ou gave their share of the buyouts to the other schools.  Sounds like we didn’t get our fair share. 
 

At one point Texas tried to get osu and tech spots in the pac.  And all for what?  Two schools who wouldn’t piss on us if we were on fire.  
 

as far as the lhn, nothing prevented the other schools from starting their own network. There just isn’t a demand for them. 
 

this is all rich coming from a Notre dame fan

Edited August 3, 2022 by closetohumping

[Guest]

Lolz.  Tech and OSU kept Texas out of the Pac?

Quit making shit up, brother.  That deal was done until Texas backed out, after ESPN flashed y’all some titty( cash.). It was understandable, but don’t mischaracterize what happened.

Edited August 3, 2022 by slorch

[closetohumping 17,453]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

Lolz.  Tech and OSU kept Texas out of the Pac?

Quit making shit up, brother.  That deal was done until Texas backed out, after ESPN flashed y’all some titty( cash.). It was understandable, but don’t mischaracterize what happened.

Did I say that? Bottom line is you had invites and I’m pretty sure we were the reason for that.  Could’ve left you guys but we made sure you would’ve been along for the ride.  You didn’t cost us our invite but we did change our mind.  But you were taken care of weren’t you?  We let you split the aggy buyout, ESPN paid the conference for 14 teams vs 10.  And we kept you in the power five.  But hey, you don’t need us so I guess It’s best we part ways.   Technically you’re still in a “power 5” conference so you can’t be mad right?

Edited August 3, 2022 by closetohumping

[JFKFC 4,890]

This is entertaining:

 

 

 

 

[Deej 76,839]

38 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

as far as the lhn, nothing prevented the other schools from starting their own network. There just isn’t a demand for them. 

"Big, mean Texas isn't going to share their Tier 3 rights!!!"

Meanwhile, Kansas was making a killing off their Tier 3 right with their basketball, and everyone was all "cool, cool..."

[notre dame joe 189]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

Considering we haven't played SMU since 1995, I think, you might be a little off here. 

You won't find it in the casebook, it's just a hypothetical. 

[clapclapclap 9,000]

30 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

This is entertaining:

 

 

 

 

https://theathletic.com/3470202/2022/08/03/college-football-championship-realignment-mailbag/

...I am a lifelong Southerner, but pulling for the Pac-12 to survive and prosper. After San Diego State, are either Nevada or UNLV acceptable candidates? — Mark C.

Nothing against either of those two fine institutions, but if the Pac-12 brought either of them in, the remaining schools would basically have to write them a check from their own bank accounts, because they’re bringing zero new dollars to the league’s next TV deals.

Based on the conversations I’ve had, and reading between some tea leaves, the only remaining Group of 5 schools on the Pac-12’s radar are San Diego State and SMU. The former is fairly obvious, both due to its location and its strong athletic department. SMU’s appeal is part getting into the Dallas recruiting and TV market, and part that it’s highly ranked in academics (No. 68 nationally in US News) — which Pac-12 presidents really do care about. However, it’s also debatable whether either or both will add enough per-school value to prevent the existing 10 from getting their slice of the pie.

I would not discount two other possibilities for the Pac-12. One is the league stays at 10 programs. It would be much the same strategy the Big 12 followed from 2011-21, which benefitted its schools financially but then of course left them a sitting duck when Oklahoma and Texas left. This to me is the likely outcome if they end up landing a less-than-desired number from their next set of media rights. (If that happens, I’d also expect to see Oregon and possibly others push for a bigger slice of the revenue).

Or — they do better than expected, and try to use it as incentive to add schools from the Big 12.

Obviously, the Pac-12 had that opportunity a year ago and declined. (The LA Times recently reported that of all people, USC president Carol Folt put the kibosh on expansion at that time.) I’ve been told the conference did its diligence and found that only a couple of the Big 12 holdovers would have added any value. But circumstances have changed, and if commissioner George Kliavkoff and/or his presidents deem it important to get into Texas, it would make sense to pursue TCU and Baylor, or perhaps even Houston, before turning to SMU and San Diego State.

The tricky thing is that the Big 12 Grant of Rights goes for a year longer than the Pac-12’s, so it wouldn’t line up with the start of the Pac-12’s next TV deal. But that could also work to their advantage. The Pac-12 is going to know its post-USC/UCLA valuation a year or more earlier than the Big 12 schools find out their post-Oklahoma/Texas fate. Probably before the end of this calendar year. That guaranteed money could be tempting to a school like TCU that will still have no idea the new Big 12’s value. And, if they wait until 2025, they can defect without having to pay an exit fee.

To be clear, I would not place the likelihood of this scenario particularly high, though certainly higher than anyone going in the reverse direction....

Edited August 3, 2022 by clapclapclap

[closetohumping 17,453]

27 minutes ago, Deej said:

"Big, mean Texas isn't going to share their Tier 3 rights!!!"

Meanwhile, Kansas was making a killing off their Tier 3 right with their basketball, and everyone was all "cool, cool..."

'Texas needs us!!!"  

 

Actually we don't.  Hasta la vista babies

12 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

You won't find it in the casebook, it's just a hypothetical. 

You're saying hypothetically we need SMU?

[utee94 15,835]

I mean, say what you like about the tenets of athletics conference socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[Azbadlands 109]

8 hours ago, Sandman said:

There have been several where I thought we gave up before kickoff.

In the Charlie Strong era, if the other team scored first, it seemed like a guaranteed loss...

[tonedeaf 56]

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Like always, they'll root for the ones that win most consistently over time.   That's how T-Shirt fans are made.

No.  I've been a "t-shirt" fan since 64-65.  Good or bad. Win or lose.  

[closetohumping 17,453]

2 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

In the Charlie Strong era, if the other team scored first, it seemed like a guaranteed loss...

And if they scored second as well.  Felt like a loss

[Azbadlands 109]

8 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

And if they scored second as well.  Felt like a loss

If the other team scored second, that was a insurmountable lead to overcome for those Texas teams, might as well change the channel and save your liver the agony of watching those painful disasters.  I have no ideal how Strong was harolded so much as a recruiter because he sure as heck did not seem to be any kind of a motivator...

Edited August 3, 2022 by Azbadlands

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

NBC Could Make Big Ten ‘The NFL Of College Football Conferences’

If true, this could be huge.   Having Big Noon on Fox, the CBS 3:30 game (opposite ND on NBC), and an NBC Primetime is the holy grail of valuations.   I'm not sure they can pull that off with 16 though, that's a lot of T1 games.     They don't pay top dollar for 5-5 Indiana to get their shot to be curb stomped by Penn State.    It would basically be the top three games every week, with everything else falling to BTN.  

It would also destroy the Pac12's hopes of having any major games outside AfterDark.  

Quote

NBC Sports doesn’t have the revenue of Amazon. But it has a plan to turn the Big Ten into “the NFL of college football conferences.”

That’s the latest word from the high-stakes Big Ten media rights negotiations. The conference is expected to command at least $1.25 billion annually for its next media rights deal from bidders that include NBC, Amazon, ESPN/ABC, and CBS Sports. The winner will air games alongside Fox Sports, the conference’s primary TV partner and an operating partner in the Big Ten Network.

NBC has already pushed the idea of combining Big Ten telecasts with its existing Notre Dame coverage as a “perfect one-two punch.” As negotiations near the finish line, NBC is proposing a strategy that calls for back-to-back Big Ten and NFL games in prime time TV on Saturday and Sunday nights, said sources.

Imagine a fall football weekend that would include triple-header coverage of Big Ten games on Fox, CBS, and NBC from early Saturday afternoon to Saturday night. Followed the next evening by NBC’s “Sunday Night Football:” the most-watched show in prime time for a record 11 years in a row.

Such a scenario could vault the Big Ten past the rival Southeastern Conference as the premiere college football draw on sports TV — and make the conference one of the few sports entities beside the $11 billion NFL to be featured across American broadcast networks, with games potentially airing on NBC, Fox, CBS, and ABC.

“The Big Ten would have exposure in every TV home,” said one source. “It would also be a smart idea to follow the model of the most successful sports league in America.” 

The Big Ten’s current media rights deals expire after the 2023 season. In a move that could spell doom for the Pac-12 Conference, USC and UCLA are poised to jump to the Big Ten on Aug 2, 2024.

With the addition of Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest TV market, the Big Ten could triple its current payout of $440 million a year. The timing could not be worse, meanwhile, for the Pac-12, which is poised to start negotiations once the Big Ten’s negotiations wrap, commissioner George Kliavkoff told reporters at Pac-12 media days.

NBC, ESPN and Amazon declined to comment on negotiations. The Big Ten did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[LTbear 4,171]

"NBC Could Make the Big Ten the 'NFL of College Football Conferences'"

https://frontofficesports.com/nbc-big-ten-nfl/

 

[notre dame joe 189]

41 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

NBC Could Make Big Ten ‘The NFL Of College Football Conferences’

I

 

We can move their games to Sunday!

[closetohumping 17,453]

1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

https://theathletic.com/3470202/2022/08/03/college-football-championship-realignment-mailbag/

...I am a lifelong Southerner, but pulling for the Pac-12 to survive and prosper. After San Diego State, are either Nevada or UNLV acceptable candidates? — Mark C.

  if commissioner George Kliavkoff and/or his presidents deem it important to get into Texas, it would make sense to pursue TCU and Baylor, or perhaps even Houston, before turning to SMU and San Diego State.

 

[clapclapclap 9,000]

More from the Scheer slap fight, LOL:

B12 conf office wants in on the fun:

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by clapclapclap

[clapclapclap 9,000]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/conference-realignment-big-ten-interest-in-additional-pac-12-teams-has-cooled-big-12-positioned-well/

There's a big reason why we've reached another conference realignment crossroads. It centers around a 51-year-old media executive who has been pulling the strings behind the scenes for a while.

No matter how this round of reorganization ends, Mark Shapiro will have a significant stake. The president of Endeavor -- a powerful global sports, entertainment and content company -- is currently advising the Big 12 on its next media rights deal after its current agreement expires ahead of the 2025 season.

You already know the Big 12 is in the middle of rearranging itself for the second straight summer as it gazes westward to possibly grab some Pac-12 members. At the same time, college athletics is anticipating the Big Ten's new media rights contract, expected to be announced any day. It could be the largest in history.

Those two things are not unrelated. Back in 2004, Shapiro, then an ESPN executive, offered prior Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany a take-it-or-leave it deal to renew with the Worldwide Leader. Delany refused amid what he perceived to be a lowball offer.

"You are rolling the dice," Shapiro infamously told Delany.

"Consider them rolled," Delany responded.

Delany further monetized his conference's rights by taking some of them in-house and starting his own channel...

 

...After the anxiety caused last week regarding further Big Ten expansion, industry sources have indicated the Big Ten is no longer as interested in adding California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington. Rightsholders were balking at paying the same amount for those schools as the 16 Big Ten schools going forward ($80 million-$100 million).

While those four programs may eventually have options, the Big Ten is concentrating on its new deal in 2023 while trying to lure Notre Dame, which has an open invitation. More and more stakeholders now believe the Fighting Irish will ultimately stay independent.

Opportunity lost

Let's not forget the Pac-12 had its chance to bolster its ranks last year when the Big 12 was wounded by the exits of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Sources told CBS Sports this week the Pac-12 vote was 8-4 against taking any Big 12 schools. It would sure be interesting to be find out those Pac-12 schools who voted for expansion a year ago. We already know USC president Carol Folt "shut down" interest in expansion.

"We all would have jumped," one Big 12 AD told CBS Sports in reference to the Pac-12's interest in getting into Texas....

-----

 

LOL to learn Kliavkoff has a journalism degree. 

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-there-is-a-singular-threat

Canzano: There is a singular threat to Pac-12 -- the Big Ten

Pac-12 AD calls Big 12 threat "laughable."

Spoiler

The Pac-12 Conference athletic directors are anxiously waiting to see what happens in the next 24 hours. The conference’s 30-day, exclusive negotiating period with ESPN and Fox is set to expire Aug. 4.

The ADs I spoke with said they haven’t seen any potential revenue numbers yet.

Former Fox Sports Networks president Bob Thompson recently told me he’d be shocked if a deal got done with ESPN in the early negotiating window. That dovetails with the remarks from Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff last Friday, who pumped the brakes on the timeline. I left media day thinking it might be early September before we get resolution.

There’s some customary back-channeling going on right now. Consultants are involved. It’s in the conference’s best interest to go slow, allow the Big Ten to set the market, and give some other bidders a chance to weigh in.

Thompson said: “I think the conference will be wise and want to see who is on the outside looking in when the Big Ten option ends. There’s going to be some folks who expressed an interest in collegiate football who aren’t going to get it in the Big Ten deal.”

In the meantime, the athletic directors of the Pac-12’s remaining 10 universities are still communicating regularly and tell me they’re upbeat.

Said one AD, “The dialogue, candor, and environment have been positive. Everyone is moving in the same direction.”

Are there still threats out there?

Sure.

Said the AD: “It’s a singular threat — the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. That’s it. The Big 12 threat is laughable.”

Would the Big Ten decide to further expand and add Oregon and Washington? Or maybe chase Stanford? I’m going to dive deeper into the calculus of that in the coming days. But the prevailing thought is that none of those universities generate enough potential media rights value by themselves to make doing so a no-brainer.

In fact, I floated that Oregon-Washington-Stanford question to a current Big Ten Conference athletic director, who waved it off.

“I think Stanford might be interesting to our conference presidents just because of the academic piece,” he said, “but unless Notre Dame is coming in too, I don’t think further expansion happens in this cycle.”

The Pac-12 mostly laughed off the Big 12 threat last Friday at media day. It makes sense that those two entities are at odds. There’s only so much money in the college football ecosystem. The SEC ate first, now the Big Ten is feasting. The ACC is waiting for 2036, while Pac-12 and Big 12 are left to fight over what’s left.

There have been reports about the Big 12 trying to poach Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU. Nobody at those universities seems much interested at this point. The financial advantage just doesn’t appear to be there. But the noise annoyed the Pac-12 anyway.

Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff holds a degree in journalism from Boston University. He told me on Friday that he is frustrated with the Big 12’s tactics.

“It’s incredibly destructive, but that’s why they do it,” he said. “When I was in journalism school we were taught you had to source things from two reliable sources and you can’t run with it until. Now, we’ve got folks in the national media reporting stuff that is on burner Twitter accounts. It’s unfortunate. It’s the world we live in. I don’t have thin skin. I’m OK with this stuff, but it does destabilize people.”

Kliavkoff said that several Pac-12 universities have shared communications they’ve received from the Big 12 and other conferences.

“If they hear something or if someone from a different conference is approaching them, they forward those messages,” he said. “Those are fun to read. I’ve read every single one that has been sent to our conference over the last three weeks. It’s amazing how brazen those other conferences are...”

 

...COLLECTIVE WIN: On Pac-12 Media Day, Arizona State’s representatives were asked why the university didn’t yet have a “collective” working to help athletes with opportunities. Football coach Herm Edwards talked at length last week about the importance of the NIL space to any college program.

On Tuesday, an ASU insider sent word: “We are in the game.”

The “Sun Angel Collective” has a website, a board of directors, and a mission. Also, it has a deep pool of potential donors, as ASU boasts 579,829 active alumni.

Oregon has Division Street, Inc., UCLA has the “Bruin Fan Alliance” and Washington State has the “Cougar Collective,” among others.

The trend in this space is clear. Wealthy alumni and gift givers lining up to write checks that will help athletes at their respective universities. It’s why the size and power of ASU’s alumni base is so interesting. I took a quick look at where the graduates of Arizona State live:

 

California and Texas are very important to ASU’s mission. So are Washington and Colorado. For those wondering why Arizona State might be more interested in sticking around the Pac-12 vs. jumping to the Big 12, I’d present this as Exhibit A.

ASU would love nothing more than to mine those 579,829 donors on a regular basis. If anything, adding a Texas-based university to the Pac-12 would leave the Sun Devils in a perfect world, with ample exposure to roughly 74 percent of its alumni base....

Edited August 4, 2022 by clapclapclap

[closetohumping 17,453]

It’s weird a school as wealthy as Texas would have Tech problems.  https://es.pn/3OSTE1L

[closetohumping 17,453]

This klavfoff fella has no idea who he’s messing with.  

[camel at sea 589]

The PAC media PR guys are admitting that even with Oregon and Washington in the fold, they'll make less per-school in their next rights deal than the Big 12 schools will make, and they're admitting that PAC schools attend less well than those in the Big 12, but the argument is that the Big 12 won't be far enough ahead to poach anyone.  They're acting like that's a much stronger position than it really is.  If Arizona and Utah read those tea leaves, and stay where they are, then good luck to them. They're betting big that either 1) Oregon/Washington won't ever be able to leave, or 2) the Big 12 will always have a spot for them down the road.  That seems like a particularly big gamble at Utah with the Big 12 already having a flag planted in that state.  

The Big 12 has been talking about adding Boise / going to 14 since the ink dried on the AAC additions.  Boise just announced earlier in the summer some gigantic facilities upgrades are on the way.  If the PAC options dry up, then the Big 12 could go ahead with the original plan.  Boise would provide the Big 12's next media deal with another Big 12 option for late-kicks on Saturday night.  They're a solid TV / football brand.  They've been competitive in men's basketball (20+ wins in 8 of last 10 years including 27 and MWC champs last year.)  They'd accept a prolonged phase-in period without rocking the boat.  

[bullet 1,597]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

Lolz.  Tech and OSU kept Texas out of the Pac?

Quit making shit up, brother.  That deal was done until Texas backed out, after ESPN flashed y’all some titty( cash.). It was understandable, but don’t mischaracterize what happened.

You should take your own advice.

Fox and ESPN flashed the whole Big 12.   Told them they all would make as much staying where they were.

You're about to repeat the lie about the LHN.

[closetohumping 17,453]

25 minutes ago, bullet said:

You should take your own advice.

Fox and ESPN flashed the whole Big 12.   Told them they all would make as much staying where they were.

You're about to repeat the lie about the LHN.

Actually made more as they paid us for 14 when we only had ten.  ESPN could’ve paid us at ten shares or probably ripped up the contract.  But hey we can’t survive without tech and okie st

 

 

Lets not forget ou jettisoned both Nebraska and okie st to partner with us

Edited August 4, 2022 by closetohumping

[bullet 1,597]

4 hours ago, LTbear said:

"NBC Could Make the Big Ten the 'NFL of College Football Conferences'"

https://frontofficesports.com/nbc-big-ten-nfl/

 

Fox at noon, CBS at 4 and NBC at 8 would be B$G.

ESPN would get scraps, which is good news for the Pac 10 and Big 12.

[TKthunder2 4,992]

22 minutes ago, bullet said:

Fox at noon, CBS at 4 and NBC at 8 would be B$G.

ESPN would get scraps, which is good news for the Pac 10 and Big 12.

I don’t think the B1G could pull off 3 tier one broadcast level games regularly with their current lineup.  If they added ND, Oregon, Washington, Stanford to go to 20 that would be doable.

This sounds like leaked propaganda to get a streaming service to up their bid.  I can see FOX and CBS or NBC (not both) getting tier one content but tier 2 is likely going to be shared with FOX and ESPN or a streaming partner unless NBC thinks tier two B1G content is better than anything they could get from the B12/P12 (which it might be as Ohio St/Purdue might be able to outdraw their game of the week). I don’t see CBS settling for tier two.

This is the only way that could make sense:

FOX/CBS - tier one

FOX/NBC - tier two

FOX/BTN - tier three

[msucolt45 4,063]

Arkansas will always be our Enemy! At the 40th anniversary of the ‘63 Team” my Dad, of all former players in attendance, was asked to describe what it meant to be a Longhorn! In front of all, as well as DKR and Frank Broyels!


Asked by the local media afterwards of why DKR chose to have my Dad speak at that banquet, he said if he’d have forty of him (Mickey Riggs), he’d never lost a game!

TSB!

Hook’em!

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

TV ratings are the only reason tOSU got in over TCU.

That's what's idiotic about this sport, and going down some road where there's no reward for tangible performance is only going to make it worse.

Whole point of a playoff that’s expanded. 2014 illustrated that beautifully. OSU got in over TCU because of TCU’s Baylor loss.   OSU ran through the playoff. TCU was up 35-0 at half against a good Ole Miss team. That TCU team was legit. But you can never say a team like OSU didn’t deserve to be there after they assraped Wisc in their CCG, and then ran the table. Same thing with GA this year. 

[bullet 1,597]

56 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I don’t think the B1G could pull off 3 tier one broadcast level games regularly with their current lineup.  If they added ND, Oregon, Washington, Stanford to go to 20 that would be doable.

This sounds like leaked propaganda to get a streaming service to up their bid.  I can see FOX and CBS or NBC (not both) getting tier one content but tier 2 is likely going to be shared with FOX and ESPN or a streaming partner unless NBC thinks tier two B1G content is better than anything they could get from the B12/P12 (which it might be as Ohio St/Purdue might be able to outdraw their game of the week). I don’t see CBS settling for tier two.

This is the only way that could make sense:

FOX/CBS - tier one

FOX/NBC - tier two

FOX/BTN - tier three

That was my thinking.  That lineup calls for ND to be in the fold along with UW and probably Oregon + 1 bay area.  The Big 10 just doesn't have the depth the SEC does.

[thunderlounge 7,871]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

It’s weird a school as wealthy as Texas would have Tech problems.  https://es.pn/3OSTE1L

 

Quote

Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.

 

I wish I could be that trashed and get paid.  

 

[Hagbard Celine 10,875]

8 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You won't find it in the casebook, it's just a hypothetical. 

yo, domer, you are hanging out on our board, so have your facts straight before you post.  smu was a stupid dumb choice to try to make a point, and then try to brush it off and declare it a hypothetical.

let's flip the turntables....

domer for example wants the benefits of beating every team they play but not paying them a conference share. 

you will find it in the casebook, because it's not a hypothetical.

see how that works?

[TKthunder2 4,992]

So as far as the PAC10 is concerned, they and their media mouthpieces are now openly admitting that the Big 12 will likely  pull in more TV revenue and openly discussing giving Oregon and others a “bigger piece of the pie” aka unequal revenue sharing, while the Big Ten is saying no further raiding today (without ND) but maybe soon…

So Arizona and Colorado are sitting here hearing that they’ll make less money than the Big 12 with equal revenue sharing…

and even less than that when they go to unequal revenue sharing…

and that the league could still collapse during the next Big Ten raid and there is a real possibility they lose their spot at the big boy table when the music stops and they are stuck in a Frankenstein version of a conference that is half PAC12 leftovers and half MWC wannabes.

Or they can join the Big 12, make more money, and secure their spot in what will quickly become the #3 or at minimum #4 conference. This doesn’t sounds like a very difficult choice especially if I’m Zona and you think you or ASU will be left behind.

[notre dame joe 189]

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

yo, domer, you are hanging out on our board, so have your facts straight before you post.  smu was a stupid dumb choice to try to make a point, and then try to brush it off and declare it a hypothetical.

let's flip the turntables....

domer for example wants the benefits of beating every team they play but not paying them a conference share. 

you will find it in the casebook, because it's not a hypothetical.

see how that works?

I will once ND forms a conference and then leaves it to play in the diet NFL.

[Zinhead 42]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

So as far as the PAC10 is concerned, they and their media mouthpieces are now openly admitting that the Big 12 will likely  pull in more TV revenue and openly discussing giving Oregon and others a “bigger piece of the pie” aka unequal revenue sharing, while the Big Ten is saying no further raiding today (without ND) but maybe soon…

So Arizona and Colorado are sitting here hearing that they’ll make less money than the Big 12 with equal revenue sharing…

and even less than that when they go to unequal revenue sharing…

and that the league could still collapse during the next Big Ten raid and there is a real possibility they lose their spot at the big boy table when the music stops and they are stuck in a Frankenstein version of a conference that is half PAC12 leftovers and half MWC wannabes.

Or they can join the Big 12, make more money, and secure their spot in what will quickly become the #3 or at minimum #4 conference. This doesn’t sounds like a very difficult choice especially if I’m Zona and you think you or ASU will be left behind.

That is what makes the current situation an interesting application of game theory. If you are Arizona or any of the other "quarters" schools, you know that Stanford/Cal/OU/UW will bolt to the BIG at the first opportunity. You also know that you have a spot in the Big 12 right now. However, if the BIG only takes two or three of the remaining Pac 12, that leaves another school or two in a bigger media market available for the Big 12. 

If you are the Big 12, and you are taking four, who is left out among the following after BIG takes their top two or three choices?

Arizona / ASU / Cal / Colorado / Oregon / Stanford / Utah / Washington 

I have to think that Arizona is the least attractive school on that list, and the most likely to be left out, and the most likely to take the safety option.  They just need one more school to jump with. 

 

 

[DFW Horn 6,127]

3 hours ago, Zinhead said:

If you are the Big 12, and you are taking four, who is left out among the following after BIG takes their top two or three choices?

Arizona / ASU / Cal / Colorado / Oregon / Stanford / Utah / Washington 

I have to think that Arizona is the least attractive school on that list, and the most likely to be left out, and the most likely to take the safety option.  They just need one more school to jump with. 

@TKthunder2 spelled it out well. I expect AZ and CO to join the Big 12. Boise St is a ready and willing partner if the other PACs balk.

But, if we've gotta rank these by desirability;

1. OR

2. WA

3. Utah

4. CO

5. ASU

6. AZ

7. Tree

8. Cal

FWIW, I don't think either Tree or Cal will ever condescend to join the Big 12. Fuck 'em both

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by DFW Horn

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

11 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Actually made more as they paid us for 14 when we only had ten.  ESPN could’ve paid us at ten shares or probably ripped up the contract.  But hey we can’t survive without tech and okie st

 

 

Lets not forget ou jettisoned both Nebraska and okie st to partner with us

That was actually the power of an extra conference game.

12 x 4 = 48

10 * 4.5 = 45

No one "paid the Big 12 more" they just got an extremely modest inflationary boost on the rewrite for the loss of 3 games a year.

If the Big 12 had stayed at 8 conference games and was paid the same, then it would have been an increase.

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I don’t think the B1G could pull off 3 tier one broadcast level games regularly with their current lineup.  If they added ND, Oregon, Washington, Stanford to go to 20 that would be doable.

This sounds like leaked propaganda to get a streaming service to up their bid.  I can see FOX and CBS or NBC (not both) getting tier one content but tier 2 is likely going to be shared with FOX and ESPN or a streaming partner unless NBC thinks tier two B1G content is better than anything they could get from the B12/P12 (which it might be as Ohio St/Purdue might be able to outdraw their game of the week). I don’t see CBS settling for tier two.

This is the only way that could make sense:

FOX/CBS - tier one

FOX/NBC - tier two

FOX/BTN - tier three

It actually works pretty well for all involved:

Fox gets the first pick and Big Noon becomes their go-to slot to market to continue to erode share away from ESPN and CGD.  Also ESPN used to pimp the Big Ten at the noon slot, now that would be all Fox.

• NBC gets the second pic for prime, which is fine with them because their top pick is putting ND on all the time at 3:30
• CBS would pick third and may be ok with that if they're offering the same amount of money they pitched the SEC and lost.   It seems more in their budget.
• BTN would get better games, boosting the carriage and adverting on two BTN channels, which also benefits Fox now that they own 61% of the network.

The only things that give me pause is this agreement doesn't really help drive ND to the Big Ten, which is really what they want.   So the Big Ten would need to make a deal for NBC's spots then dedicate one to ND as a lure.  That would also likely push for an expansion up the west coast. for more quality inventory.  Stanford to pair with ND to 18, and Oregon/Washinton for brands (and Seattle's homes), for NBC's prime games.

If that happened, you'd actually end up with:

• Fox Noon - Big Ten #1 east coast
• NBC 3:30e - ND home/away vs Big Ten 
• CBS - 3:30e - Big Ten #3 Midwest
• NBC Prime - Big Ten #2 west coast
• FOX overflow - Random Prime games when something good is left over.
• BTN = everything else.

Funny thing is, I can get to $1-1.2b in valuation with that, not including BTN's revenues, which are going to skyrocket under this deal.

[closetohumping 17,453]

22 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

That was actually the power of an extra conference game.

12 x 4 = 48

10 * 4.5 = 45

No one "paid the Big 12 more" they just got an extremely modest inflationary boost on the rewrite for the loss of 3 games a year.

If the Big 12 had stayed at 8 conference games and was paid the same, then it would have been an increase.

So it was a while ago and I don’t feel like googling it but we went from 14 to ten teams and the networks paid us the same right?  And two of the schools were top 5 big 12 draws.  And us and ou also gave up our share of the buyouts when we didn’t have to right?  Was iowa st and Baylor gonna join the b1g or pac without us and ou?   

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

4 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

So it was a while ago and I don’t feel like googling it but we went from 14 to ten teams and the networks paid us the same right?  And two of the schools were top 5 big 12 draws.  And us and ou also gave up our share of the buyouts when we didn’t have to right?  Was iowa st and Baylor gonna join the b1g or pac without us and ou?   

It was:

1. 12 at 8 conference games
2. Lost four
3. Gained 2
4. Moved from 8 conference games to 9

If you look at the games per year, Texas and Oklahoma have the most ABC/Fox games, and that was true at the time realignment started too.   So, the lack of 3 games wasn't going to kill the conference value as long as they kept the core.   Missouri or WVU or Colorado or ISU, etc are washes, so those extra T1 games not involving Texas and Oklahoma would draw about the same with the old members or the new.

I'm pretty sure the buyouts flowed out evenly, but it wasn't that much at the time.   I think Missouri got out for one year of revenue, Nebraska's was only $9m.   Texas and Oklahoma will pay more in buyouts alone than all the schools that exited prior due to the change in the bylaws.

The Grant of Rights was new because they weren't getting any new contract without stability.   The ACC went through this a few years after the Big 12 and the Pac is going through this now.  Unless the ten lock themselves together contractually, their values will plummet or they will get a deal that rewrites with any movement.   Less risk for the networks means higher returns for the conference.

[TKthunder2 4,992]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

@TKthunder2 spelled it out well. I expect AZ and CO to join the Big 12. Boise St is a ready and willing partner if the other PACs balk.

But, if we've gotta rank these by desirability;

1. OR

2. WA

3. Utah

4. CO

5. ASU

6. AZ

7. Tree

8. Cal

FWIW, I don't think either Tree or Cal will ever condescend to join the Big 12. Fuck 'em both

 

If the Big 12 had first 5 picks, Stanford would be #3 after Oregon and Washington I don’t see the need to pretend otherwise just because they wouldn’t join unless given no other option.  You get a school in a major media market that is semi competitive and brings acclaim in academics and across multiple sports, AND they are private so you don’t have to deal with don’t travel to states we don’t agree with laws (no CR).

Colorado (market/history/geography) would be #4

An Arizona school would be #5. Arizona/ASU are just blah in football.  ASU is bigger but Zona is the flagship, a better basketball school, and has higher academics which can be used as a tie breaker.  Then ASU would be a duplicate market and unnecessary to the B12.

Utah while a duplicate market with BYU is the most competitive team remaining after the PNC schools.

California is tied for next to last with Wazzu (better on paper than most realize) and the 2nd AZ school because they are a public school in CA which makes it difficult to for them to travel to states like Texas and Oklahoma.  Lots of baggage.

1/2 Oregon/Washington 

3 Stanford

4 Colorado 

5 Arizona

6 Utah

7/8/9 ASU/Cal/Wazzu

10 Oregon St

 

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal would rather hang around and ride out the new PAC10 knowing that they will likely be rescued at a future date (not sure why Cal would think that but they seem to); and Utah seems adverse to joining up with BYU again.

So it seems like the Big 12’s best efforts should be on Colorado and the Arizona schools if they can peel away 2 then that’s the end of the PAC10.  They can try to reload with SDSU, Fresno, UNLV but the writing will be on the wall for anyone who doesn’t think they have a future pass to the Big Ten.

[bullet 1,597]

41 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

So it was a while ago and I don’t feel like googling it but we went from 14 to ten teams and the networks paid us the same right?  And two of the schools were top 5 big 12 draws.  And us and ou also gave up our share of the buyouts when we didn’t have to right?  Was iowa st and Baylor gonna join the b1g or pac without us and ou?   

12 to 10.  They really didn't have any choice.  They couldn't cut the payout to "market" as allowed in the contract, because market was higher than what they were paying.

[bullet 1,597]

16 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

If the Big 12 had first 5 picks, Stanford would be #3 after Oregon and Washington I don’t see the need to pretend otherwise just because they wouldn’t join unless given no other option.  You get a school in a major media market that is semi competitive and brings acclaim in academics and across multiple sports, AND they are private so you don’t have to deal with don’t travel to states we don’t agree with laws (no CR).

Colorado (market/history/geography) would be #4

An Arizona school would be #5. Arizona/ASU are just blah in football.  ASU is bigger but Zona is the flagship, a better basketball school, and has higher academics which can be used as a tie breaker.  Then ASU would be a duplicate market and unnecessary to the B12.

Utah while a duplicate market with BYU is the most competitive team remaining after the PNC schools.

California is tied for next to last with Wazzu (better on paper than most realize) and the 2nd AZ school because they are a public school in CA which makes it difficult to for them to travel to states like Texas and Oklahoma.  Lots of baggage.

1/2 Oregon/Washington 

3 Stanford

4 Colorado 

5 Arizona

6 Utah

7/8/9 ASU/Cal/Wazzu

10 Oregon St

 

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal would rather hang around and ride out the new PAC10 knowing that they will likely be rescued at a future date (not sure why Cal would think that but they seem to); and Utah seems adverse to joining up with BYU again.

So it seems like the Big 12’s best efforts should be on Colorado and the Arizona schools if they can peel away 2 then that’s the end of the PAC10.  They can try to reload with SDSU, Fresno, UNLV but the writing will be on the wall for anyone who doesn’t think they have a future pass to the Big Ten.

I suspect 4 through 10 are pretty interchangeable.  Cal might have slightly more value than the rest if Stanford is not in the picture.  And I don't know how valuable Stanford is long term.  They were top 10 in winning % in the last decade, but were in the 90s in the decade before that.  I think they are up because of their last 10 year run, but that is not a permanent condition.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

11 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Whole point of a playoff that’s expanded. 2014 illustrated that beautifully. OSU got in over TCU because of TCU’s Baylor loss.   OSU ran through the playoff. TCU was up 35-0 at half against a good Ole Miss team. That TCU team was legit. But you can never say a team like OSU didn’t deserve to be there after they assraped Wisc in their CCG, and then ran the table. Same thing with GA this year. 

Ohio State proved after the fact that they were the best team.  But if you look at their resumes going into the playoffs, and stripped the program names off of it, absolutely no one would have picked Ohio State.  They lost at home to a 6-6 team.  TCU lost on the road to a Top 5 team.

But I'm fully with you on an expanded playoff for that exact reason.  There should have been a field big enough that would have allowed both OSU and TCU to be in, and probably Baylor too.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Al_4_ISU

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Ohio State proved after the fact that they were the best team.  But if you look at their resumes going into the playoffs, and stripped the program names off of it, absolutely no one would have picked Ohio State.  They lost at home to a 6-6 team.  TCU lost on the road to a Top 5 team.

But I'm fully with you on an expanded playoff for that exact reason.  There should have been a field big enough that would have allowed both OSU and TCU to be in, and probably Baylor too.

7-6 in JT Barrett’s second start. They beat the #11 team 59-0 in their CCG. Combined with the name on their jerseys and their following, they totally deserved to get in. It’s the same argument I have made twice for Georgia when they got beat in CCG. OSU in ‘14 and GA in ‘21 proved me right. The solution, as we agree on, is to expand the CFP. 

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

If the Big 12 ...

1/2 Oregon/Washington 

3 Stanford

4 Colorado 

5 Arizona

6 Utah

7/8/9 ASU/Cal/Wazzu

10 Oregon St

....

I'll play!

Assuming the Big Ten doesn't take Stanford, Oregon, and Washington to pair with ND...

Based off "reports" the current Big 12, without a linear channel, is worth about 15-20% more than the Pac10 is, give or take and that's primarily driven by Oregon and Washington.  They're not really worth enough to add to the Big Ten's average, but they're now 40-50% of the Pac's current value.

1) Oregon.   They are the biggest current brand remaining in the Pac 12.   The Big 12 needs brands.   They're likely valued at 40% higher than the B12 average.   Downside is they're in a small DMA south of Portland.   That makes them less loved by the Big Ten.  

2) Washington.  A bit smaller brand than Oregon, but a much higher footprint.  If a linear channel is in the works they're worth more.   I'd give them B12*1.4 too

3) Cal OR Stanford.  Neither move the needle really.   Stanford has the Ivy clout, but Cal is a major academic institution.   The Big 12 probably has a better chance with Cal over Stanford, but, at the end of the day they're the same.   Without a linear channel they're worth the same as Big 12 schools, with one, however, you get a top ten market, which is worth a ton.   B12*20% for one, take two and its a wash.

4) ASU.   They're bigger, they have over 300,000 alumni in Arizona, and they actually reside within the Phoenix DMA.  This is a B12*15% and could grow depending on linear.

5) Colorado.   You had them, you loved them, they broke your heart, but Denver is Denver. B12 *10%

6) Arizona likely gets the nod over Utah for this spot only because Arizona has more people and BYU is in the SLC DMA already.   

 

If you went to 18 with that line up you get a net growth for the Pac 12 schools of +30% per school revenue from current and for the Big 12 schools you're at about a >15ish% increase.   

What this doesn't factor in though is if you build out a Big 12 Network with someone.   It wasn't worth doing it before because you had 7m households and no content to put on it.   Now you'd have 22m homes and have the following states: California (1), Texas (2), Florida (4), Ohio (7), Washington (13), Arizona (14), and Colorado (21).

Its not going to be BTN or SECN, but there is a lot of untapped value there and now you have a glut of inventory to do it.

[bullet 1,597]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Ohio State proved after the fact that they were the best team.  But if you look at their resumes going into the playoffs, and stripped the program names off of it, absolutely no one would have picked Ohio State.  They lost at home to a 6-6 team.  TCU lost on the road to a Top 5 team.

But I'm fully with you on an expanded playoff for that exact reason.  There should have been a field big enough that would have allowed both OSU and TCU to be in, and probably Baylor too.

They didn't prove they were the best team.  They proved they were the best among the teams that got invited to the party.

[statsman 5,472]

Who negotiates the structure of the college football playoff? Not the NCAA, I know. The major conferences?  The CFA? 
If it’s the major conferences, killing the PAC gives the SEC and B10 significantly more power. 
Of course, the B10 and SEC could decide to market their own playoff to the networks,…and the networks will buy it. We will then have a FBS tier 1 playoff and a tier 2 playoff (for Big XII, PAC, ACC and G5). 

[JFKFC 4,890]

51 minutes ago, statsman said:

Of course, the B10 and SEC could decide to market their own playoff to the networks,…and the networks will buy it.  

This has always been the endgame. 2 Super-conferences monopolizing the playoff & major bowl money. 

[notre dame joe 189]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

If the Big 12 had first 5 picks, Stanford would be #3 after Oregon and Washington I don’t see the need to pretend otherwise just because they wouldn’t join unless given no other option.  You get a school in a major media market that is semi competitive and brings acclaim in academics and across multiple sports, AND they are private so you don’t have to deal with don’t travel to states we don’t agree with laws (no CR).

Colorado (market/history/geography) would be #4

An Arizona school would be #5. Arizona/ASU are just blah in football.  ASU is bigger but Zona is the flagship, a better basketball school, and has higher academics which can be used as a tie breaker.  Then ASU would be a duplicate market and unnecessary to the B12.

Utah while a duplicate market with BYU is the most competitive team remaining after the PNC schools.

California is tied for next to last with Wazzu (better on paper than most realize) and the 2nd AZ school because they are a public school in CA which makes it difficult to for them to travel to states like Texas and Oklahoma.  Lots of baggage.

1/2 Oregon/Washington 

3 Stanford

4 Colorado 

5 Arizona

6 Utah

7/8/9 ASU/Cal/Wazzu

10 Oregon St

 

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal would rather hang around and ride out the new PAC10 knowing that they will likely be rescued at a future date (not sure why Cal would think that but they seem to); and Utah seems adverse to joining up with BYU again.

So it seems like the Big 12’s best efforts should be on Colorado and the Arizona schools if they can peel away 2 then that’s the end of the PAC10.  They can try to reload with SDSU, Fresno, UNLV but the writing will be on the wall for anyone who doesn’t think they have a future pass to the Big Ten.

No one would pick the UofAZ over ASU.  There is just too much growth in the Phoenix area.  Because we ended the lockdowns in 2020, PHX was at the tippy top of the real estate market.  

 

The Big12 has a UCF problem. The conference just doesn't look real with two islands in the east. If they had not panicked they could have slots to do a PAC semi-merger

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Ohio State proved after the fact that they were the best team.  But if you look at their resumes going into the playoffs, and stripped the program names off of it, absolutely no one would have picked Ohio State.  They lost at home to a 6-6 team.  TCU lost on the road to a Top 5 team.

But I'm fully with you on an expanded playoff for that exact reason.  There should have been a field big enough that would have allowed both OSU and TCU to be in, and probably Baylor too.

Not to beat the dead horse but

 

the argument for TCU was that they had a common opponent in Minnesota, the Frogs did much better.

 

The argument for anOSU was that they were higher in the BCS proxy due to an overall tougher schedule. 

[camel at sea 589]

4 hours ago, bullet said:

12 to 10.  They really didn't have any choice.  They couldn't cut the payout to "market" as allowed in the contract, because market was higher than what they were paying.

It's worth pointing out that the Big 12 was paid on the 12 for 10 deal, for just a year.  The 13 year deal signed by the conference in 2012 was negotiated with ten teams and it was signed after TCU/WVU were in the boat.  There's this kind of long-running CR narrative that the Big 12 has been paid 12 for 10 for the last 13 years.