Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2213]

22 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I feel semi-bad for Washington State.  The more you look at the numbers and how competitive they’ve been it’s not a great feeling to see them get demoted out of a Big 4 conference.

I’ve honestly wondered if the Big 12 would somehow try to get Wazzu into the conference.  The Big 12 100% needs Colorado, one Arizona school, and Utah as the best remaining.  The 2nd Arizona school versus Washington State isn’t clear which is better.

Washington State- small market but new region for the Big 12, best football of the 3

Arizona - flagship AAU with good basketball, has been better recently than ASU in football and baseball 

Arizona State - huge enrollment in major metro, has slightly better history than Zona in football and baseball

Who knows maybe the Big 12 goes to 20 with the 4 corners, Wazzu, Boise, SDSU, and Memphis.

I feel no pity for Oregon State.  Other than the Beavers being a great college team name and their baseball team nothing else about them is memorable.  They (like the dregs of the super conferences) were given a golden ticket for decades and have done jack shit with it.

Yeah I've tried to run numbers on this and you kind of break up value in two areas for the Big 12; who gets you over the air eyeballs and who gets you a great DMA for your own network.  I think I'd go in this order

1. Washington is the top dog.   It has a brand bigger than anything in the Big 12 currently and resides in a DMA with 2m households.   They, like Stanford, check all the boxes for the Big Ten.
2. Oregon is a big national brand, as someone mentioned prior, a marketing construct that resides in a DMA of only 250k homes.  The only markets smaller in the combined Pac/B12 is KState and Tech.   If Oregon wasn't backed by Knight and didn't have 30 good years, I'm not really sure they'd resonate.  What happens once Knight isn't backing them?   I'd not be surprised if they're left without a Big Ten ticket.   UCLA is a basketball blue blood and needed the massive LA market to make the numbers work.
3. Stanford/Cal both are in a DMA of 2.6m, which would be second biggest in a combo behind DFW.  Cali also has 40m residents, so having a flag there is good.  Do you need both?
4. Colorado is a no brainer.   It touches Kansas, has 1.7m homes, and has a history.  Also, their biggest alumni base outside Colorado was LA, which is gone.   
5. Arizona/ASU - This is big one - do you need both.    ASU resides within the Phoenix DMA, which is 2.15m households and, as you mention, is a massive school.  Arizona has the flagship brand and natties in basketball, but that's about it.   Also, Tuscon is not a major metro, its basically the same size as Iowa State's DMA.   Arizona does seem to be the one leading this charge to leave though so I'd guess you take both, but you only need ASU.
6. Utah - You already have the SLC DMA, and their 1.1m households, since you added BYU, so its a wash.     Having the rivalry game brings a lot of value, but can you afford to double dip?
7. Washington State.    The Spokane DMA is the same size as Arizona or Iowa State, so ok, but not awesome.   Basically 450-500k.   Unlike the other two, though, there is nothing near there.   If you draw a 300 mile circle around Ames you reach 38m people.   If you draw the same around Pullman and you reach 13m   Lots of trees.
8. Oregon State sits in the same little DMA as Oregon, but without the marketing.  Agree, no pity.

[Trojan Man 429]

4 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Oregon is currently punching above their weight class. Completely agree. They (like Washington) are similar to Wisconsin in B1G or Auburn (minus the titles) in the SEC. No one considers them a blue blood or even close to it, but to say they have no value due to their weak history is not logical.

For their programs size, history, and few achievements they have great brand awareness and recognition.  When they play big games they get ratings. 538’s analysis has Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, and Florida State as the top 4 teams not in the B1G/SEC/ND.

Have they peaked?  Maybe, but worst case scenario the B1G has added 2 teams in the growing PNW that together will completely dominate that market.  Add in Stanford and they’d have the whole West Coast locked down which is extremely valuable for TV.

Give the Big 12 Oregon, Cal, Wazzu, SDSU, Boise, Utah, BYU, Colorado the Arizona schools and they could realistically challenge the B1G with just USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington in those markets especially when USC is underperforming.  Pull Oregon and Cal into the B1G and any ‘challenge’ would be theoretical at best.

USC is butthurt about Oregon stealing their recruits while they’ve been struggling but not nearly as butthurt about Stanford handicapping their conference for decades by squashing every attempt to expand with Texas over the years.

Stanford is also a smaller school that doesn’t have a huge fan base and has also been punching above their weight class. But Stanford didn’t steal USC’s recruits, and Oregon did, so fuck Oregon, am I right?

There are plenty of reasons I prefer Stanford in the Big 10 over Oregon.  Only one of those reasons is because of personal dislike towards Oregon.  Also, USC still loses the occasional recruit to Stanford.  Not as many as to Oregon, but usually every cycle there is a player or two USC really wants that goes to Stanford.  The prestige of a Stanford degree is impossible to beat among recruits whose #1 priority is their education.  Blue chip recruits who are serious about their education do exist.  This isn't a recent Harbaugh/Shaw phenomenon, either.  I remember it happening in the Carroll days while USC was on top of the world and Stanford was one of the worst teams in a BCS conference.

-Stanford is an easy road trip for USC/UCLA.  Oregon is an easier road trip from LA than the Big 10 teams are, but it's not an easy road trip (I'm talking solely about distance, not quality of the opponent).  LA to Eugene is the exact same distance in the air as Austin to Ames but I've never heard anybody claim Iowa State is an easy road trip for Texas.  Three California teams in the Big 10 means they all get 1 CA road game per year, which will help significantly with travel.  That also helps cut down travel for all other sports.

-There are more USC/UCLA fans in the Bay Area than Eugene.  I'm guessing here, but it seems like a safe assumption that every Big 10 school also has more fans in the Bay Area than Eugene.  That directly translates to more booster club events and parties and alumni engagement centered around football weekends when your team comes to visit.  It's also not hard for visiting fans to get tickets to a Stanford game.

-Stanford's academics are second to none in FBS football.  Every Big 10 president will get hard/wet over being in the same conference as Stanford.

-Northern California isn't as talent-rich as Southern California, but it still produces far more recruits than Oregon.

-I've given enough non-hater reasons that I can now end with my personal dislike reason.  An Oregon employee helped decide one football player taking benefits to leave for the NFL from an agent with zero affiliation to USC was worth 30 scholarships and a two year bowl ban, an egregious punishment the likes of which hasn't been handed down since then for worse violations at other schools.  They happily fucked over a team in their own conference to help themselves by creating a power vacuum, which also fucked over the entire Pac 12.  It turns out when you burn down the nicest house in your neighborhood while all the neighbors watch and cheer for the arsonists everyone else's property values go down, not up.  Why should USC want to take that kind of bullshit to a new conference?

You can blame USC for taking a long time to get their own affairs in order after the sanctions ended, but part of our wandering in the wilderness was due to the lingering effects of the sanctions.  A big reason that fucking clown Helton got the job and kept it as long as he did is because of sanction PTSD among the administration.  When you share a conference with schools that would gladly use the NCAA to kneecap you for their own benefit it's understandable to be overly cautious.  Oregon can act pious and righteous over it, but they have no ground to stand on.  Chip Kelly was hit with a show cause for funneling money to recruits during his time at Oregon while the NCAA had absolutely nothing on Pete Carroll despite investigating USC for 5 years with an agenda to cripple the football program.

[closetohumping 17449]

24 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah I've tried to run numbers on this and you kind of break up value in two areas for the Big 12; who gets you over the air eyeballs and who gets you a great DMA for your own network.  I think I'd go in this order

1. Washington is the top dog.   It has a brand bigger than anything in the Big 12 currently and resides in a DMA with 2m households.   They, like Stanford, check all the boxes for the Big Ten.
2. Oregon is a big national brand, as someone mentioned prior, a marketing construct that resides in a DMA of only 250k homes.  The only markets smaller in the combined Pac/B12 is KState and Tech.   If Oregon wasn't backed by Knight and didn't have 30 good years, I'm not really sure they'd resonate.  What happens once Knight isn't backing them?   I'd not be surprised if they're left without a Big Ten ticket.   UCLA is a basketball blue blood and needed the massive LA market to make the numbers work.
3. Stanford/Cal both are in a DMA of 2.6m, which would be second biggest in a combo behind DFW.  Cali also has 40m residents, so having a flag there is good.  Do you need both?
4. Colorado is a no brainer.   It touches Kansas, has 1.7m homes, and has a history.  Also, their biggest alumni base outside Colorado was LA, which is gone.   
5. Arizona/ASU - This is big one - do you need both.    ASU resides within the Phoenix DMA, which is 2.15m households and, as you mention, is a massive school.  Arizona has the flagship brand and natties in basketball, but that's about it.   Also, Tuscon is not a major metro, its basically the same size as Iowa State's DMA.   Arizona does seem to be the one leading this charge to leave though so I'd guess you take both, but you only need ASU.
6. Utah - You already have the SLC DMA, and their 1.1m households, since you added BYU, so its a wash.     Having the rivalry game brings a lot of value, but can you afford to double dip?
7. Washington State.    The Spokane DMA is the same size as Arizona or Iowa State, so ok, but not awesome.   Basically 450-500k.   Unlike the other two, though, there is nothing near there.   If you draw a 300 mile circle around Ames you reach 38m people.   If you draw the same around Pullman and you reach 13m   Lots of trees.
8. Oregon State sits in the same little DMA as Oregon, but without the marketing.  Agree, no pity.

Good summation.  But when talking Oregon, don't you give them Portland?  Just like we deliver Dallas and Houston? 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

10 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Good summation.  But when talking Oregon, don't you give them Portland?  Just like we deliver Dallas and Houston? 

That's why there are two things to look at, audience and DMA.   Remember when markets were important for the Big Ten?   Well the Big 12 sits in a spot where it can finally do something with excess inventory.   In those conversations, just like the BTN or SECN, it isn't about how many people watch it it is about how many people you reach in the DMAs you reside.  So even if Texas "pulls" DFW or Oregon does with Portland, they reside within the Austin and Eugene DMAs.   That's their home market for higher pricing.   And that will matter because for the BTN they make about $1.50 - $1.75 per home DMA and about $0.25 - $0.50 out.  USC/UCLA, in LA, is now worth $120m to the BTN in affiliate fees alone.   Oregon would be worth $5.5m with their DMA.   Could they get a boost to the Portland DMA?   Likely, but nothing like residing within it.   THIS is why Rutgers was added.   The Big Ten doesn't care if no one watches in NYC, they get to charge you for it.

Pulling markets works for your T1 and T2 rights.   Its why you want Texas on your package, people tune in outside of Austin to watch it.   But you don't waste those games on LHN, you put them on ABC.   So that's where Oregon helps with a brand standpoint, but not from a linear channel stand point, same as Utah.

[TKthunder2 4992]

9 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Good summation.  But when talking Oregon, don't you give them Portland?  Just like we deliver Dallas and Houston? 

For market purposes they are 80 miles away so that would be like giving Waco credit for Dallas. However unlike that example Oregon is the biggest and soon to be ONLY game in the state. So while it might be a stretch to say they bring Portland, in reality they do and the BTN in combination with Washington would be picked up by both the Seattle (#15) and Portland (#25) metros if they bring in UO/UW, the big difference is that (depending on the BTN carriage agreements) Seattle would be paying the “in market” rate while Portland could only pay the “out of market” rate.  If Oregon was in Portland their inclusion wouldn’t be in question in any way.

Adding those plus one of the Bay Area schools (#5 combined SFO/SanJose) would also help get you on other smaller markets that may not have happened with just USC/UCLA (more school=more fans=more demand).  San Diego (#17), Sacramento (#26), Fresno (#50), and maybe even Vegas (#29) or Phoenix (#10) could all decide to carry the BTN on their basic tier. These wouldn’t pay in market rates but they’d still add to the overall carriage and bring in more money.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

10 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

For market purposes they are 80 miles away so that would be like giving Waco credit for Dallas. However unlike that example Oregon is the biggest and soon to be ONLY game in the state. So while it might be a stretch to say they bring Portland, in reality they do and the BTN in combination with Washington would be picked up by both the Seattle (#15) and Portland (#25) metros if they bring in UO/UW, the big difference is that (depending on the BTN carriage agreements) Seattle would be paying the “in market” rate while Portland could only pay the “out of market” rate.  If Oregon was in Portland their inclusion wouldn’t be in question in any way.

Adding those plus one of the Bay Area schools (#5 combined SFO/SanJose) would also help get you on other smaller markets that may not have happened with just USC/UCLA (more school=more fans=more demand).  San Diego (#17), Sacramento (#26), Fresno (#50), and maybe even Vegas (#29) or Phoenix (#10) could all decide to carry the BTN on their basic tier. These wouldn’t pay in market rates but they’d still add to the overall carriage and bring in more money.

I can actually see the Big Ten taking Colorado over Oregon, maybe even Utah.   Both are major AAU research institutions in large, growing markets, that help connect the dots between Nebraska and California.   That would be 20 with ND, Stanford, Washington, Colorado.   Which gives them Seattle (#14), NoCal (6), and Denver (17) for BTN.     That makes much more Big Ten sense to me than Oregon (25).    SLC and Portland are basically the same size.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Vertigo 20290]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I don’t remember the timing but I do remember David boren saying ou was nobody’s tag along and they reached out to Larry Scott without us.   Who knows what was really happening behind the scenes

And then Larry Scott said not without Texas.. 

[Vertigo 20290]

48 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Good summation.  But when talking Oregon, don't you give them Portland?  Just like we deliver Dallas and Houston? 

Portland has a population of about 600K. Similar to Denver. That is why nobody is lining up to grab Colorado in this scenario either except maybe the B12. 

[DanTheHorn 4934]

49 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Portland has a population of about 600K. Similar to Denver. That is why nobody is lining up to grab Colorado in this scenario either except maybe the B12. 

Somebody did a wiki search for the city and not the metroplex. Dallas has a population of 1.3M but the DFW metroplex has a population of 7.6M. So Portland metroplex delivers 2.5M as of 2010 and estimated at 3.6M now. I think 538 put together all the numbers and making arguments that contradict theirs means you have serious access to data and analytical skills.

Edited September 1, 2022 by DanTheHorn

[closetohumping 17449]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

And then Larry Scott said not without Texas.. 

yep. And it wasn’t meant as a smack down to ou as they’re an attractive program but Scott wasn’t going to just l force our hand and then we end up in the sec, acc or b1g.  Ou is a great program unfortunately.   But we deliver the TVs 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

16 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Somebody did a wiki search for the city and not the metroplex. Dallas has a population of 1.3M but the DFW metroplex has a population of 7.6M. So Portland metroplex delivers 2.5M as of 2010 and estimated at 3.6M now. I think 538 put together all the numbers and making arguments that contradict theirs means you have serious access to data and analytical skills.

Yeah the unit of measure you want for these broadcast conversations is DMA, or designated market areas.    They measure broadcast households in each market.   E.g. how many TVs, not really how many people.  Here's the top 100:

Quote

Rank	Designated Market Area (DMA)	TV Homes	% of US
1	New York	7,348,620	6.407
2	Los Angeles	5,476,830	4.775
3	Chicago	3,463,060	3.019
4	Philadelphia	2,942,800	2.566
5	Dallas-Ft. Worth	2,713,380	2.366
6	San Francisco-Oak-San Jose	2,488,090	2.169
7	Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)	2,476,680	2.159
8	Houston	2,450,800	2.137
9	Boston (Manchester)	2,424,240	2.114
10	Atlanta	2,412,730	2.104
11	Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)	1,908,590	1.664
12	Phoenix (Prescott)	1,890,100	1.648
13	Detroit	1,853,030	1.616
14	Seattle-Tacoma	1,808,530	1.577
15	Minneapolis-St. Paul	1,742,530	1.519
16	Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	1,696,330	1.479
17	Denver	1,630,380	1.422
18	Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn	1,519,570	1.325
19	Cleveland-Akron (Canton)	1,498,960	1.307
20	Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto	1,379,770	1.203
21	St. Louis	1,215,570	1.06
22	Charlotte	1,189,950	1.038
23	Pittsburgh	1,160,220	1.012
24	Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)	1,153,580	1.006
25	Portland, OR	1,143,670	0.997
26	Baltimore	1,119,480	0.976
27	Indianapolis	1,086,310	0.947
28	San Diego	1,065,700	0.929
29	Nashville	1,011,570	0.882
30	Hartford & New Haven	963,950	0.84
31	San Antonio	938,660	0.818
32	Columbus, OH	920,740	0.803
33	Kansas City	919,020	0.801
34	Salt Lake City	916,960	0.799
35	Milwaukee	895,700	0.781
36	Cincinnati	863,800	0.753
37	Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And	845,990	0.738
38	West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce	824,920	0.719
39	Austin	771,210	0.672
40	Las Vegas	757,840	0.661
41	Oklahoma City	722,140	0.63
42	Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws	717,170	0.625
43	Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York	715,110	0.624
44	Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk	709,670	0.619
45	Birmingham (Ann and Tusc)	696,380	0.607
46	Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem	690,050	0.602
47	Jacksonville	688,500	0.6
48	Albuquerque-Santa Fe	677,590	0.591
49	Louisville	662,170	0.577
50	New Orleans	641,620	0.559
51	Memphis	633,930	0.553
52	Providence-New Bedford	616,280	0.537
53	Buffalo	596,710	0.52
54	Fresno-Visalia	573,180	0.5
55	Richmond-Petersburg	564,510	0.492
56	Wilkes Barre-Scranton-Hztn	554,660	0.484
57	Little Rock-Pine Bluff	547,950	0.478
58	Tulsa	531,230	0.463
59	Albany-Schenectady-Troy	529,120	0.461
60	Mobile-Pensacola (Ft Walt)	528,320	0.461
61	Ft. Myers-Naples	518,730	0.452
62	Knoxville	514,610	0.449
63	Lexington	479,420	0.418
64	Dayton	466,040	0.406
65	Honolulu	442,820	0.386
66	Wichita-Hutchinson Plus	439,760	0.383
67	Roanoke-Lynchburg	439,620	0.383
68	Green Bay-Appleton	438,070	0.382
69	Des Moines-Ames	433,950	0.378
70	Charleston-Huntington	431,150	0.376
71	Tucson (Sierra Vista)	425,860	0.371
72	Flint-Saginaw-Bay City	423,010	0.369
73	Spokane	422,550	0.368
74	Omaha	416,210	0.363
75	Springfield, MO	409,020	0.357
76	Rochester, NY	404,170	0.352
77	Columbia, SC	400,790	0.349
78	Toledo	400,170	0.349
79	Huntsville-Decatur (Flor)	385,470	0.336
80	Madison	384,830	0.336
81	Portland-Auburn	383,700	0.335
82	Shreveport	371,760	0.324
83	Paducah-Cape Girard-Harsbg	369,390	0.322
84	Harlingen-Wslco-Brnsvl-McA	368,960	0.322
85	Syracuse	368,950	0.322
86	Champaign&Sprngfld-Decatur	364,050	0.317
87	Waco-Temple-Bryan	357,720	0.312
88	Colorado Springs-Pueblo	354,190	0.309
89	Chattanooga	351,220	0.306
90	Cedar Rapids-Wtrlo-IWC&Dub	343,000	0.299
91	Savannah	340,050	0.296
92	El Paso (Las Cruces)	333,270	0.291
93	Baton Rouge	330,910	0.289
94	Charleston, SC	327,040	0.285
95	Jackson, MS	321,830	0.281
96	South Bend-Elkhart	313,210	0.273
97	Burlington-Plattsburgh	307,470	0.268
98	Tri-Cities, TN-VA	306,770	0.267
99	Ft. Smith-Fay-Sprngdl-Rgrs	304,670	0.266
100	Greenville-N.Bern-Washngtn	301,990	0.263

 

[Trojan Man 429]

50 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Portland has a population of about 600K. Similar to Denver. That is why nobody is lining up to grab Colorado in this scenario either except maybe the B12. 

Denver's metro is almost 3 million, nearly 10x the Eugene metro.  Colorado being a complete joke in football and generally apathetic towards sports is the biggest mark against them.  If their athletic department was committed to success and they were a 7-9 win team most years I think they'd get serious Big 10 consideration.  They check all the other boxes, but their administration just doesn't give a fuck about winning.  A huge problem the Pac 12 had was too many teams were happy to do the bare minimum to collect their media check and Colorado was one of the worst offenders.  The Big 10 already has plenty of 2-4 win teams with a ceiling of 6 wins, they don't need more.

[closetohumping 17449]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

For market purposes they are 80 miles away so that would be like giving Waco credit for Dallas. However unlike that example Oregon is the biggest and soon to be ONLY game in the state. So while it might be a stretch to say they bring Portland, in reality they do and the BTN in combination with Washington would be picked up by both the Seattle (#15) and Portland (#25) metros if they bring in UO/UW, the big difference is that (depending on the BTN carriage agreements) Seattle would be paying the “in market” rate while Portland could only pay the “out of market” rate.  If Oregon was in Portland their inclusion wouldn’t be in question in any way.

Adding those plus one of the Bay Area schools (#5 combined SFO/SanJose) would also help get you on other smaller markets that may not have happened with just USC/UCLA (more school=more fans=more demand).  San Diego (#17), Sacramento (#26), Fresno (#50), and maybe even Vegas (#29) or Phoenix (#10) could all decide to carry the BTN on their basic tier. These wouldn’t pay in market rates but they’d still add to the overall carriage and bring in more money.

Ok. So does this mean smu delivers Dallas?   

[hook me 2103]

The Big 12 is in a good spot for negotiating expansion with what looks to be the leftovers of the Pac12. I wouldn't be surprised if part of their meetings with ESPN/FOX are getting numbers on if they remain with the 12 they will have vs adding the corner schools. It doesn't benefit the Big 12 in the least to go up to Washington/Oregon since UW & UO are obviously waiting on the Big 10 to call & no one else in that conference is worth the logistical headache. ESPN being locked out of the Big 10 & seeing the implosion of the Pac 12 on the horizon will want/need the P5(4?) content & territories that the Big 12 has to offer in a way that FOX may not. It wouldn't surprise me to see ESPN be a little more aggressive & potentially overpay the Big 12 to try & entice members from the ACC to give them a look when that conference implodes in the next several years as they're being lapped by the Big 10 & SEC in TV revenues. Once the ACC falls apart the Big 12 will be in position to snatch up some of the second-tier universities (Pitt, Louisville, NCST, UVA, VT) & possibly a bigger fish if the SEC & Big 10 decide to pass on one or won't take some sort of package (UNC/Duke, UNC/NCST, Miami/FSU).

If the corner schools aren't banging down the doors of the Big 12 trying to get in while they still have some sort of leverage for negotiating then they deserve to be left in the cold. There's no one to add to the Pac 12 to make it a viable P5 conference with the TV deals that you had &, while you may not enjoy being labeled a villain by the rest of that conference, I'd rather be called bad names while maintaining/increasing TV revenue than be left behind in the MWC or AAC hoping someone eventually throws me a bone. 

[thunderlounge 7866]

13 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

My two cents is if Fox/the Big 10 really wanted more Pac 12 teams at this time they'd already be invited.

No, they wouldn’t. 
 

Why? Not worth the price of admission. 
 

Check it. 
 

Why did the b1g take usc/ucla before opening the contract negotiations early?

Why wouldn’t they take all they wanted and the  do it?

Value. 
 

The other couple may get in, but now with the new deal inked, they can do what they did to corn, etc: give them a partial share for the current contract.

Now current teams make what they need to, and the cost to bring them into the b1g is now less than it would have been before a new deal. 
 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

One of the marketing rumors I heard is the possibility of ESPN moving Texas/OU early to the SECN and getting the rights from the Big 12 by repurposing LHN, which already has some market penetration, into a Big 12 Network, which they'd tether to the SEC/ACC networks.

The irony there is extreme.

There is another possibility with FS2 serving a similar purpose.

The irony grows even more if the end result is Fox/ESPN both bidding against each other for their shoulder/T3 all because they're last to the table.

It could be one of those "fall in shit and end up smelling like roses" stories and is likely why the Pac12 media is like "WTF?!"

 

[LTbear 4170]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Maybe, but worst case scenario the B1G has added 2 teams in the growing PNW that together will completely dominate that market.  

Nah. Worst case scenario is the Cascadia Subduction Zone rips (there's about a 35% chance in the next 50 years) and the Seattle and Portland markets effectively cease to exist. 

[bullet 1597]

6 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm sure that's the company line, but a move like that (especially as well concealed as it was) takes time.  

Obviously we'll probably never know, but the way they went from "we have no interest" with the two bluebloods in the mix, to being pretty interested 2 years later after those blue bloods left, and they were back filled with 4 decent schools who don't bring those kind of eyeballs, seems odd.

I think that ESPN, the SEC, OU, and UT already had things in motion and wanted a good excuse.  This was the thing that Texas and Oklahoma could point to and say "see?  We HAD to do it."  And now ESPN will end up with a more blue blood heavy SEC, and a solid, cheaper Big 12 that can give them fairly high interest content at a lower price point than the SEC.

I think its more likely they simply weren't interested until they knew what piece of the Big 10 they had.

[bullet 1597]

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Original PAC16 deal with aggy got blown up because of aggy and ESPN gave Texas the LHN.

Second PAC16 when aggy left for the SEC got blown up because Scott and Stanford didn’t want to deal with the LHN and ESPN/FOX agreed to pay the Big12 the same money they were paying for 12 teams for 10 (meaning everyone got a raise).

Oklahoma approached the B1G, PAC, and SEC solo and with OSU occasionally in tow but no one was interested.

The 2016 attempted expansion never occurred because no one of value would increase the existing conference member’s TV money.  They would pay the new team the same money but the 10 wouldn’t see a penny more.  They got ESPN/FOX to give them more money for the CCG and if they agreed to nullify the clause that required ESPN/FOX to contractually pay any new member the same rate.  In addition, no other members wanted to give up playing UT/OU annually in order to play Houston or BYU.

Trying to open the deals in 2020 wasn’t profitable to ESPN or FOX they had already given the Big 12 a pair of raises over the life of the current contract. Paying them more before they saw what the SEC/B1G deals were occurring wouldn’t have been a great business move.

The original one blew up before the LHN.  It was still going forward with Kansas instead of aggy.  But ESPN and Fox promised the Big 12 TV contract would get bigger and be similar to the Pac 16 deal.  Fox paid an advance bonus for the last two years of the existing contract.  It was then that Texas decided not to do the deal.  The money was the same, the schedules weren't much different (they were trying to minimize cross-division matchups), so why move?

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I feel semi-bad for Washington State.  The more you look at the numbers and how competitive they’ve been it’s not a great feeling to see them get demoted out of a Big 4 conference.

I’ve honestly wondered if the Big 12 would somehow try to get Wazzu into the conference.  The Big 12 100% needs Colorado, one Arizona school, and Utah as the best remaining.  The 2nd Arizona school versus Washington State isn’t clear which is better.

Washington State- small market but new region for the Big 12, best football of the 3

Arizona - flagship AAU with good basketball, has been better recently than ASU in football and baseball 

Arizona State - huge enrollment in major metro, has slightly better history than Zona in football and baseball

Who knows maybe the Big 12 goes to 20 with the 4 corners, Wazzu, Boise, SDSU, and Memphis.

I feel no pity for Oregon State.  Other than the Beavers being a great college team name and their baseball team nothing else about them is memorable.  They (like the dregs of the super conferences) were given a golden ticket for decades and have done jack shit with it.

I don't feel too bad about WSU.  They don't belong any more than Wake Forest or Rice.  They are simply in by legacy.  The only schools lower in attendance in the P5 are Vanderbilt, Duke and Wake Forest.  For that matter, the only schools lower than Oregon St. are those 4.  Cincy and Houston in the AAC were still higher than WSU.  UCF was higher than both of them.

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

With the Pac, they could have moved with Texas, Tech, OU, OkSt, and Kansas to get to 16, prior to Utah.   LHN isn't as huge of a deal when you have 16 teams.    In the Pac model you could have had a regional with those 5 teams and had Dallas/KC in the mix and I'm guessing with Cali and Texas you'd get a DirecTV deal.   You'd still have all the prime Texas rights, which would bolster your TV contracts and you wouldn't have to pay them for T3.   Someone just couldn't sell to the brass that you'd make more over all splitting the big money 16 ways and the small money 15.   Pretty sure LHN came out of that mess though too, there was a moment where the Pac was talking before the network deal was in place, I just can't remember how big of a window that was.

As for the Big 12, they didn't really get much of a raise.   They had been selling 48 games with 8 conference games.   Moving to 9 let them sell 45.    You can make that up with inflation.

Pac 16 fell apart in June 2010.  In October they were still talking about Fox being likely to get the LHN for about $3 million a year.  The next month ESPN dropped the $15 million offer.  It was another year before the startup.  LHN just was not as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be.  Part of that is aggy.  Part was Scott trying to lay the blame somewhere other than just acknowledging he couldn't deliver the value.

I watched the Powers, Dodds, Plonsky press conference after they decided not to go.  i don't believe they even mentioned the LHN once.  If they did go with the Pac 16 plans, there would still be a two school network.  UT/aggy or UT/TT.  The LHN being blamed for everything is just one of those urban internet legends that just won't go away.

 

[DanTheHorn 4934]

Based on 538 if we take FIT away and just look at Market Rating and Sports Score here is the order of the schools as far as "value" is concerned. Once again the networks probably have their own rating regarding "value". The question is can 9 schools leaving the ACC be enough to dissolve it. Then they can pickup next best 9 schools and create the 3rd super conference. Left Baylor out because f them. This all will probably not happen until 2036 if the BIG12 extends their contract through 2036 but it would be nice to see it happen now.

Team	Market Rating	Sport Score	Composite Score (No Fit)
Notre Dame	93	77	170
Florida State	82	55	137
Oregon	77	60	137
North Carolina	71	61	132
Clemson	75	57	132
Miami	72	48	120
Washington	64	49	113
TCU	66	46	112
Oklahoma State	40	65	105
Utah	50	50	100
Baylor	60	38	98
Stanford	35	59	94
Arizona State	46	45	91
Duke	43	44	87
West Virginia	38	49	87
Louisville	46	39	85
Virginia Tech	47	38	85
Syracuse	44	35	79
Houston	36	39	75
Texas Tech	48	27	75
Virginia	42	32	74
Georgia Tech	31	39	70
Pittsburgh	25	44	69
California	24	44	68
Colorado	33	35	68
NC State	35	33	68
Arizona	32	32	64
Kansas	34	30	64
Iowa State	33	27	60
Kansas State	20	38	58
SMU	32	21	53
Boston College	22	29	51
Washington State	31	20	51

[bullet 1597]

The Big 12 contract went from about $7 million a year to $20 million a year after the Pac 16 fell apart (jumped from $80 million total for 12 to $200 million for 10).  It took a few years for the old deal to expire, but they knew they were getting a huge raise.  Pac also got a huge raise to about the same number.

Fox immediately told them they were going from $20 million total to $90 million.

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by bullet

[bullet 1597]

3 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

There are plenty of reasons I prefer Stanford in the Big 10 over Oregon.  Only one of those reasons is because of personal dislike towards Oregon.  Also, USC still loses the occasional recruit to Stanford.  Not as many as to Oregon, but usually every cycle there is a player or two USC really wants that goes to Stanford.  The prestige of a Stanford degree is impossible to beat among recruits whose #1 priority is their education.  Blue chip recruits who are serious about their education do exist.  This isn't a recent Harbaugh/Shaw phenomenon, either.  I remember it happening in the Carroll days while USC was on top of the world and Stanford was one of the worst teams in a BCS conference.

-Stanford is an easy road trip for USC/UCLA.  Oregon is an easier road trip from LA than the Big 10 teams are, but it's not an easy road trip (I'm talking solely about distance, not quality of the opponent).  LA to Eugene is the exact same distance in the air as Austin to Ames but I've never heard anybody claim Iowa State is an easy road trip for Texas.  Three California teams in the Big 10 means they all get 1 CA road game per year, which will help significantly with travel.  That also helps cut down travel for all other sports.

-There are more USC/UCLA fans in the Bay Area than Eugene.  I'm guessing here, but it seems like a safe assumption that every Big 10 school also has more fans in the Bay Area than Eugene.  That directly translates to more booster club events and parties and alumni engagement centered around football weekends when your team comes to visit.  It's also not hard for visiting fans to get tickets to a Stanford game.

-Stanford's academics are second to none in FBS football.  Every Big 10 president will get hard/wet over being in the same conference as Stanford.

-Northern California isn't as talent-rich as Southern California, but it still produces far more recruits than Oregon.

-I've given enough non-hater reasons that I can now end with my personal dislike reason.  An Oregon employee helped decide one football player taking benefits to leave for the NFL from an agent with zero affiliation to USC was worth 30 scholarships and a two year bowl ban, an egregious punishment the likes of which hasn't been handed down since then for worse violations at other schools.  They happily fucked over a team in their own conference to help themselves by creating a power vacuum, which also fucked over the entire Pac 12.  It turns out when you burn down the nicest house in your neighborhood while all the neighbors watch and cheer for the arsonists everyone else's property values go down, not up.  Why should USC want to take that kind of bullshit to a new conference?

You can blame USC for taking a long time to get their own affairs in order after the sanctions ended, but part of our wandering in the wilderness was due to the lingering effects of the sanctions.  A big reason that fucking clown Helton got the job and kept it as long as he did is because of sanction PTSD among the administration.  When you share a conference with schools that would gladly use the NCAA to kneecap you for their own benefit it's understandable to be overly cautious.  Oregon can act pious and righteous over it, but they have no ground to stand on.  Chip Kelly was hit with a show cause for funneling money to recruits during his time at Oregon while the NCAA had absolutely nothing on Pete Carroll despite investigating USC for 5 years with an agenda to cripple the football program.

You shouldn't blame Oregon for that.  That's just the NCAA that thinks agents are the biggest violation anyone can do.  UNC fake classes?  No problem.  Baylor, Montana rape coverups, not a big deal.  Notre Dame killing a student employee by making him stay in a tower during high winds during practice, refusing to pursue sexual harassment case against starter that lead to suicide.  Not our issue.  USC-agent, big deal.  Georgia Tech-agent gives one senior player $300 in clothes.  Player pays him back.  Georgia Tech goes on probation and forfeits their ACC title.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

6 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

So I guess Oregon St and Washington St are about to get fucked? Mountain West seems like the most likely destination (I know nothing about the conference or its future plans - but seems to make the most sense geographically).  The Athletic had an article about the AAC being an option - and they have a slightly better TV deal than the Mountain West - but that just doesn't seem like it would make much sense.  Going from 35 million a year payout to 5 is a real dick punch for those universities and the towns they reside in.

I posted this on the BU board, but I wonder how much a "New Pac" would get if they trimmed the bottom of the MWC and AAC creating something like...

 

Oregon State

Washington State

Boise State

Fresno State

Utah State

San Diego State

SMU

Memphis

Air Force

Colorado State

Navy

Army

USF

ECU

 

 

Obviously it's a disaster still for Wazzu and OSU, but that has to be better than a current AAC or MWC $$$ wise, but maybe not enough to entice these schools for the extra travel. 

 

 

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah the unit of measure you want for these broadcast conversations is DMA, or designated market areas.    They measure broadcast households in each market.   E.g. how many TVs, not really how many people.  Here's the top 100:

 

Much of this has to do with population outside the metro area.  DFW is the 4th largest MSA and Houston is 5th.  Houston is bigger than Philly, the Bay Area, DC and much bigger than Boston (right behind Houston), but there are a lot more people outside those metros that watch those TV stations than in Houston.  South of Houston is the Gulf, East is mostly swamp until Beaumont and North has huge swaths of national forest.  West doesn't really have a lot of people either.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

Much of this has to do with population outside the metro area.  DFW is the 4th largest MSA and Houston is 5th.  Houston is bigger than Philly, the Bay Area, DC and much bigger than Boston (right behind Houston), but there are a lot more people outside those metros that watch those TV stations than in Houston.  South of Houston is the Gulf, East is mostly swamp until Beaumont and North has huge swaths of national forest.  West doesn't really have a lot of people either.

Exactly, it's not the city proper, it's the metro area.   It is basically where the local news broadcasts, which is why Washington/Baltimore are now separated when they used to be combined.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I posted this on the BU board, but I wonder how much a "New Pac" ...

 

 

This is a good point, it won't be Oregon State and WSU moving to the MWC, the MWC will join those two and keep the Pac name.    Even with all new schools the brand is more easily recognized.   Just like the marketing story of the Ford 500 being rebranded the Taurus.   Why spend money to build up a new name when you already have one everyone knows.

[TKthunder2 4992]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I posted this on the BU board, but I wonder how much a "New Pac" would get if they trimmed the bottom of the MWC and AAC creating something like...

Oregon State
Washington State
Boise State
Fresno State
Utah State
San Diego State
SMU
Memphis
Air Force
Colorado State

Make perfect sense so far…
Navy
Army
USF
ECU

And you lost me. Army didn’t want to join the AAC so I don’t think they’ll pull it here. I’d see Navy going independent than doing this.  ECU/USF might rather join the Sun Belt in all honesty.

A better group would be:

UTSA, Rice, Tulane, UNLV

[DukDukGru 48]

On 8/29/2022 at 4:44 PM, bullet said:

Oregon has value now.  I don't think they are one bad hire from irrelevance, but 10 years like OU had in the 90s or UT in the 10s and Oregon is not much different than Oregon St. or Colorado St.  

Look at Colorado now.  They actually had an MNC.  They have a big media market.  And they are one of the lower value teams in the Pac 10.

...Or possibly when Phil Knight dies.

[Trey3216 15347]

[Uncle Nate 2097]

So did the expanded 12 team playoff just save the Pac 10?

Does this put the kabash on the Big 12 poaching any of the 4-corner schools?  Or does the regular season TV money still require the current PAC teams to rethink their lives? 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Uncle Nate

[mdmost 43004]

I think it did but the Big 10 seems really set on getting even more teams. If money is driving the bus, the Pac 10 dissolves because Washington, Oregon, and Stanford can't afford to leave all that money on the table. Notre Dame, if they get a great TV deal from NBC, are now free to not join a conference. They will always be one of the at-large teams if they lose less than 2 games.

[hawkfan 60]

This, IMO, is the "give ND cover to join a conference" clause:

ND would be excluded from a first round bye if Feldman has that correct.

[Huckleberry 32997]

27 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I think it did but the Big 10 seems really set on getting even more teams. If money is driving the bus, the Pac 10 dissolves because Washington, Oregon, and Stanford can't afford to leave all that money on the table. Notre Dame, if they get a great TV deal from NBC, are now free to not join a conference. They will always be one of the at-large teams if they lose less than 2 games.

But they are permanently ineligible for a bye in the 12 team system if they stay independent. They would be wilfully cutting any playoff quality teams they have chances of winning the title in half. 

[mdmost 43004]

Pretty sure Notre Dame was fine with that back when this was getting kicked around last summer. And that was before the Big 10 expanding was even a possibility. But I could be wrong.  

 

[billfromlaketravis 11517]

32 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

This, IMO, is the "give ND cover to join a conference" clause:

ND would be excluded from a first round bye if Feldman has that correct.

Can you Big 12/BYU cry babies SFTU now?!

I think 8 would have worked better, but 12 is sure as shit better than 16. 

[Not a Sock 2313]

1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

This, IMO, is the "give ND cover to join a conference" clause:

ND would be excluded from a first round bye if Feldman has that correct.

Nope, ND actually pushed for this last year before the Alliance torpedoed it. The driving reason the ACC voted against the playoff expansion was because they wanted to make it hard for ND to qualify and thus could be pressured into joining the ACC as a football member. ND was just as pissed as the SEC was when expansion got shutdown last year.

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

So did the expanded 12 team playoff just save the Pac 10?

Does this put the kabash on the Big 12 poaching any of the 4-corner schools?  Or does the regular season TV money still require the current PAC teams to rethink their lives? 

No.  Either the B$G $0 takes more Pac schools and it dissolves with the remainder seeking refuge in the Big 12; or, B$G $0 stays pat and Pac 12 becomes Pac 10.

Nothing else is really relevant.  Maybe if somehow the Big 12 got a $40 million contract vs. $25 million for the Pac the 4 corners jump, but I suspect the contracts will probably end up within $5 million or so of each other.

[DFW Horn 6124]

 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

Just now, DFW Horn said:

 

The old Miami philosophy.  It’s good thinking. 
 

wonder if this makes Ou or us rethink anything   

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

4 minutes ago, ONE YARD said:

The old Miami philosophy.  It’s good thinking. 
 

wonder if this makes Ou or us rethink anything   

no

[hawkfan 60]

7 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

Nope, ND actually pushed for this last year before the Alliance torpedoed it. The driving reason the ACC voted against the playoff expansion was because they wanted to make it hard for ND to qualify and thus could be pressured into joining the ACC as a football member. ND was just as pissed as the SEC was when expansion got shutdown last year.

Reading the tea leaves, it seems pretty clear to me Swarbrick understands where this is heading with his comments from back in April stating that the B1G/SEC have started the end game:

https://footballscoop.com/news/notre-dame-ad-jack-swarbrick-great-split-coming-college-athletics

I continue to believe all of the conference realignment moves for the last 50 years have always been as easy as following the money.  It's pretty easy to see that the TV networks will eventually put more money out there for the B1G/SEC to dump G5/FCS games, and now that we're getting the expanded playoff and you'll see 3/4 loss teams get in, everyone will agree to comply for a pay raise from the networks.  The SEC has resisted 9 conference games for a long time but will be about to do that for a raise.

If I'm right with that assumption, and there are only two real power conferences playing 10-11 games against each other, ND is going to have a pretty tough time putting together a schedule.  If they see the writing on the wall at this point, they can either join a conference in the coming few years and help shape what it will look like moving forward, or they can fight the good fight to stay independent until the end, which is likely the mid 2030's as Swarbrick references in the article.  Either way, they're gonna have to be in one of the P2 conferences for scheduling purposes once the B1G/SEC are done taking what they want from the P12/ACC.

I don't believe for a second that we'll ever see a playoff format where 6 conference champions automatically get in, because I think the money makes it very clear that doesn't make sense.  The B1G/SEC can keep expanding and it will eventually just become top 12 rated teams get in with no auto bids, which will be 8+ B1G/SEC schools every season.

[Slacks 6821]

On 9/1/2022 at 3:14 PM, bullet said:

Much of this has to do with population outside the metro area.  DFW is the 4th largest MSA and Houston is 5th.  Houston is bigger than Philly, the Bay Area, DC and much bigger than Boston (right behind Houston), but there are a lot more people outside those metros that watch those TV stations than in Houston.  South of Houston is the Gulf, East is mostly swamp until Beaumont and North has huge swaths of national forest.  West doesn't really have a lot of people either.

In due time, Houston will expand West for about 100 miles.

[Not a Sock 2313]

5 hours ago, hawkfan said:

Reading the tea leaves, it seems pretty clear to me Swarbrick understands where this is heading with his comments from back in April stating that the B1G/SEC have started the end game:

https://footballscoop.com/news/notre-dame-ad-jack-swarbrick-great-split-coming-college-athletics

I continue to believe all of the conference realignment moves for the last 50 years have always been as easy as following the money.  It's pretty easy to see that the TV networks will eventually put more money out there for the B1G/SEC to dump G5/FCS games, and now that we're getting the expanded playoff and you'll see 3/4 loss teams get in, everyone will agree to comply for a pay raise from the networks.  The SEC has resisted 9 conference games for a long time but will be about to do that for a raise.

If I'm right with that assumption, and there are only two real power conferences playing 10-11 games against each other, ND is going to have a pretty tough time putting together a schedule.  If they see the writing on the wall at this point, they can either join a conference in the coming few years and help shape what it will look like moving forward, or they can fight the good fight to stay independent until the end, which is likely the mid 2030's as Swarbrick references in the article.  Either way, they're gonna have to be in one of the P2 conferences for scheduling purposes once the B1G/SEC are done taking what they want from the P12/ACC.

I don't believe for a second that we'll ever see a playoff format where 6 conference champions automatically get in, because I think the money makes it very clear that doesn't make sense.  The B1G/SEC can keep expanding and it will eventually just become top 12 rated teams get in with no auto bids, which will be 8+ B1G/SEC schools every season.

The SEC isn’t going to 10-11 game conference schedule, the only schools the SEC want are locked up for 10 years, nor are the Big 12 or ACC going to 10-11 games. The only reasons that ND is going to join the Big 10 is purely because of money, the SEC and the rest of CFB are going to oppose the Big 10 in trying to create the conditions that would force ND into the Big 10.

[billfromlaketravis 11517]

13 hours ago, ONE YARD said:

The old Miami philosophy.  It’s good thinking. 
 

wonder if this makes Ou or us rethink anything   

No. 

[billfromlaketravis 11517]

After the CFP expands, I think SOC is going to be critical for the ACC, Big 12, and PAC teams. I'm not suggesting an Alliance, but the best teams in those 3 conferences should play each other regularly. Playing Albany isn't going to cut the mustard Baylor. 

[thunderlounge 7866]

47 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Playing Albany isn't going to cut the mustard Baylor. 

And it shouldn’t. 
 

For the short term, outside the b1g/sec, how they handle their OOC scheduling is going to make a big impact. They can’t control their conference schedule, but they absolutely need to get the things they can control pushing towards the end goal.

If not, and they’re picked over, that is all on them.

 

[TKthunder2 4992]

I wish the SEC would require 9 conference games, 2 power 5 OOC games, and only allow a single game from the G5. No FCS.

This would allow the 4 SEC team with in state rivalries with ACC schools to play those and another power 5 school OOC and not get punished.

[redswingline 1057]

On 9/1/2022 at 3:20 PM, Hurtlocker said:

 it won't be Oregon State and WSU moving to the MWC, the MWC will join those two and keep the Pac name.  

This made me think of the blogs and articles saying the AAC would poach the remaining B12 teams. Clearly, a lot of people don't understand the economic disparity between different conferences.

Even without us and ou, the Big 12 poaches the G5, not the other way around. Just like the P12 poaches the MWC, even without usc and ucla

Edited September 3, 2022 by redswingline