Realignment talk not going away

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

12 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I know why it couldn't have worked out, but I think if the original Big 12 had managed to overcome their drama and stick together they would be poaching USC and UCLA and Washington and Oregon right about now.  That conference would go toe to toe with the B1G and SEC in terms of ratings and media deals and prestige.

It really would have been a great fucking conference. But fuck if it wasn't worth blowing the whole thing up just to get rid of Baylor.
 

[TKthunder2 4985]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Couldn’t ESPN buy out FOX with some under the table assurances they’d get the Big 12’s exclusive rights in 2025? 
 

If I’m ESPN , I’m targeting the Big 12. They’re the only available conference that people give a shit about. 

Sure, but assuming they don’t get caught.

Yes it’s possible, but it’s a big risk to buy out FOX (who seems like they want to be in business with the Big 12, and they have no reason to do ESPN any favors so if they are open to selling it’s not going to be cheap) to hope and get an extension deal done. It’s not impossible just unlikely.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

11 hours ago, camel at sea said:

So if the Big 12 signs a deal that ends up $60M for all in, does that give the decision-makers at U of Arizona the political cover to make the jump?  And if it does, who follows?  Arizona especially cannot drag their feet, I don't think.  They're lower on the value pecking order than some of their PAC peers.  If the Big 12 has ASU, would Arizona automatically be in ahead of SDSU?  I'm not sure - especially if this all goes down a decade from now instead of a year from now.  

There's a scenario in play where the Four Corners schools leave for the Big 12 while the PAC North remnants just add 4 and set up very unequal revenue distribution.

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Or. St, WA St., SDSU, Fresno St, +1, +1 (Boise, Col. St., SMU, Nevada, Hawaii, etc.)

I think the Pac is moments away from being dead man walking.    If the Big 12 finalizes a deal a year and a half early, right after the Pac didn’t get any takers in their exclusive window (and why would they when FOX already took the properties it wanted), it is a clear sign who the broadcast partners favor.  

That alone, regardless of money, could be the cover they need.   

There are clear signs from Sankey/Keenum that the CFB playoff will be more equitable in how they share than less.   What won’t be equitable is how many teams you get in.    More teams in the conference allows for more teams to have less losses, which means you have a higher chance of getting in multiple properties, which is a major boon to exposure.   That alone should give the Pac some pause.   Ten didn’t help the B12.  Sixteen is a better place to be when you want to put 3 in per year.

Lastly, if you listen to Yormark any, he doesn’t put a sentence together that doesn’t include a treatise on marketing and branding.   This leads me to believe he’s trying to hit a number, but he’s also trying to secure exposure.   The Pac 12 and Big 12 have done a terrible job at this to date.   Some indication that broadcast networks are going to promote them like they did the SEC/B1G would be a last straw kind of thing.

As for who?   Outside Yormark pitching 4 time zones, I don’t think it really matters to be honest.   It just takes one.    Arizona is already the Colorado of this round, they don’t seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid.   If they go, I’d expect Colorado to go within moments, its their nature.   Most of their alumni are in SoCal, not Portland, the dream has died. 

Once that happens, it’s a good old fashioned skirt lifting contest. 

I don't think there is any scenario though where Oregon and Washington sit it out with the MWC 2.0.   Waiting 7 years to join the B1G in that set up would destroy their brands.   

 

[Left Coast 863]

18 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

If I’m ESPN , I’m targeting the Big 12. They’re the only available conference that people give a shit about. 

You sure about that? Take a look at the TV ratings this year:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
 

The TV ratings for non-UT or OU Big 12 games are pretty bad. Hell, you had undefeated TCU play undefeated Okie Light and go to OT and you had… 2.14m viewers.

I’m not seeing where there is a huge difference in interest between non-UT/OU Big 12 games and non-SC/UCLA P12 games.

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

5 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

You sure about that? Take a look at the TV ratings this year:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
 

The TV ratings for non-UT or OU Big 12 games are pretty bad. Hell, you had undefeated TCU play undefeated Okie Light and go to OT and you had… 2.14m viewers.

I’m not seeing where there is a huge difference in interest between non-UT/OU Big 12 games and non-SC/UCLA P12 games.

Wilner sock confirmed. 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

47 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

You sure about that? Take a look at the TV ratings this year:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
 

The TV ratings for non-UT or OU Big 12 games are pretty bad. Hell, you had undefeated TCU play undefeated Okie Light and go to OT and you had… 2.14m viewers.

I’m not seeing where there is a huge difference in interest between non-UT/OU Big 12 games and non-SC/UCLA P12 games.

Not sure that's the best example.   TCU/OkSt drew the same number as Stanford/ND in prime, but did it running opposite of the juggernaut that was Alabama/Tennessee.   A massive scoring game, of two top 5s, that went down to the wire, with Alabama losing, with all of CBS/ESPN's marketing behind it - it had all the eyeballs at 11m, the highest rated game of the season so far.   I'm actually surprised any other 3:30 game even rated.

The non USC/ND brand Pac game of the day was, well none.  There was nothing else rated.   Even the USC game was only 2.65m viewers in prime time, on Fox, with very little viewing competition.

The week prior you had Tech/OkSt draw the same as WSU/USC, but the Pac game was on Fox and the Big 12 was on FS1.  Hard to classify that as a win for the Pac when FS1/ESPN2/ESPNU is where games go to die.

Two things that throw off the numbers heavily is that the Big 12 has no linear system and OU/Texas dominate the T1 games, much like USC does.   So most of the other schools don't have a lot of T1 games to compare that don't include OU/Texas and every game they play, no matter how bad, goes on some backwaters cable to be rated.   They don't get to hide their fodder like everyone else.   

The Big 12's top end is not as high as the B1G/SEC, not by any means.   Once they can get more teams marketed in T1, they'll probably top out at 3-4m, where the big two will hit 5-7.   That's why they won't get the same contract.   But top to bottom they're pretty consistently watched; most fluctuation occurs due to channel and lack of marketing.  A good guideline is when you have to find a game, no one is watching it.   

Edited October 22, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Dnaguy 11921]

55 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

You sure about that? Take a look at the TV ratings this year:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
 

The TV ratings for non-UT or OU Big 12 games are pretty bad. Hell, you had undefeated TCU play undefeated Okie Light and go to OT and you had… 2.14m viewers.

I’m not seeing where there is a huge difference in interest between non-UT/OU Big 12 games and non-SC/UCLA P12 games.

But it's content.

I think Big12 + the four corner schools is juicy for ESPN b/c of window ESPN needs to fill for that last window of games.

BYU alone isn't enough IMO which makes the Big12's appeal less to ESPN.... but it's content.

[Left Coast 863]

13 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not sure that's the best example.   TCU/OkSt drew the same number as Stanford/ND in prime, but did it running opposite of the juggernaut that was Alabama/Tennessee.   A massive scoring game, of two top 5s, that went down to the wire, with Alabama losing, with all of CBS/ESPN's marketing behind it - it had all the eyeballs at 11m, the highest rated game of the season so far.   I'm actually surprised any other 3:30 game even rated.

The non USC/ND brand Pac game of the day was, well none.  There was nothing else rated.   Even the USC game was only 2.65m viewers in prime time, on Fox, with very little viewing competition.

The week prior you had Tech/OkSt draw the same as WSU/USC, but the Pac game was on Fox and the Big 12 was on FS1.  Hard to classify that as a win for the Pac when FS1/ESPN2/ESPNU is where games go to die.

Two things that throw off the numbers heavily is that the Big 12 has no linear system and OU/Texas dominate the T1 games, much like USC does.   So most of the other schools don't have a lot of T1 games to compare that don't include OU/Texas and every game they play, no matter how bad, goes on some backwaters cable to be rated.   They don't get to hide their fodder like everyone else.   

The Big 12's top end is not as high as the B1G/SEC, not by any means.   Once they can get more teams marketed in T1, they'll probably top out at 3-4m, where the big two will hit 5-7.   That's why they won't get the same contract.   But top to bottom they're pretty consistently watched; most fluctuation occurs due to channel and lack of marketing.  A good guideline is when you have to find a game, no one is watching it.   

It’s a good point that right now OU/UT scoop up the best Big 12 network/time slots. I honestly thought TCU/Okie St would do better even against Bama/Tenn. Then again I much prefer watching Big 12 over SEC football.

I’m not saying the PAC is more popular (it’s not) but the garbage, terrible P12 Network is a gigantic albatross around its neck. It basically forced USC and UCLA to GTFO. 
 

I’m just looking at ratings. Maybe after UT/OU leave it will allow other B12 teams to step into the spotlight, but I feel like the same issue you talk about (up against a juggernaut SEC/B1G game) is only going to get worse as those conferences expand.

[TKthunder2 4985]

1 hour ago, Left Coast said:

I’m just looking at ratings. Maybe after UT/OU leave it will allow other B12 teams to step into the spotlight, but I feel like the same issue you talk about (up against a juggernaut SEC/B1G game) is only going to get worse as those conferences expand.

Yes they’ll do better, but they’ll still be competing for exposure with UT/OU. That Texas/Iowa State or OU/Kansas game that would have been on ABC or ESPN will still be there, it’ll just be Texas/Kentucky or OU/South Carolina. 

The only new opportunity the Big 12 will have will be the gap in FOX’s lineup that used to have UT/OU.

Right now the Big Ten has FOX and noon, CBS afternoon, and NBC at prime.

FOX reportedly can’t put Big Ten games on opposite CBS in the afternoon so they could offer the Big 12 an exclusive game of the week window in the afternoon opposite SEC on ABC, and Big Ten on CBS (if they are truly out on the PAC, then what other option do they have?)

Locking up some guaranteed exposure would likely be worth taking a little less pay.

So it’ll get harder to get on ESPN/ABC, but easier to get on FOX. They lose the ratings boost of playing against Texas/OU and their built in eyeballs, but have more content and gain more eyes for their remaining members with some better exposure on FOX.

I think it’ll all balance out and look pretty close to what it looks like now, which would still be a win for the Big 12 especially if they stay near the same and the PAC regresses.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

29 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

It’s a good point that right now OU/UT scoop up the best Big 12 network/time slots. I honestly thought TCU/Okie St would do better even against Bama/Tenn. Then again I much prefer watching Big 12 over SEC football.

I’m not saying the PAC is more popular (it’s not) but the garbage, terrible P12 Network is a gigantic albatross around its neck. It basically forced USC and UCLA to GTFO. 
 

I’m just looking at ratings. Maybe after UT/OU leave it will allow other B12 teams to step into the spotlight, but I feel like the same issue you talk about (up against a juggernaut SEC/B1G game) is only going to get worse as those conferences expand.

Yeah I agree with you here.   Its not awesome financially for the Pac/B12 to lose their biggest brands.   But those biggest brands take the best opportunities too.   Someone of the remaining 18 (not including the new comers yet) is going to start developing.   What both leagues need now is exposure, badly.   The SEC didn't always dominate the airwaves, CBS has been marketing that 3:30 slot for 20 years, then they started winning titles, and then they dominate financially.   It doesn't go the other way.

If the Pac/B12 get 20 T1 spots now WITH Texas/OU/USC, getting ten more of their teams into those games is a benefit.   Perhaps not financially, but this is the MACtion/Boise way of building up your brand.   They may start at 2m, but if over 7 years they're averaging 3m, they'll get a financial bump and a partner who sees there is potential there to keep marketing.   That's what this group of non Big Two need to do and its going to take a decade to do it.  You just need schools willing to invest and a structure focused on marketing.

The PACN is hot garbage, but could be repurposed.   The two downfalls right now is it needs to be fed with 10-12 teams.   That means less stuff you're selling.   There is no scenario where the Pac/B12 make SEC/B1G money, but if you could grab merge 6-8 Pac teams with the Big 12 and repurpose the PACN into a national linear, you could make up some distance and it could grow in time with interest.   I actually think a 16/18/20 conference of the mix has a lot of benefits, including a shit ton of content, and enough schools to elevate 6-7 into the T25 yearly.   There's a lot you could do with that mostly blank canvas and chances you can take, that you can't when you're maximizing revenue.

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not sure that's the best example.   TCU/OkSt drew the same number as Stanford/ND in prime, but did it running opposite of the juggernaut that was Alabama/Tennessee.   A massive scoring game, of two top 5s, that went down to the wire, with Alabama losing, with all of CBS/ESPN's marketing behind it - it had all the eyeballs at 11m, the highest rated game of the season so far.   I'm actually surprised any other 3:30 game even rated.

The non USC/ND brand Pac game of the day was, well none.  There was nothing else rated.   Even the USC game was only 2.65m viewers in prime time, on Fox, with very little viewing competition.

The week prior you had Tech/OkSt draw the same as WSU/USC, but the Pac game was on Fox and the Big 12 was on FS1.  Hard to classify that as a win for the Pac when FS1/ESPN2/ESPNU is where games go to die.

Two things that throw off the numbers heavily is that the Big 12 has no linear system and OU/Texas dominate the T1 games, much like USC does.   So most of the other schools don't have a lot of T1 games to compare that don't include OU/Texas and every game they play, no matter how bad, goes on some backwaters cable to be rated.   They don't get to hide their fodder like everyone else.   

The Big 12's top end is not as high as the B1G/SEC, not by any means.   Once they can get more teams marketed in T1, they'll probably top out at 3-4m, where the big two will hit 5-7.   That's why they won't get the same contract.   But top to bottom they're pretty consistently watched; most fluctuation occurs due to channel and lack of marketing.  A good guideline is when you have to find a game, no one is watching it.   

What was interesting was that the ACC and Pac only had 1 game on last week (not counting streaming and conference network).  The Big 12 had all 4.  Even the SEC and Big 10 only had 3.  Clearly, either the Big 12 has a very good contract for exposure, or mediocre Big 12 games are a lot more valued than mediocre ACC/Pac games.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yes they’ll do better, but they’ll still be competing for exposure with UT/OU. That Texas/Iowa State or OU/Kansas game that would have been on ABC or ESPN will still be there, it’ll just be Texas/Kentucky or OU/South Carolina. 

The only new opportunity the Big 12 will have will be the gap in FOX’s lineup that used to have UT/OU.

Right now the Big Ten has FOX and noon, CBS afternoon, and NBC at prime.

FOX reportedly can’t put Big Ten games on opposite CBS in the afternoon so they could offer the Big 12 an exclusive game of the week window in the afternoon opposite SEC on ABC, and Big Ten on CBS (if they are truly out on the PAC, then what other option do they have?)

Locking up some guaranteed exposure would likely be worth taking a little less pay.

So it’ll get harder to get on ESPN/ABC, but easier to get on FOX. They lose the ratings boost of playing against Texas/OU and their built in eyeballs, but have more content and gain more eyes for their remaining members with some better exposure on FOX.

I think it’ll all balance out and look pretty close to what it looks like now, which would still be a win for the Big 12 especially if they stay near the same and the PAC regresses.

Well ABC/ESPN is gaining SEC content, but they have lost their Big 10.  They've got time slots to fill.

[TKthunder2 4985]

21 minutes ago, bullet said:

Well ABC/ESPN is gaining SEC content, but they have lost their Big 10.  They've got time slots to fill.

Disney, excluding the late night window, has 3 games on ABC (noon, 230 exclusive, prime) and 2 games on ESPN (noon/prime) and 3 on the SECN (noon, 230, prime). That’s exactly 8 games which is what the SEC has when all teams are playing. Sure some matchups might get bumped to ESPN2 but not many. Even without the Big Ten it’s going to take a pretty interesting game to get on ABC/ESPN (outside of 230 on ESPN), and you’re competing with the ACC and PAC.

So far this year, the only SEC+UT/OU v P5 team games that were broadcast below the level of ESPN main were Mizzou/K State (ESPN2), Florida/Mizzou (ESPNU), Texas/WVU (FS1), and OU/Kansas (ESPN2).

[TKthunder2 4985]

32 minutes ago, bullet said:

What was interesting was that the ACC and Pac only had 1 game on last week (not counting streaming and conference network).  The Big 12 had all 4.  Even the SEC and Big 10 only had 3.  Clearly, either the Big 12 has a very good contract for exposure, or mediocre Big 12 games are a lot more valued than mediocre ACC/Pac games.

The ACC only had 4 games total last week (near half the teams on a bye). 1 went to ABC, 2 went to the ACCN, and 1 was on RSN (I think they have to send 1 game a week there). They really didn’t have any other content to provide.

The PAC on the other hand…

[Left Coast 863]

The PAC had 5 games, with 3 teams on a bye (incl Oregon and UCLA), 1 Fox, 1 NBC (Stanford/ND) and 3 shipped of to the PacN wilderness. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Disney, excluding the late night window, has 3 games on ABC (noon, 230 exclusive, prime) and 2 games on ESPN (noon/prime) and 3 on the SECN (noon, 230, prime). That’s exactly 8 games which is what the SEC has when all teams are playing. Sure some matchups might get bumped to ESPN2 but not many. Even without the Big Ten it’s going to take a pretty interesting game to get on ABC/ESPN (outside of 230 on ESPN), and you’re competing with the ACC and PAC.

So far this year, the only SEC+UT/OU v P5 team games that were broadcast below the level of ESPN main were Mizzou/K State (ESPN2), Florida/Mizzou (ESPNU), Texas/WVU (FS1), and OU/Kansas (ESPN2).

There is no scenario where all games are played on the main channels.  SECN requires about 48-50 games a year, out of a max of 96.  I'd guess you'll see two a day on ABC at 3:30/Prime and two on ESPN at Noon/3:30, everything else will be on SECN.    Then you'll fill in the Noon ABC, Prime ESPN, and ESPN2/U with Big12/ACC.  

Edited October 22, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 hours ago, Left Coast said:

The PAC had 5 games, with 3 teams on a bye (incl Oregon and UCLA), 1 Fox, 1 NBC (Stanford/ND) and 3 shipped of to the PacN wilderness. 

This is how it basically works for everyone but the B12 right now.

[GabrielsHorn 2183]

All you hateful 8 pricks can go fuck yourselves. Have fun being in a conference no one watches and congrats on wins because the current conference just wants to fuck the people leaving. 

[TKthunder2 4985]

11 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

There is no scenario where all games are played on the main channels.  SECN requires about 48-50 games a year, out of a max of 96.  I'd guess you'll see two a day on ABC at 3:30/Prime and two on ESPN at Noon/3:30, everything else will be on SECN.    Then you'll fill in the Noon ABC, Prime ESPN, and ESPN2/U with Big12/ACC.  

I’m not sure what you thought you read where I said 8 SEC game could be squeezed into 5 game spot, but I penciled in 3 games for the SECN each week. We’re talking about 5 SEC games in 5 available spot on ABC (noon, afternoon, prime) and ESPN (noon, prime).

Also, they will not have an SEC game on ESPN at 230. The 230 game will be on ABC, the only exception to that exclusive window is for the SECN (at least that’s been the current setup since they started the SECN).

I see multiple days THIS YEAR without Texas and Oklahoma where the SEC has had 4 games on a broadcast network and ESPN in a single weekend.

Its completely reasonable to see weekends where ABC could put on 3 SEC games on back to back from noon until prime time and ESPN could also have games at noon and prime as well.  Oklahoma vs UTEP was in ABC this year for crying out loud. Obviously not every week, but it’s a real possibility.
 

Week 6 this year had:
Texas/OU on ABC at noon
LSU/Tenn on ESPN at noon
Arkansas/MSU on SECN at noon
Florida/Mizzou on ESPN2 at noon
Auburn/UGA on CBS at 230
OleMiss/Vandy on SECN at 3
aggy/Bama on CBS prime time
Kentucky/SC on SECN prime time

ESPN/ABC couldn’t put any SEC games on ESPN during 230 or prime time due to CBS’s exclusive window outside of the SECN (which is why they had 3 at noon). Once tier one becomes property of the mouse you can see them adjusting the LSU/Tenn game to prime time, moving Ark/MSU to ESPN, and putting UF/Mizzou on the SECN.

If you don’t see a scenario where they could get 5 games on ABC and ESPN in a single day at this point then I’m not sure what to say.

[bullet 1596]

5 hours ago, Left Coast said:

The PAC had 5 games, with 3 teams on a bye (incl Oregon and UCLA), 1 Fox, 1 NBC (Stanford/ND) and 3 shipped of to the PacN wilderness. 

Stanford/ND was on the Notre Dame network, so they weren't getting paid for that.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I’m not sure what you thought you read where I said 8 SEC game could be squeezed into 5 game spot, but I penciled in 3 games for the SECN each week. We’re talking about 5 SEC games in 5 available spot on ABC (noon, afternoon, prime) and ESPN (noon, prime).

Also, they will not have an SEC game on ESPN at 230. The 230 game will be on ABC, the only exception to that exclusive window is for the SECN (at least that’s been the current setup since they started the SECN).

I see multiple days THIS YEAR without Texas and Oklahoma where the SEC has had 4 games on a broadcast network and ESPN in a single weekend.

Its completely reasonable to see weekends where ABC could put on 3 SEC games on back to back from noon until prime time and ESPN could also have games at noon and prime as well.  Oklahoma vs UTEP was in ABC this year for crying out loud. Obviously not every week, but it’s a real possibility.
 

Week 6 this year had:
Texas/OU on ABC at noon
LSU/Tenn on ESPN at noon
Arkansas/MSU on SECN at noon
Florida/Mizzou on ESPN2 at noon
Auburn/UGA on CBS at 230
OleMiss/Vandy on SECN at 3
aggy/Bama on CBS prime time
Kentucky/SC on SECN prime time

ESPN/ABC couldn’t put any SEC games on ESPN during 230 or prime time due to CBS’s exclusive window outside of the SECN (which is why they had 3 at noon). Once tier one becomes property of the mouse you can see them adjusting the LSU/Tenn game to prime time, moving Ark/MSU to ESPN, and putting UF/Mizzou on the SECN.

If you don’t see a scenario where they could get 5 games on ABC and ESPN in a single day at this point then I’m not sure what to say.

My bad, thought you mentioned filling the 8

But I don't see five happening that often either.   Its likely 4 a week.   You have 96 games and 48 of them will be on the SEC Network, that leaves half the games for broadcast tiering.   Even the Big Ten's new blockbuster deal only has 4 games a week off BTN; 1 CBS, 1 Fox, 1 NBC, 1 FS1, 4 BTN

Edited October 23, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[TKthunder2 4985]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

My bad, thought you mentioned filling the 8

But I don't see five happening that often either.   Its likely 4 a week.   You have 96 games and 48 of them will be on the SEC Network, that leaves half the games for broadcast tiering.   Even the Big Ten's new blockbuster deal only has 4 games a week off BTN; 1 CBS, 1 Fox, 1 NBC, 1 FS1, 4 BTN

No worries.

And yes the Big Ten’s multi partner deal is great for getting more game OTA nationally but not great for quantity because they don’t want to compete with each other and thus restrict each other. Same issue I pointed out above with CBS having an exclusive double window and restricting how many games the SEC could get scheduled at good time. ESPN/SEC had to triple cannibalize their noon games slot because of these multi partner exclusive agreements. If the Big Ten ends up with a great weekend of games their 4th and 5th games are basically going to not be seen by the masses. FS1 is where games go to die.

The advantaged the SEC has with Disney is that they can potentially dominate their air waves, mainly because they have both quality and quantity. They have 9 teams in the top 20 all time wins and 8 of those have national championships since the formation of the BCS (poor aggy) to the Big Ten’s 5 and 2.

The SEC had 5 teams not playing this week (6 if you count Tenn playing Tenn-Martin) and still had two games in OleMiss/LSU on CBS and Bama/MSU on ESPN that were better than the Big Ten blowouts of Ohio St/Iowa and Penn St/Minnesota that were on FOX and ABC respectively.

Excluding the late kick, it seems we agree that ESPN will have 1-2 open spots each week (with a chance for ABC if it’s a great matchup) for the Big 12, ACC, and PAC. FOX will have 1-2 spots for possibly the PAC or Big 12. This is why if I’m the Big 12, locking up an exclusive 230 spot with FOX would be appealing.  Neither the ACC nor PAC have, nor will have, any exclusive OTA spots. It would be a pretty big differentiator, even if you are going up against the best SEC game of the week, and whatever Big Ten game ends up on CBS, plus maybe ND on NBC.

Give FOX tier one with 1st and 4th pick (for FS1) and ESPN tier two with 2nd/3rd, and figure out what your doing with tier 3 because it’s going to get much more difficult to get on ABC/ESPN once they get SEC tier one right AND Texas/Oklahoma.

[bullet 1596]

Here is what is on the air next weekend.  Networks seem to definitely be more fond of Big 12 than ACC and Pac 12.

Big 10-ABC-2, Fox, ESPN2, BTN
SEC-CBS, ESPN, SECN-3
Big 12-Fox, ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 (Texas is off this weekend and OU is on FS1)
ACC-ABC (ND at Syracuse), ESPN, CBSSN, ACCN-3, ESPN3 (Miami!!!)
Pac 12-ESPN (late night), FS1-2 (one on Friday), ESPNU, Pac 12N
AAC-ESPN, ESPN2, CBSSN, ESPN+

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

Here is what is on the air next weekend.  Networks seem to definitely be more fond of Big 12 than ACC and Pac 12.

Big 10-ABC-2, Fox, ESPN2, BTN
SEC-CBS, ESPN, SECN-3
Big 12-Fox, ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 (Texas is off this weekend and OU is on FS1)
ACC-ABC (ND at Syracuse), ESPN, CBSSN, ACCN-3, ESPN3 (Miami!!!)
Pac 12-ESPN (late night), FS1-2 (one on Friday), ESPNU, Pac 12N
AAC-ESPN, ESPN2, CBSSN, ESPN+

That ACC/Pac draw is brutal, good thing they have that ND deal.

[Eskimohorn 5633]

All you hateful 8 pricks can go fuck yourselves. Have fun being in a conference no one watches and congrats on wins because the current conference just wants to fuck the people leaving. 

[LTbear 4168]

On 10/22/2022 at 5:39 PM, GabrielsHorn said:

All you hateful 8 pricks can go fuck yourselves. Have fun being in a conference no one watches and congrats on wins because the current conference just wants to fuck the people leaving. 

Untwist your panties son 

[camel at sea 589]

On 10/21/2022 at 3:54 PM, Huckleberry said:

The Big 12's problem has always been terrible leadership. A lot on commissioners, a lot on some of the schools (not all). It's been the second best football conference over the period it's existed and it's not that close. And probably #1A or 1B basketball conference. 

I think the reason Big 12 leadership has always been bad is that the top and bottom of the conference have always been so far apart.  It's hard to represent both Kansas State/Baylor and Texas/Oklahoma.  Invariably leaders end up on one end of that pendulum or the other.   You don't see as much of that in the B1G and SEC b/c the institutions in those two conferences have more in common across the board.  Some of that should have been overcome more effectively in the Big 12 but it was always an issue.

One of the big strengths of the new Big 12 (at least from a self-governance standpoint) will be that the member schools are much more aligned going forward.  Decisions that benefit Oklahoma State are likely to also benefit almost everyone else.  There are no more 800 lb gorillas in the room.  The downside will be branding / perception.  You see some of that already.  TCU is unbeaten and has 4 straight wins over teams that were ranked going into the game.  They've got a win over a current Top 10 team.  They're ranked 7th  If Texas or OU had the same resume, they'd be ranked higher than 7th.  The Big 12 will have to figure that out.     

In hindsight, what probably should have happened is a better merger of the SWC/Big8.  Ex:  NU, CU, KU, MU, OU, OSU, UT, A&M, Arky, Tech

Get that group together in 1988 and they're all probably still together now.      

[Satchel 6935]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

I think the reason Big 12 leadership has always been bad is that the top and bottom of the conference have always been so far apart.  It's hard to represent both Kansas State/Baylor and Texas/Oklahoma.  Invariably leaders end up on one end of that pendulum or the other.   You don't see as much of that in the B1G and SEC b/c the institutions in those two conferences have more in common across the board.  Some of that should have been overcome more effectively in the Big 12 but it was always an issue.

One of the big strengths of the new Big 12 (at least from a self-governance standpoint) will be that the member schools are much more aligned going forward.  Decisions that benefit Oklahoma State are likely to also benefit almost everyone else.  There are no more 800 lb gorillas in the room.  The downside will be branding / perception.  You see some of that already.  TCU is unbeaten and has 4 straight wins over teams that were ranked going into the game.  They've got a win over a current Top 10 team.  They're ranked 7th  If Texas or OU had the same resume, they'd be ranked higher than 7th.  The Big 12 will have to figure that out.     

In hindsight, what probably should have happened is a better merger of the SWC/Big8.  Ex:  NU, CU, KU, MU, OU, OSU, UT, A&M, Arky, Tech

Get that group together in 1988 and they're all probably still together now.      

Why is it harder to represent Kansas State/Baylor and Texas/Oklahoma?

[camel at sea 589]

5 hours ago, Satchel said:

Why is it harder to represent Kansas State/Baylor and Texas/Oklahoma?

Two are wealthy with huge fanbases.  The other 8 are comparatively much less wealthy with smaller fanbases.  Something that's good for UT/OU (unequal revenue distribution, solo tier 3 deals, etc.) is not necessarily going to be good for the other 8... and vice versa.  At a certain point, it gets to be really hard to keep everyone happy enough.  

[DFW Horn 6123]

7 hours ago, camel at sea said:

I think the reason Big 12 leadership has always been bad is that the top and bottom of the conference have always been so far apart.  It's hard to represent both Kansas State/Baylor and Texas/Oklahoma.  Invariably leaders end up on one end of that pendulum or the other.   You don't see as much of that in the B1G and SEC b/c the institutions in those two conferences have more in common across the board.  Some of that should have been overcome more effectively in the Big 12 but it was always an issue.

...or maybe the lower-tiered schools are delusional about their value and net worth? Why didn't they raise hell when KU was earning $10MM + with T3 basketball programming? The Jayhawks monetized their T3 rights well before UT and OU.

I suspect the Purdues and Vandys know their place and are content being coattail-riders. But, I'm sure tOSU and Michigan will demand a bigger cut of the B1G's pie at some point. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. 

[Satchel 6935]

2 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Two are wealthy with huge fanbases.  The other 8 are comparatively much less wealthy with smaller fanbases.  Something that's good for UT/OU (unequal revenue distribution, solo tier 3 deals, etc.) is not necessarily going to be good for the other 8... and vice versa.  At a certain point, it gets to be really hard to keep everyone happy enough.  

How have the less wealthy, smaller fan bases in the Sec managed against aggy, Alabama Georgia and Florida?

[camel at sea 589]

15 hours ago, Satchel said:

How have the less wealthy, smaller fan bases in the Sec managed against aggy, Alabama Georgia and Florida?

Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia are all Top 20 nationally in AD revenue.  Whatever financial edge aggy has, it's not a meaningful one.  

The only Big 12 schools in the Top 20 are Texas and Oklahoma.   The disparity in the Big 12 is meaningful.  

Edited October 25, 2022 by camel at sea

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

Two are wealthy with huge fanbases.  The other 8 are comparatively much less wealthy with smaller fanbases.  Something that's good for UT/OU (unequal revenue distribution, solo tier 3 deals, etc.) is not necessarily going to be good for the other 8... and vice versa.  At a certain point, it gets to be really hard to keep everyone happy enough.  

The Big 10 bottom is littered with small stadiums and dispassionate fanbases.

That’s not why. It comes down to fundamental differences in how these various institutions viewed themselves and their partners.

[Satchel 6935]

34 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The Big 10 bottom is littered with small stadiums and dispassionate fanbases.

That’s not why. It comes down to fundamental differences in how these various institutions viewed themselves and their partners.

I suspect you are correct.

[Huckleberry 32850]

46 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The Big 10 bottom is littered with small stadiums and dispassionate fanbases.

That’s not why. It comes down to fundamental differences in how these various institutions viewed themselves and their partners.

This is true but it's also a bit hollow as a complaint.

Mid-1990s: You should leave behind the smaller fanbases and lower revenue generating schools you've shared a conference with for decades. It's the right thing to do to leave them and find greater stability with a new group of schools. 

Now: But don't do that to us.

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

16 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is true but it's also a bit hollow as a complaint.

Mid-1990s: You should leave behind the smaller fanbases and lower revenue generating schools you've shared a conference with for decades. It's the right thing to do to leave them and find greater stability with a new group of schools. 

Now: But don't do that to us.

I’m not casting judgment or complaining.  I’m just stating a reality.  I’m as ready for the future as much as any UT fan.

If I was GodKing of college football, we’d still have the Big 8 and the SWC with Arky.

[Satchel 6935]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’m not casting judgment or complaining.  I’m just stating a reality.  I’m as ready for the future as much as any UT fan.

If I was GodKing of college football, we’d still have the Big 8 and the SWC with Arky.

Hell, I’d settle for the original B12 before the big split.

['stache 21801]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Hell, I’d settle for the original B12 before the big split.

With Arky instead of Baylor, that conference might have survived, if paired with better leadership.

[Huckleberry 32850]

25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’m not casting judgment or complaining.  I’m just stating a reality.  I’m as ready for the future as much as any UT fan.

If I was GodKing of college football, we’d still have the Big 8 and the SWC with Arky.

Disagree only because 10 team conferences rule. But there are enough new schools to leave the old conferences as the basis for 10 teamers.

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The Big 10 bottom is littered with small stadiums and dispassionate fanbases.

That’s not why. It comes down to fundamental differences in how these various institutions viewed themselves and their partners.

The various institutions view themselves as similar, because they are similar.  Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Iowa are all significant revenue-earners.  Indiana does really well when you add in their basketball revenue stream and Minnesota is Top 25ish in AD revenue, too.  Michigan has more in common with Minnesota, as athletic departments, than Texas has in common with Iowa State.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

28 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The various institutions view themselves as similar, because they are similar.  Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Iowa are all significant revenue-earners.  Indiana does really well when you add in their basketball revenue stream and Minnesota is Top 25ish in AD revenue, too.  Michigan has more in common with Minnesota, as athletic departments, than Texas has in common with Iowa State.

 

How much of that is the massive TV contracts they get as a result of being associated with the big dogs?

[Hurtlocker 2212]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

How much of that is the massive TV contracts they get as a result of being associated with the big dogs?

Most.    Same with the SEC.   Each has the Globetrotters and a lot of Generals.

There is literally no difference.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[camel at sea 589]

15 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

How much of that is the massive TV contracts they get as a result of being associated with the big dogs?

Some of it is.  It's hard to find the numbers now b/c USAToday put everything behind a paywall.  But for the sake of comparison:

U Minnesota in 2018 had $125M in AD revenue.   https://www.startribune.com/gophers-athletics-department-juggles-mix-of-debt-vs-revenue/510895082/
In 2020, Iowa State had $95M in AD revenue.  https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa-state/randy-peterson/2020/07/16/iowa-state-cyclones-athletics-revenue-spending-big-12-rankings-usa-today-database/5449603002/

The media contract didn't account for the $30M difference.

Obviously, going forward, the media rights gap between the Big 12 and Big Ten just got a lot wider so it'll play a bigger role in the future.  But even factoring media rights out, the middle tier of the Big Ten is (financially) really strong.  Competitively? Fan interest?  I'm all in on the Big 12 in that argument.  But the money talks.    

[Trojan Man 429]

17 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

How much of that is the massive TV contracts they get as a result of being associated with the big dogs?

A lot.  From a big dog perspective, it sucks being in a conference without peers.  USC was responsible for a third of the Pac 12's media value.  That's insane.  Nobody wants to be the only horse pulling the cart, especially when all the passengers in the cart insist on being paid the exact same as you and treated by the conference as if they're equally important as the horse while constantly spewing vitriol at you and treating you like shit.  They use their voting numbers to make sure their interests are always taken care of while yours are always ignored.  I don't want to get into too much of a sidebar about specifics but the Pacific Northwest schools were especially bad about this and the issues they pushed for always came at the expense of the California schools, especially USC and UCLA.  This is the root cause of the resentment and bitterness between USC and the rest of the Pac 12.  These two groups just fundamentally don't have the same interests and goals and motivations because they are too different.

In the B1G this problem will not exist.  Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are also major revenue generators as opposed to USC doing all of the Pac 12's heavy lifting so that's 4 horses pulling the cart instead of 1.  In the next tier of substantial contributors you have Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Nebraska and UCLA.  In the Pac 12 that next tier was just Oregon, Washington and UCLA.  Even the freeloaders in the B1G will be more tolerable since they still have things like academics or basketball or passionate fanbases going for them.  The Pac 12's dregs have absolutely nothing redeemable in their favor.  Swapping Oregon State and Washington State for Northwestern and Indiana is a big upgrade in the dregs department.  Bottom line is USC gained nothing from its affiliation with the Pac 12 while the rest of the Pac 12 majorly benefited from being affiliated with USC.  It was an uneven, one way relationship.  In the B1G USC will finally experience what it's like to be in a conference that is a rising tide instead of a bucket of crabs.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

21 hours ago, Satchel said:

Hell, I’d settle for the original B12 before the big split.

Co-sign.

The original Big 12 was awesome. The only way it could have been better was swapping out Baylor for Arkansas.

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Some of it is.  It's hard to find the numbers now b/c USAToday put everything behind a paywall.  But for the sake of comparison:

U Minnesota in 2018 had $125M in AD revenue.   https://www.startribune.com/gophers-athletics-department-juggles-mix-of-debt-vs-revenue/510895082/
In 2020, Iowa State had $95M in AD revenue.  https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa-state/randy-peterson/2020/07/16/iowa-state-cyclones-athletics-revenue-spending-big-12-rankings-usa-today-database/5449603002/

The media contract didn't account for the $30M difference.

Obviously, going forward, the media rights gap between the Big 12 and Big Ten just got a lot wider so it'll play a bigger role in the future.  But even factoring media rights out, the middle tier of the Big Ten is (financially) really strong.  Competitively? Fan interest?  I'm all in on the Big 12 in that argument.  But the money talks.    

Its far more than some, the non-blue bloods make about 50% of their revenue from the conference.   Texas, on the other hand, makes about 20% of its revenue from the conference.    

Since you used Iowa State, let's use them, also because they're near the bottom of the Big 12, only KState is lower, and have an easy comparison with Iowa.

In 2013, they had $62m in revenue, none of which from school funds.    Right before the pandemic (which messed up the last few years for everyone) they had $95m in revenue, still not using school funds.    That's a 53% increase in total revenue.   Factoring out a boost to ticket sales and contributions from increased success/exposure, media rights increased their revenue about 37% in that time.  

In 2013, Iowa had $107m in revenue, also no school funds.   This is not too surprising, Iowa has been in the football conversation since Fry, where Iowa State is just now becoming consistent.   Where Iowa is today is Iowa State's top end - not where big brands are.  Prepandemic they were at $151m, or a 41% increase in revenue.  Ticket sales and contributions have remained relatively even over the years so this is primarily a media revenue boost.  

In 2013, the year prior to joining the Big Ten, Rutgers had $78m in revenue, $37m came from school funds, so they brought in $41m from outside sources.    Fast forward to life in the Big Ten Lane and Rutgers has revenue of $103m, with only $16m in school funds - $87m in outside funds.    That's a 112% increase in revenues for joining the Big Ten basically all from media rights increases.   

 

The Generals need their Globetrotters to increase funds and exposure and excitement.   

The Globetrotters need the Generals to do just well enough pad a resume, but not so good they threaten the status quo.   

There's a value to that symbiotic relationship.   As you can see with TCU right now, who has a pretty solid month of defeating ranked foes but is still outside the championship conversation, the brand helps get you talked about, you'll get the benefit of the doubt, but 3 losses will doom you.   You simply can't lose too much in conference and stay in the race.   Ohio State needs Rutgers as much as Rutgers needs Ohio State.   Though it does become parasitic if the "generals" are not investing that money and exposure into their programs.   

That's sort of where USC found itself - on an island.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Trojan Man 429]

Kliavkoff is a fucking moron.  Every USC fan I know is excited to leave for the B1G, and that excitement isn't just about money.  I'd still want to leave the Pac 12 even if all conferences had similar payouts.  As I described earlier the goals and values and profiles of USC compared to the rest of the Pac 12 are too different to work together.  Decades of those differences pushing in opposite directions have created a very bitter environment that makes cooperation next to impossible.  There is a bit of truth to UCLA's fanbase grumbling about the move to the B1G but saying he has "yet to talk to anyone in the USC community who is in favor of the move" is an outright lie.  Anyone affiliated with USC who doesn't like the move to the B1G is an extreme outlier.  If you want propaganda and spin to be effective it needs enough truth to murky the water because we can all see when Pinocchio's nose grows.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34883645/pac-12-commissioner-says-fans-not-favor-usc-ucla-move

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Revenue can get goofy in a single year, since a massive donation can look like a school makes a ton.   For instance, in 2020, Oregon had $300m in contributions, but they don't normally make $400m a year.  Most schools, however, try and spend whatever they bring in, so let's look at expenses as a demarcation (bold = within $2m of moving to the next bracket):

$200m club - 1

• Big Ten = 1 (Ohio State)

$150+ club - 8

• SEC = 3 (Alabama, Aggy, LSU)
• Big 12 = 2 (Texas, Oklahoma)
• Big Ten = 2 (Michigan, Penn State)
• ACC = 1 (Florida State)

$120+ club - 18

• Big Ten = 7 (Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, and Indiana)
• SEC = 6 (Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Arkansas)
• Pac 12 = 3 (Washington, USC, Oregon)
• ACC = 2 (Louisville, Clemson)

$90m+ club - 28

• ACC = 8 (UNC, UVA, VTech, GTech, Miami, Cuse, Pitt, Wake
• Big 12 = 6 (TCU, Kansas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia)
• Pac 12 = 6 (UCLA, ASU, Cal, Arizona, Utah, Colorado)
• Big Ten = 4 (Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland)
• SEC = 4 (Missouri, Mississippi, MSU, Vandy)

$70+ club - 7  (was going to do $60m, but GTech was the lowest at $71m)

• ACC = 3 (NCSt, BC, GTech)
• Big 12 = 2 (Tech, KState)
• Pac = 2 (Oregon State, Washington State)

 

Most at the top don't even spend the money they have.    Its very clear that Texas didn't move to the SEC for money.  Consistent profits of over $20m year-over-year; you can only build so many locker rooms.  The move occurred to regain the narrative in recruiting blue chips as the SEC made major inroads into Texas after Aggy moved.     Oklahoma made the move to not get left behind, but the money will help.   USC made the move because they were stranded, lacking exposure, AND making less than the other powers.

If Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA ended up in the same conference, it likely would have made closer to B1G/SEC, maybe 10-15% less.   Wouldn't have helped the recruiting angle though.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Its far more than some, the non-blue bloods make about 50% of their revenue from the conference.   Texas, on the other hand, makes about 20% of its revenue from the conference.    

Since you used Iowa State, let's use them, also because they're near the bottom of the Big 12, only KState is lower, and have an easy comparison with Iowa.

In 2013, they had $62m in revenue, none of which from school funds.    Right before the pandemic (which messed up the last few years for everyone) they had $95m in revenue, still not using school funds.    That's a 53% increase in total revenue.   Factoring out a boost to ticket sales and contributions from increased success/exposure, media rights increased their revenue about 37% in that time.  

In 2013, Iowa had $107m in revenue, also no school funds.   This is not too surprising, Iowa has been in the football conversation since Fry, where Iowa State is just now becoming consistent.   Where Iowa is today is Iowa State's top end - not where big brands are.  Prepandemic they were at $151m, or a 41% increase in revenue.  Ticket sales and contributions have remained relatively even over the years so this is primarily a media revenue boost.  

In 2013, the year prior to joining the Big Ten, Rutgers had $78m in revenue, $37m came from school funds, so they brought in $41m from outside sources.    Fast forward to life in the Big Ten Lane and Rutgers has revenue of $103m, with only $16m in school funds - $87m in outside funds.    That's a 112% increase in revenues for joining the Big Ten basically all from media rights increases.   

 

The Generals need their Globetrotters to increase funds and exposure and excitement.   

The Globetrotters need the Generals to do just well enough pad a resume, but not so good they threaten the status quo.   

There's a value to that symbiotic relationship.   As you can see with TCU right now, who has a pretty solid month of defeating ranked foes but is still outside the championship conversation, the brand helps get you talked about, you'll get the benefit of the doubt, but 3 losses will doom you.   You simply can't lose too much in conference and stay in the race.   Ohio State needs Rutgers as much as Rutgers needs Ohio State.   Though it does become parasitic if the "generals" are not investing that money and exposure into their programs.   

That's sort of where USC found itself - on an island.

This is adjacent to the point I was making originally. 

The original point was this:  Michigan has more in common with Minnesota than Texas has with Iowa State.  That's not a dig on ISU, it's just reality.  There are a lot of schools between Michigan and Minnesota in the B1G pecking order who have more in common with Michigan than Texas has with the rest of the current Big 12 (other than Oklahoma.)  As a result, it's easier to govern the Big Ten than to govern the current Big 12.  The interests of the member schools are naturally more aligned in the Big Ten.  The Big 12 has been tenuously governed like a "haves" vs "have nots" conference since its inception.  That's why there has been constant boardroom turbulence.  

[Satchel 6935]

11 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

This is adjacent to the point I was making originally. 

The original point was this:  Michigan has more in common with Minnesota than Texas has with Iowa State.  That's not a dig on ISU, it's just reality.  There are a lot of schools between Michigan and Minnesota in the B1G pecking order who have more in common with Michigan than Texas has with the rest of the current Big 12 (other than Oklahoma.)  As a result, it's easier to govern the Big Ten than to govern the current Big 12.  The interests of the member schools are naturally more aligned in the Big Ten.  The Big 12 has been tenuously governed like a "haves" vs "have nots" conference since its inception.  That's why there has been constant boardroom turbulence.  

Could the commonalities have more to do with the B1G being comprised of flagship schools? The same could be said of the Sec (with Vandy being the exception). That is not true in the B12.