Realignment talk not going away

[TKthunder2 4992]

5 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

By what metrics are UH and Cincy appreciably better than SDSU?

Are their TV ratings that much higher? Now factor in their opponents. You don't think Big 12 membership will raise SDSU's profile and fan engagement?

I'm not necessarily arguing for SDSU, but I can see the Big 12 taking them if they can only lure 2-3 PAC teams. 

You can make that argument for ANY school.  New Mexico fucking State would more than triple their ratings if they were playing a top ten TCU team on FOX, but that doesn’t mean you add them. I don’t care enough to go back and find the links/data, but the TV people have told the Big 12 for years that BYU was the only additive addition (window cougar jokes aside).

Houston weaseled their way in partially due to the Senate asking all the Big 12 TX school presidents why Houston hadn’t been invited during their bitch session about Texas leaving (lol) and good old fashion lobbying. It also didn’t hurt to plant a flag in the largest city in Texas for the Big 12 to secure its Texas footing in that media market. Houston by themselves is near worthless (as SMU will be for the PAC), but with TCU, Tech, and Baylor they were possibly additive, even if just barely.

Cincinnati was basically West Virginia 2.0 for this round of realignment as school that most casual fans would have already assume were in the ACC just with better/more recent success. While their long term value wasn’t great alone, they were the most valuable available property after BYU.

UCF is the only school that you might have an argument against for SDSU, but even then they built a bigger on campus stadium years ago and have had far more football success plus the state of Florida is just a better football state. I’d rather take the #4 team in Florida versus California’s the number #5/6 (Fresno honestly better football). If SDSU had Fresno’s historical success then maybe I could see the argument.

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

When the Big12 added Cincy, UCF, BYU & UH the national perception is they were really good additions for the BIG12. Cincy had recently been in the playoffs, UCF had that undefeated season a while back, BYU is the best all white team around and the average Joe in America thinks that UH delivers the CFB market in Houston. (The average Joe doesn't know that UH is the #4 CFB team in Houston) So what is the national perception of SDSU? Does the average Joe know their stadium only seats 33,000 and would be the smallest in the Big12 by 7,000? Does SDSU get a bump for their recent deep March Madness success? Is the only SDSU football player you can name Marshall Faulk circa 1993? Does the average American know that San Diego is a city and not a state?

If the PAC10 doesn't lose any more schools, then is the New12 better off with its current membership? Yormark, who is the best commissioner in the CFB wants PTZ teams in the conference and if we can't steal any PAC schools I think he will go for SDSU and Fresno.

You underestimate UH.  They're like Miami.  When they're good, people watch.  Chronicle used to publish local TV ratings in the 2005-2009 range.  Texas was way ahead of anyone else.  UH was comfortably ahead of aggy, even while being in CUSA.  UH has been a big school for a long time.  And while those commuter students aren't as fanatic as WVU fans, they still mostly are fans.  UH is probably #3 in Houston now but they sure aren't #4.  Go to any sporting goods store in Houston.  There are 3 big sections-UT, aggy and UH.

[bullet 1597]

6 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

By what metrics are UH and Cincy appreciably better than SDSU?

Are their TV ratings that much higher? Now factor in their opponents. You don't think Big 12 membership will raise SDSU's profile and fan engagement?

I'm not necessarily arguing for SDSU, but I can see the Big 12 taking them if they can only lure 2-3 PAC teams. 

By just about any metric.

BCS/NY6 bowls.  Top 10 finishes.  Rankings.  And especially TV ratings.  SDSU is only 3rd in the MWC behind Boise and Fresno.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-viewers-did-your-ncaa-team-attract

#55 BYU 1.651 million

#56 UCF 1.629 

#58 Cincinnati 1.557

#61 Houston 1.409

#63 Boise 1.258

Fresno and SDSU didn't have quite enough games to qualify, but they would have been below the 75 teams who did have enough games and quite a few who were also below the 36 game threshold.

Fresno 0.697

SDSU 0.522

 

Note that SDSU's numbers put them behind all the other 8 AAC schools except Tulane.  The next 4 up for the Big 12 were Boise, #64 Memphis 1.257, #68 USF 1.103, #73 SMU 0.728.

[camel at sea 589]

If the Big 12 adds an odd number of PAC schools, ESPN's preference would probably be to add another western school ("Big 12 After Dark" requires inventory.)  SDSU football has averaged about 9 wins per over the last decade.  Their hoops program just played for a national title.  They're among the better academic options from the G5, out west.  Their enrollment is north of 30K.  Their TV market is top 20 nationally.  They have a brand new football stadium.  The new adds from the PAC would almost certainly want continued recruiting / alumni exposure in CA, if that's an option.

Obviously SDSU doesn't make sense on their own.  But they make plenty of sense as a #16 if the Big 12 adds CU, UA, and ASU first.  

[TKthunder2 4992]

35 minutes ago, bullet said:

The next 4 up for the Big 12 were Boise, #64 Memphis 1.257, #68 USF 1.103, #73 SMU 0.728.

Boise is falling fast, unless they go back to dominating year in and year out with big wins against P5 opponents, they won’t be a good option for the Big 12.

SMU also provides no real additive value to the Big 12, neither would Rice (though the PAC12 might take a chance on both).

USF only makes sense if you want to round out the numbers with an Eastern add, but athletically they are disappointing.

If you’re looking in the G5 for a school in general Memphis is your #1. And despite their lack of TV eyeballs, I wouldn’t sleep on Tulane. Tulane/Memphis would be a pretty solid duo.

But neither of those offer the late window…time will tell if the Big 12 really wants that window or if it’s just an excuse to go after the P12 (which is how I’m currently leaning).

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Boise is falling fast, unless they go back to dominating year in and year out with big wins against P5 opponents, they won’t be a good option for the Big 12.

SMU also provides no real additive value to the Big 12, neither would Rice (though the PAC12 might take a chance on both).

USF only makes sense if you want to round out the numbers with an Eastern add, but athletically they are disappointing.

If you’re looking in the G5 for a school in general Memphis is your #1. And despite their lack of TV eyeballs, I wouldn’t sleep on Tulane. Tulane/Memphis would be a pretty solid duo.

But neither of those offer the late window…time will tell if the Big 12 really wants that window or if it’s just an excuse to go after the P12 (which is how I’m currently leaning).

You're only thinking this about tv viewership numbers.....I think there is more to it and seeing how the current big 12 commissioner is pushing the boundaries I think you should recalculate your thoughts.

[TKthunder2 4992]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

You're only thinking this about tv viewership numbers.....I think there is more to it and seeing how the current big 12 commissioner is pushing the boundaries I think you should recalculate your thoughts.

No I get it. He’s looking for deals anywhere he can make a dime. He’s monetizing everything he can (statistic/data deals, pro day) not too proud to know they need to gamble a bit (extending the B12 TV early versus taking it to market, possibly dividing fb and bb rights) and he’s trying to make the Big 12 brand attractive in a way that it has more appeal than the PAC/ACC (Shaq/DJs at basketball tournament/Mexico games).

The late window in combination with a football crazy Central time zone school has been some of the top viewed games on ESPN in that time slot. Texas@Cal, Texas@BYU, Baylor@BYU.

The PAC’s numbers have also been heavily propped up by this late ESPN window where your only competing against a game(s) on lesser networks, FS1/ESPN2 (and the fact that they hide their worst inventory on the unrated P12Net).

Getting the Big 12 into that window makes sense…BUT the Big 12 presidents have to vote them in. Just like we’ve seen from the B1G and Oregon, the commissioner doesn’t always get his way. When your plan is to poach Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State to get into the late kick window it sounds great. When that plan turn into SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, and Boise that likely won’t be voted in just because the vision has been laid out there. These are long term decisions not made lightly for short term gain.

The Big 12 last expansion was rushed and under duress with many schools hoping to avoid being left out in the cold. Now they have secured their future for at least the next decade and don’t have any major concerns as they now have options. Inviting lesser peer institutions to their club isn’t something they’ll do haphazardly. Unless it comes with a major immediate payday for all schools, I don’t see it happening without PAC12 schools that are peer institutions that can achieve two goals at once (late kick games and solidifying the B12>P12).

[DFW Horn 6129]

18 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

But neither of those offer the late window…time will tell if the Big 12 really wants that window or if it’s just an excuse to go after the P12 (which is how I’m currently leaning).

Why not both? It's a kill shot for a competing P5 league. ESPN wants the inventory.

Without reading the Big 12 contract, ESPN probably didn't offer a pro rata increase for G5's. But, why wouldn't SDSU accept less to "buy into" a P5? It's been suggested that both UO and UW should for B1G membership. 

What do MWC teams earn on their media deal? ESPN has their T1 and T2 rights, correct?

[TKthunder2 4992]

16 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Why not both? It's a kill shot for a competing P5 league. ESPN wants the inventory.

Without reading the Big 12 contract, ESPN probably didn't offer a pro rata increase for G5's. But, why wouldn't SDSU accept less to "buy into" a P5? It's been suggested that both UO and UW should for B1G membership. 

What do MWC teams earn on their media deal? ESPN has their T1 and T2 rights, correct?

I disagree that taking SDSU is a kill shot for the PAC12, they could have just as much exposure with Fresno and UNLV.

Yes, people who have seen the Big 12’s contract have reported that it has a pro rata clause for P5 expansion only. If ESPN wanted the inventory they be willing to pay for it.

What they don’t want is more late night snoozefests. That’s why they aren’t bidding aggressively for the PAC. They could put poker on ESPN in that spot and it will pull half a million viewers, but the PAC isn’t doing a hell of a lot better so they don’t want to pay a premium for that. Most of those late games suck. The hope is Baylor @Utah, West Virginia @ BYU, and Tech @ Arizona, Okie St @ ASU, and TCU @ Colorado will do more for their ratings than they were able to do in the PAC.

For the MWC they have a deal with FOX/CBS and it’s like $4 million/yer/per school. And sure you can absolutely give SDSU a partial share but in 6 years they’d get a full share, and the question is will they be worth it then?

[mdmost 43007]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

44 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

Meanwhile PAC says this:

 

[JFKFC 4890]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Meanwhile PAC says this:

 

[mdmost 43007]

So is Dennis Dodd being fed BS by bad sources?

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Just now, JFKFC said:

I’d assume the PAC conference meeting talked about espn. Lol

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Just now, mdmost said:

So is Dennis Dodd being fed BS by bad sources?

Dennis has been more accurate in this than what has come out of PAC side. I’d lean it’s just PAC propaganda they decided to push to make their negotiations seems stronger. 

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

Predictions here?

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

Dennis Dodd and Nicole Auerbach both have solid track records 

[TKthunder2 4992]

35 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Predictions here?

My take.

Back in the exclusive negotiation window ESPN reportedly gave them a $22mil/per school valuation and said take it or leave it.

PAC12 left it and took its rights to market and found no one outside of the streamers but the schools want linear.

PAC12 came back and said will you do $25mil/per (whatever number you can guess) and ESPN said that their $22mil/per offer had expired and they aren’t interested in continuing negotiations. (Dodds reports this)

PAC12 now scrambling to get ESPN back to the table at $20mil/per and ESPN is still returning their calls (because why not) so the negotiations continue. (Others reporting this without context)

Edited May 4, 2023 by TKthunder2

[KaiserSoze 998]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Predictions here?

 

SDSU to the SEC.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

11 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

By what metrics are UH and Cincy appreciably better than SDSU?

Are their TV ratings that much higher?

Yes

[Hurtlocker 2213]

If Dodds report is true, and since it came from a B12 exec I'm not giving it 100, but ESPN is running out of rights money and wants the NBA, shits going to get fun over the next few weeks.   There are four spots on the Big 12's boat, who wants them.

[Laxtonto 12090]

 

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Boise is falling fast, unless they go back to dominating year in and year out with big wins against P5 opponents, they won’t be a good option for the Big 12.

SMU also provides no real additive value to the Big 12, neither would Rice (though the PAC12 might take a chance on both).

USF only makes sense if you want to round out the numbers with an Eastern add, but athletically they are disappointing.

If you’re looking in the G5 for a school in general Memphis is your #1. And despite their lack of TV eyeballs, I wouldn’t sleep on Tulane. Tulane/Memphis would be a pretty solid duo.

But neither of those offer the late window…time will tell if the Big 12 really wants that window or if it’s just an excuse to go after the P12 (which is how I’m currently leaning).

I wouldn't take Boise.  They are the best choice now from the G5, but if they struggle in football they add nothing else.  Too much of a long term risk.

SDSU is best for the Pac because of Southern California.  But Fresno is a better long term bet unless you are just looking at the recruiting angle (which the Pac probably needs to do).  Lot stronger fan base.  Consistent history.

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, mdmost said:

So is Dennis Dodd being fed BS by bad sources?

Probably just Big 12 people reading too much in it.  ESPN might well be saying they don't think they end up with a deal.  Their comment doesn't mean they aren't still trying.

 

13 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 

Well if its USC or UCLA, they won't be!!!

And the question is was that a Washington/Oregon recruit or an Arizona/Colorado recruit?

Still, what coaches tell recruits aren't very reliable. 

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Obviously SDSU doesn't make sense on their own.  But they make plenty of sense as a #16 if the Big 12 adds CU, UA, and ASU first.  

This is the scenario where it would make sense to add SDSU.  

They'd add more late night games for the B12's inventory, they've held their own in football vs the PAC over the last 5 years or so, and their hoops program would be in the top tier in the PAC, so they would be a good #16 for the B12 if no other Pac schools jump.

The problem is, if any of the 4 corners jump, SDSU will be the PAC's first call to backfill, and SDSU wants to be aligned with Cal for academic and political  purposes.  So unless there is a max exodus from the PAC, I still think SDSU ends up in the PAC.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

So... I have heard rumors of ESPN offering the Pac12 as little as 90 MM per year for one or two games per week. If this is the case, I suppose you could say that the two are still "in discussions." Realistically, I think ESPN is currently bidding so low that you could consider them to be purely tangential to the tier 1 negotiations. Imo, the Auerbach and Dellenger statements are only semantically significant.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Double post

Edited May 4, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

I feel like the PAC running to sources within hours of Dodds tweeting that is very very odd. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

7 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

 

1000% Oregon. It’s been well reported they’re telling recruits this bullshit. 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

2 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

1000% Oregon. It’s been well reported they’re telling recruits this bullshit. 

In the plot twist of all plot twist, Stanford! lol

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

Buyout prep?

 

[gatormarc 911]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

14 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

 

It's 2023, why do they even care about travel?

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It's 2023, why do they even care about travel?

It's not about travel.  It's pretty obvious a shit ton of Big 10 Presidents don't want to expand any further because their schools will be less competitive and get pushed into lesser TV windows.

The bottom half of the Big 10 is probably going to have worse exposure than much of the Big 12 (albeit with much larger paychecks) in the near future, and that just compounds with more schools.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

16 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It's not about travel.  It's pretty obvious a shit ton of Big 10 Presidents don't want to expand any further because their schools will be less competitive and get pushed into lesser TV windows.

The bottom half of the Big 10 is probably going to have worse exposure than much of the Big 12 (albeit with much larger paychecks) in the near future, and that just compounds with more schools.

That’s true. him saying east coast gives more clarity to who it could have been that said that.

 

Maryland or Rutgers, I don’t think Penn State gives a shit. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I feel like the PAC running to sources within hours of Dodds tweeting that is very very odd. 

Jason Scheer tweeted that you should look for a Pac response soon.  Sure enough....

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

Jason Scheer tweeted that you should look for a Pac response soon.  Sure enough....

Link? Haha

[gatormarc 911]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Maryland or Rutgers, I don’t think Penn State gives a shit. 

Solid source.

When I think of two schools that have their fingers on the pulse of midwest athletics and how it will be impacted by west coast athletics, I think Maryland and Rutgers.

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

1000% Oregon. It’s been well reported they’re telling recruits this bullshit. 

That's definitely true.  They've been saying that for the 10 months.

I've also heard that some ASU coaches have told at least one recruit they'll be playing in the B12.

[USC Traveler 488]

30 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It's not about travel.  It's pretty obvious a shit ton of Big 10 Presidents don't want to expand any further because their schools will be less competitive and get pushed into lesser TV windows.

The bottom half of the Big 10 is probably going to have worse exposure than much of the Big 12 (albeit with much larger paychecks) in the near future, and that just compounds with more schools.

That's a big part of it, but that's on top of the biggest factor- the PNW schools would reduce revenue for existing members.  (Even if they come in a reduced share, they will eventually get full shares.)

If ND or FSU wanted to join, it would take about 30 seconds to vote them in because of the value both deliver.  ND is a blue blood ratings driver, while FSU is a strong second-tier tv draw in a huge population area for BTN that is fast-growing and full of elite recruits.  

Every school in the BIG would jump to add them for the revenue increases and secondary benefits.  The PNW schools offer neither elite ratings nor top tier secondary benefits, so they're not worth adding for any BIG school, but especially for the mid-lower tier BIG schools that will get shoved further down the exposure food chain for the reasons you point out.

That's why I keep asking the same question for people who think the BIG will add the PNW schools:  which existing BIG programs are voting for them ?

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, gatormarc said:

 

This guy must be really bored to be constantly posting stuff like this to interact with twitter randos.

He seems to have the same conversations with BIG admin people every week.  😂

I have no doubt that the BIG will stay at 16 until ND joins or ACC teams become available, but that belief has nothing to do with this guy's tweets.  

He seems like he just wants to stir things up every week to engage with people on twitter.

[Hagbard Celine 10880]

4 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

1000% Oregon. It’s been well reported they’re telling recruits this bullshit. 

speculation: phil is attempting to underwrite a multi-decade deal that funds oregon in the b1g by PAYING the other schools to include them....  but disguised as a linear "uplift" from Nike

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

54 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

That’s true. him saying east coast gives more clarity to who it could have been that said that.

 

Maryland or Rutgers, I don’t think Penn State gives a shit. 

Yeah, I don't think Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and the Cali schools are anti expansion.  I presume everyone else is though. 

[Hagbard Celine 10880]

corn luvs blue hoseshoe

[DFW Horn 6129]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It's not about travel.  It's pretty obvious a shit ton of Big 10 Presidents don't want to expand any further because their schools will be less competitive and get pushed into lesser TV windows.

The bottom half of the Big 10 is probably going to have worse exposure than much of the Big 12 (albeit with much larger paychecks) in the near future, and that just compounds with more schools.

Using this logic, it makes perfect sense for the Big 12 to stand pat unless they're able to add P5 teams + pro rata increase. Why open the door for SDSU, Boise, UNLV, or Fresno? Just increased competition for T1/T2 exposure.

[DFW Horn 6129]

21 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

speculation: phil is attempting to underwrite a multi-decade deal that funds oregon in the b1g by PAYING the other schools to include them....  but disguised as a linear "uplift" from Nike

I was wondering if/when Uncle Phil was gonna assert himself. "Just how much do you like your Nike/Jumpman apparel contracts? I'd sure hate to pull any advertising on B1G broadcasts."  He's old enough not to worry about much besides his legacy, especially at UO.

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

6 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Using this logic, it makes perfect sense for the Big 12 to stand pat unless they're able to add P5 teams + pro rata increase. Why open the door for SDSU, Boise, UNLV, or Fresno? Just increased competition for T1/T2 exposure.

Agreed.  I don't think the Big 12 is adding any of those schools unless they can get 3 - and only 3 - Pac 12 schools.

[Horn of Gabriel 1643]

4 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I was wondering if/when Uncle Phil was gonna assert himself. "Just how much do you like your Nike/Jumpman apparel contracts? I'd sure hate to pull any advertising on B1G broadcasts."  He's old enough not to worry about much besides his legacy, especially at UO.

Nike's B1G footprint TV advertising spend isn't going to move the needle.  And if he threatened to pull apparel deals with B1G schools, I'm 1000% sure that Adidas, UA, etc would be waiting in the wings to snap up those brands.

[DFW Horn 6129]

1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Nike's B1G footprint TV advertising spend isn't going to move the needle.  And if he threatened to pull apparel deals with B1G schools, I'm 1000% sure that Adidas, UA, etc would be waiting in the wings to snap up those brands.

adidas would, but UA has been breaking/canceling contracts with a few collegiate "partners".

See UCLA

Edited May 4, 2023 by DFW Horn

[PilotsError 2309]

Phil Knight is as relevant to conference realignment as you and I.  Why people think he has any power or influence here is absurd.