Realignment talk not going away

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

8 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

This is correct. 

[bullet 1,596]

14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

SEC is FAR better pound for pound and it’s not really close. The Big Ten has a lot of fat that will eventually need to be trimmed. Viewership aligns pretty closely to stadium size (excluding those with oversized off campus stadiums like Miami, UCLA, Temple, Pitt, UTSA, USF, Memphis, UNLV).

Below is the rank of on campus stadiums with more than 50k seats, BOLD= >75k

By capacity the SEC has 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 28, 31, 33 (NR: Vanderbilt)

Big Ten has 1, 2, 3, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 35, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50 (off campus: UCLA)(NR: Northwestern)

ACC has 14, 16, 24, 29, 32, 38, 43, 49 (off campus: Miami, Pitt)(NR: Syracuse, BC, Duke, Wake)

ND is 17

B12 has 26, 30, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 48, 52, 53, 54 (NR: Baylor, TCU, UCF, UH, Cincy)

PAC4: 27, 51 (NR: OSU, WSU)

 

If you assume we’re moving to 3 Power conferences, outside of Vandy, every SEC school would be in the top 3rd. FSU/Clemson clearly make the cut and even UVA would make the top 3rd as well. Only UNC at 49 would fall outside the top 3rd.

If you look at realignment through this lens, it seems most likely that the bloated Big Ten would be more likely to split than the SEC which seems far more aligned.

While true, the Big 10 is much more aligned as institutions.  Except for Northwestern, USC and Oregon, they are all highly rated Enormous state research universities.

There's a huge difference between Texas and Florida relative to Arkansas, LSU and the Mississippi schools.

[TKthunder2 4,985]

2 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:

 

 

 

Really not a bad list but since this likely will carry over to basketball as well.

Indiana not Purdue
Maryland not Pitt
UVA not VT
and Kansas over WVU 

[bullet 1,596]

17 hours ago, gatormarc said:

Feels like the bubble is really close to popping when they are still pushing the idea of selling ads based on the size of the market rather than if anyone is actually watching them.

It's like how they keep bringing up Miami as an expansion option.

Sure they have no fanbase.

Sure no one in Miami watches them.

But Miami is a big market and we can sell ads like the first 2 sentences weren't true.

People follow Miami when they win.  They draw close to 70k in their good seasons.

Now in their bad seasons, they may be in the 20s.  They are like UofH, stuck in a pro sports market without a large diehard fan base.

[bullet 1,596]

1 hour ago, 89Horn said:

I agree.  I don’t know, maybe two divisions with four conferences.  Each of the four conferences could comprise of 16 schools each.  Maybe loosely organized by geographic region.  Does that sound crazy?

I just don't think they would go down to 40.  More likely is Prestige Worldwide with 12-16 schools and other conferences with another 50 or so.

[Chopper 17,230]

1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

 

Quote

Big Ten information. College football fan

 

@Genetics56

 

I had a nice dinner with my long-time friend in the athletic department. We talked at length about conference realignment, the future of college athletics based on what is currently known, and some inside conversations happening between athletic departments. I'm just going to share what is relevant to everyone.

...

7: ESPN does not want to lose the ACC. That's been made clear by many communications among people. But they will also not pay a boat load of new money because they don't have the money to do it and don't have the authorization to do it.

 

ESPN made $3 Billion profit last year for Disney. Meanwhile Fox Broadcasting, the owner of Fox News, Fox Sports and the Fox broadcast network said it generated profit of $375 million. Color me skeptical on at least point 7 from the guy's "friend in the athletic department."

[billfromlaketravis 11,448]

It’s funny, the writers and actors strike probably kills any further realignment this year. Fox is probably done while Disney is claiming poverty. 

[Gidnik 3,268]

2 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

Full content

 

 Big Ten information. College football fan

 

@Genetics56

 

I had a nice dinner with my long-time friend in the athletic department. We talked at length about conference realignment, the future of college athletics based on what is currently known, and some inside conversations happening between athletic departments. I'm just going to share what is relevant to everyone.

 

1: Clemson and Florida State are waiting for the "signal" to leave. I don't know when that signal will be sent. The signal is essentially the Big Ten and the network partners telling Florida State and Clemson that they are ready to add a southern swing of schools. Big Ten commish can't just call and say "hey, it's time for your offer." FSU has a "home." The presidents of the schools will tell him to go and add the others after conversations with FOX/NBC/CBS. The networks want it. It isn't going to be just two schools down south when this is done. Target should be anywhere from 2 at first and then up to 4 or 5. The additions outside of FSU and Clemson will have to come in at a very low number like OR/WA did. so they will go to 20, but it isn't known how quickly they will go to more than 20 because of the GOR issues/cost that other schools will have. so this may have to be a long, bleeding process before it is in it's completed form. I'm told that the Big Ten would like to get UNC but they know that may not happen. The talk of UNC and UVA as the top targets or moved onto those two schools is not true. UVA has no shot at a Big Ten invite right now because FOX will not pay for it, just like they are not willing to pay for Cal and Stanford. FOX wants regional brands and rivalries in all regions to broadcast on their channels and the same with CBS and NBC. FOX is going to try and retain all content under their "umbrella" so they own the assets. From my understanding, rights will be acquired. What the expense is and who has to send the check, I don't know.

 

2: I was told several high level decision makers at Clemson would prefer to go to the Big Ten. They will have no issue of going to the SEC if they can't get into the Big Ten. There have been several back channel communications. Of course the Big Ten presidents want to move slower but FOX wants it done as quickly as they can.

 

3: FOX already knew the Pac-12 was going to implode several weeks before Colorado announced for the Big 12. FOX was ready to communicate to the Big Ten to get things going. Go back to when the Big Ten commish spoke at media days. He didn't say anything about not adding anymore schools for a reason. He just said the presidents didn't authorize him to do it (yet). The presidents of the Big Ten schools did not want to add those two schools for several years but had to do it now or lose them for the long-term. Many in the Big Ten are very, very happy with the last 4 conference additions. Now it's a matter of timing for when they add the southern wing to the conference. They want to be THE national conference and outside forces are not gong to be able to prevent that from happening.

 

4: The OR/WA ordeal was closer to falling apart than the public knows. They estimate that it will cost $10M annually in travel costs alone and having a payout of $30M, they will have fewer dollars to spend on other resources. FOX would only give them 1 million dollars annually for travel expenses, which is not the normal process. Usually a network will never agree to something like this. That goes to show how strong the relationship is between FOX and the Big Ten. It's a very healthy relationship.

 

5: There was no push back from USC and UCLA leaders for adding OR/WA even when they are not voting members. They don't view OR/WA additions will impact USC's ability to be the dominant brand out west.

 

6: There are serious conversations, at least at the athletic department level, for going to 10 conference games.

 

7: ESPN does not want to lose the ACC. That's been made clear by many communications among people. But they will also not pay a boat load of new money because they don't have the money to do it and don't have the authorization to do it.

 

8: The Big Ten isn't viewing Notre Dame as a must get to accomplish the national conference goal. That wasn't the case last summer as they tried to get Notre Dame to join.

 

The Big Ten and network partners are not worried about what the other conferences and networks do. They have complete control of the biggest brands out west, have the big brands in the Big Ten, will get their southern swing accomplished, and then later will get into Texas. There's nobody playing anyone to try and get any result. ESPN can't do anything unless their bosses sign off on it and right now they don't have authorization to make any new tv deals, etc.

Full content

 

 Big Ten information. College football fan

 

@Genetics56

 

I had a nice dinner with my long-time friend in the athletic department. We talked at length about conference realignment, the future of college athletics based on what is currently known, and some inside conversations happening between athletic departments. I'm just going to share what is relevant to everyone.

 

1: Clemson and Florida State are waiting for the "signal" to leave. I don't know when that signal will be sent. The signal is essentially the Big Ten and the network partners telling Florida State and Clemson that they are ready to add a southern swing of schools. Big Ten commish can't just call and say "hey, it's time for your offer." FSU has a "home." The presidents of the schools will tell him to go and add the others after conversations with FOX/NBC/CBS. The networks want it. It isn't going to be just two schools down south when this is done. Target should be anywhere from 2 at first and then up to 4 or 5. The additions outside of FSU and Clemson will have to come in at a very low number like OR/WA did. so they will go to 20, but it isn't known how quickly they will go to more than 20 because of the GOR issues/cost that other schools will have. so this may have to be a long, bleeding process before it is in it's completed form. I'm told that the Big Ten would like to get UNC but they know that may not happen. The talk of UNC and UVA as the top targets or moved onto those two schools is not true. UVA has no shot at a Big Ten invite right now because FOX will not pay for it, just like they are not willing to pay for Cal and Stanford. FOX wants regional brands and rivalries in all regions to broadcast on their channels and the same with CBS and NBC. FOX is going to try and retain all content under their "umbrella" so they own the assets. From my understanding, rights will be acquired. What the expense is and who has to send the check, I don't know.

 

2: I was told several high level decision makers at Clemson would prefer to go to the Big Ten. They will have no issue of going to the SEC if they can't get into the Big Ten. There have been several back channel communications. Of course the Big Ten presidents want to move slower but FOX wants it done as quickly as they can.

 

3: FOX already knew the Pac-12 was going to implode several weeks before Colorado announced for the Big 12. FOX was ready to communicate to the Big Ten to get things going. Go back to when the Big Ten commish spoke at media days. He didn't say anything about not adding anymore schools for a reason. He just said the presidents didn't authorize him to do it (yet). The presidents of the Big Ten schools did not want to add those two schools for several years but had to do it now or lose them for the long-term. Many in the Big Ten are very, very happy with the last 4 conference additions. Now it's a matter of timing for when they add the southern wing to the conference. They want to be THE national conference and outside forces are not gong to be able to prevent that from happening.

 

4: The OR/WA ordeal was closer to falling apart than the public knows. They estimate that it will cost $10M annually in travel costs alone and having a payout of $30M, they will have fewer dollars to spend on other resources. FOX would only give them 1 million dollars annually for travel expenses, which is not the normal process. Usually a network will never agree to something like this. That goes to show how strong the relationship is between FOX and the Big Ten. It's a very healthy relationship.

 

5: There was no push back from USC and UCLA leaders for adding OR/WA even when they are not voting members. They don't view OR/WA additions will impact USC's ability to be the dominant brand out west.

 

6: There are serious conversations, at least at the athletic department level, for going to 10 conference games.

 

7: ESPN does not want to lose the ACC. That's been made clear by many communications among people. But they will also not pay a boat load of new money because they don't have the money to do it and don't have the authorization to do it.

 

8: The Big Ten isn't viewing Notre Dame as a must get to accomplish the national conference goal. That wasn't the case last summer as they tried to get Notre Dame to join.

 

The Big Ten and network partners are not worried about what the other conferences and networks do. They have complete control of the biggest brands out west, have the big brands in the Big Ten, will get their southern swing accomplished, and then later will get into Texas. There's nobody playing anyone to try and get any result. ESPN can't do anything unless their bosses sign off on it and right now they don't have authorization to make any new tv deals, etc.

[billfromlaketravis 11,448]

If I’m ESPN, I’d get Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Growing the ACCN is the only revenue escalator available to the malcontents like Florida State. Add Bay Area TVs, top flight Tier 3 programming, 930 window, and pick up their shares of the PAC Network. Win-win. 
 

Yes, I fully acknowledge the travel would be horrific. 

[TXs 226]

What's going to happen with the Texas-Rice series with the move to the SEC. Is it over?

[Chopper 17,230]

6 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

It’s funny, the writers and actors strike probably kills any further realignment this year. Fox is probably done while Disney is claiming poverty. 

It's not a growth business and if you were going to try to spin off ESPN you generally wouldn't want to take on new liabilities but yeah Disney only have themselves to blame for everyone thinking espn is broke. But if the SEC doesn't also agree to expand or if Fox/B10 won't take more than those two schools I don't see how FSU or Clemson can talk their way out of the ACC.

[gatormarc 911]

48 minutes ago, bullet said:

People follow Miami when they win.  They draw close to 70k in their good seasons.

Now in their bad seasons, they may be in the 20s.  They are like UofH, stuck in a pro sports market without a large diehard fan base.

Let's not confuse Miami today with 40 years ago.

Miami doesn't draw even 70k during good seasons.

Their last good season they did pull in a couple of games where they claimed mid-60s but you could see 10k empty seats in the stands. And that's when they had somehow managed to get into the top 5.

Maybe when Notre Dame or FSU comes to town, they will have legit 65k because the other school takes 25k tickets.

The other half of the winning season schedule, they are claiming 45-50k attendance but it's a half empty stadium.

[Texas Wahoo 3,389]

21 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

If I’m ESPN, I’d get Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Growing the ACCN is the only revenue escalator available to the malcontents like Florida State. Add Bay Area TVs, top flight Tier 3 programming, 930 window, and pick up their shares of the PAC Network. Win-win. 
 

Yes, I fully acknowledge the travel would be horrific. 

Except those are the schools against expansion. My guess is ESPN wouldn’t mind adding the California schools, but it sounds like FSU and Clemson are going to say no to everything until they get out.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11,448]

3 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Except those are the schools against expansion. My guess is ESPN wouldn’t mind adding the California schools, but it sounds like FSU and Clemson are going to say no to everything until they get out.

 

Good point. How many yes’s does the ACC have right now?

[Zhorn96 1,773]

52 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

If I’m ESPN, I’d get Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Growing the ACCN is the only revenue escalator available to the malcontents like Florida State. Add Bay Area TVs, top flight Tier 3 programming, 930 window, and pick up their shares of the PAC Network. Win-win. 
 

Yes, I fully acknowledge the travel would be horrific. 

Cal/Furd are still talking to the Big18 also.  Cheaper rate than UO/UW.  Next week will be interesting...

[Hagbard Celine 10,852]

4 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:

 

this puts 34 of 100 senators in play

purdue makes the cut over a dozen other schools?

[Magus Ossis 2,797]

If espn wants to keep big 10 out of the SE, they should tell acc to make unequal revenue deals with the prime prospective escapees, throw more money into the deal for those schools, and tell those schools this is their payoff to let the cali schools in and to wait out the GOR.

[Wade 464]

2 hours ago, Chopper said:

ESPN made $3 Billion profit last year for Disney. Meanwhile Fox Broadcasting, the owner of Fox News, Fox Sports and the Fox broadcast network said it generated profit of $375 million. Color me skeptical on at least point 7 from the guy's "friend in the athletic department."

Yeah, but something is making Disney uncomfortable.  I don't follow this stuff closely, but I'm guessing Disney's finance department is forecasting icebergs ahead.  Why else would Iger be talking about a strategic partner, and ESPN refusing to compensate SEC for an extra conference game?

Seems like there's blood in the water, and Fox is all over it.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,822]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:12 PM, Laxtonto said:

 

[bullet 1,596]

2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

Let's not confuse Miami today with 40 years ago.

Miami doesn't draw even 70k during good seasons.

Their last good season they did pull in a couple of games where they claimed mid-60s but you could see 10k empty seats in the stands. And that's when they had somehow managed to get into the top 5.

Maybe when Notre Dame or FSU comes to town, they will have legit 65k because the other school takes 25k tickets.

The other half of the winning season schedule, they are claiming 45-50k attendance but it's a half empty stadium.

Maybe those fans were generating revenue ordering beer?!

They drew 55,000 last year, 44,000 the year before that, 53,000 in 2019,  and 61,000 in 2018.  They were as bad as 28k in 1997, but as good as just under 70k in 2002.

[Satchel 6,933]

Are the networks concerned about the academic profiles of their chess pieces or are they leaving that piece up to the schools to pretend how important it is?

[TKthunder2 4,985]

29 minutes ago, Wade said:

Yeah, but something is making Disney uncomfortable.  I don't follow this stuff closely, but I'm guessing Disney's finance department is forecasting icebergs ahead.  Why else would Iger be talking about a strategic partner, and ESPN refusing to compensate SEC for an extra conference game?

Seems like there's blood in the water, and Fox is all over it.

It’s gambling. ESPN is getting into sport betting and fantasy betting. That doesn’t align with their whole family image around Mickey and the theme parks.

They’ll partner with a third party like FanDuel or MGM and let them buy into a minority share of the company and they’ll be the face of the operation completely separate from the House of Mouse. ESPN’s branding could immediately make it the #1 gambling website in the WORLD in a very short amount of time.  Online poker, off track betting, and every type of sports could be a one sport shop for main events, news, and betting. Their only possible connection would be the main OTA ABC channel.

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

Let's not confuse Miami today with 40 years ago.

Miami doesn't draw even 70k during good seasons.

Their last good season they did pull in a couple of games where they claimed mid-60s but you could see 10k empty seats in the stands. And that's when they had somehow managed to get into the top 5.

Maybe when Notre Dame or FSU comes to town, they will have legit 65k because the other school takes 25k tickets.

The other half of the winning season schedule, they are claiming 45-50k attendance but it's a half empty stadium.

 

Hardcore CFB fans know the deal with Miami, but "The U", "Catholics vs Convicts", etc still resonates in the minds of casual fans watching tv.

Ultimately, it's about brand recognition, tv ratings and 1m viewer games.  

From 2015-21 (excluding 2020), schools that had most regular-season games over 1m viewers not involving 2024 Big/SEC teams or ND:

1. Clemson- 34 games

2. FSU- 31 games

3. Miami- 22 games

 

For reference, BIG just added:

UW- 28 games

UO- 26 games

 

Other schools:  Utah and OK St- 19 games, Stanford and UL- 18, UNC- 16, VT, Baylor, CU- 15, TCU- 14, BYU- 12, UVA- 9

 

There's not that many schools that are worth adding beyond ND, FSU and Clemson, but, depending on how you factor in UNC, Miami is probably the fourth or fifth most valuable tv property left on the board.  Despite the fact that they've been down for years, they were so dominant during their run, and got so much media attention during that time and in later years, that they still attract viewers.  

For Fox and the BIG, specifically, I think they have real value:  If Fox/BIG can add both FSU and Miami, it gives them a presence in FL, even though neither school is UF.  Miami vs FSU, Clemson and any existing BIG power would seem to be games that Fox can market, and having two entry points for BIG teams to play in FL would seem like something existing BIG teams would want for recruiting.

It would also be one more domino to help topple the ACC and get ND into the BIG, which would have huge value.

If Fox/BIG could add FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC, that would be 22.  Give ND a choice for their partner to get to 24 and call it a wrap.

If the SEC takes FSU and Clemson, Miami becomes even more valuable for Fox/BIG to give them a foothold in FL.

[gatormarc 911]

32 minutes ago, bullet said:

Maybe those fans were generating revenue ordering beer?!

Maybe some but not nearly enough. Miami had to take money from their med school recently to cover an athletic deficit.

Quote

They drew 55,000 last year, 44,000 the year before that, 53,000 in 2019,  and 61,000 in 2018.  They were as bad as 28k in 1997, but as good as just under 70k in 2002.

So it looks like you went back 20 years to find one example of a year that they had decent draw.

I'm not sure that's proving the point you think it is.

 

[TKthunder2 4,985]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

this puts 34 of 100 senators in play

purdue makes the cut over a dozen other schools?

40 senators actually

9 states don’t have FBS teams (Alaska, Montana, ND, SD, Delaware, VT, NH, RI, Maine)

6 states don’t have Power 5 teams (Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, Connecticut)

This model drops 5 states from the P5 (Kansas, Maryland, New Jerseys, New York, and Massachusetts). This is the most contentious part of the whole process.

Those states (other than Kansas) are also very large so it’s likely worth the revenue cut to just include a school from each and call it a day.

[USC Traveler 488]

18 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

It’s gambling. ESPN is getting into sport betting and fantasy betting. That doesn’t align with their whole family image around Mickey and the theme parks.

They’ll partner with a third party like FanDuel or MGM and let them buy into a minority share of the company and they’ll be the face of the operation completely separate from the House of Mouse. ESPN’s branding could immediately make it the #1 gambling website in the WORLD in a very short amount of time.  Online poker, off track betting, and every type of sports could be a one sport shop for main events, news, and betting. Their only possible connection would be the main OTA ABC channel.

I think this is part of it, and the other part is they're looking at spiraling costs for sports rights at the same time they're seeing cable subs dropping rapidly.

That's brutal for ESPN going forward.  Things are fine for now, but soaring costs and cratering revenue is a deadly combo.

When they go DTC, they're going to have to charge a high rate per month to make up for the lost revenue from cable.

ESPN is looking at much lower profitability going forward from their traditional businesses, which is why they're going to bring in a strategic partner and move heavily into gambling, for the reasons you detailed above.

Edited August 13, 2023 by USC Traveler

[gatormarc 911]

4 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

There's not that many schools that are worth adding beyond ND, FSU and Clemson, but, depending on how you factor in UNC, Miami is probably the fourth or fifth most valuable tv property left on the board.  Despite the fact that they've been down for years, they were so dominant during their run, and got so much media attention during that time and in later years, that they still attract viewers.  

Well, I'm convinced. The B1G should definitely take them. 

[TKthunder2 4,985]

1 minute ago, USC Traveler said:

I think this is part of it, and the other part is they're looking at spiraling costs for sports rights at the same time they're seeing cable subs dropping rapidly.

That's brutal for ESPN going forward.  Things are fine for now, but soaring costs and cratering revenue is a deadly combo.

When they go DTC, they're going to have to charge a high rate per month to make up for the lost revenue from cable.

Fair, but if ESPN stops bidding on rights then those numbers will quickly fall dramatically.  CBS/NBC have cut their sports business down to the bone. FOX only has so many channels. The market will reset at some point but while yes it’s clearly a factor (get someone else to share this load in case of the bubble popping) I don’t think it’s as big of a worry.  Disney is looking to turn ESPN into a money making monster, but they just don’t want to be the face of the monster.

[USC Traveler 488]

2 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Well, I'm convinced. The B1G should definitely take them. 

What do you think about FSU and Clemson to the SEC ?  

Seems like Sankey would want them as a defensive play, but would UF, UGA, Bama, AU, etc vote to add them ?

It's the reverse of the aggy-UT situation.  SEC already has UF.  FSU isn't bringing UT-level benefits.

Would SEC schools rather recruit against Clemson and FSU as BIG members ?  

"Mr five star FL HS player, do you really want to play in MN, IN and Iowa instead of the South ?"

[gatormarc 911]

1 minute ago, USC Traveler said:

What do you think about FSU and Clemson to the SEC ?  

Seems like Sankey would want them as a defensive play, but would UF, UGA, Bama, AU, etc vote to add them ?

It's the reverse of the aggy-UT situation.  SEC already has UF.  FSU isn't bringing UT-level benefits.

Would SEC schools rather recruit against Clemson and FSU as BIG members ?  

"Mr five star FL HS player, do you really want to play in MN, IN and Iowa instead of the South ?"

I have no desire for the SEC to expand.

I've hated the current schedule rotation and really want 3-6-6.

But if the SEC were to expand and it made sense financially, FSU is an easy add. Same culture, geography, athletic strengths, existing rivalries.

I'm personally neutral on Clemson, but I know UGA and USC fanbases look at them like I would look at FSU.

I don't think the SEC needs to worry about what the B1G is doing. Just make the right call for the SEC.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

1 hour ago, Wade said:

Yeah, but something is making Disney uncomfortable.  I don't follow this stuff closely, but I'm guessing Disney's finance department is forecasting icebergs ahead.  Why else would Iger be talking about a strategic partner, and ESPN refusing to compensate SEC for an extra conference game?

Seems like there's blood in the water, and Fox is all over it.

Definitely.   Remember there is a major difference here.   ESPN bought the use of the rights to the SEC and ACC until the mid 2030s, but Fox literally owns the rights to the Big Ten.

All of the Big Ten's rights are owned by the Big Ten Network.    That agreement goes out for a while, its why teams have to buy in, etc etc.   The Big Ten Network then made deals for the T1/2 rights.   But, during the pandemic when schools needed an infusion of funds, Fox bought an additional 10% of B1G, taking them into controlling interest.   This is why Fox sat in the negotiations and why they gobbled up the west coast of what they wanted.   

This is a different fight than we've seen before, like Fox is using the Mouse pulling back as an opportunity to take space.   We always knew they were not giving CFB the attention they could have for years, with limited marketing.   But once they decided to hit hard, Fox Noon became the premier slot, and their LA studios got some hometown love.

[Chopper 17,230]

45 minutes ago, Wade said:

Yeah, but something is making Disney uncomfortable.

 

Something: Quarterly earnings reports. Some argue those are the 3 most terrible words in American capitalism.

A couple years ago Disney purchased a bunch of assets from, coincidentally, Fox and it's really dragging down the growth in Disney's earnings.

Disney is also trying to figure out how to maximize the value of ESPN given the decline in the percentage of households that subscribe to cable. ESPN gets ~$8 for every cable/sattv subscriber regardless of whether that person watches espn. The percentage of US households with cable is declining quickly enough that they're preparing for a point where it makes sense to launch espn as some sort of separate streaming service. So there is certainly some turbulence. But they remain incredibly profitable. Fox broadcasting is in the same boat except they have significantly fewer options and that's probably one reason why you see them being much more aggressive with sports media rights. That, and a recent shake-up at the top of Disney's ranks has brought back an old dinosaur.

Espn as a separate streamer could either be exclusive (not available on basic cable, only by streaming), or non-exclusive, which I think is most likely. They'd have to make a deal with the cable/satellite companies to allow that, and figure out what their streaming model(s) looks like.

 

[bullet 1,596]

1 hour ago, gatormarc said:

Maybe some but not nearly enough. Miami had to take money from their med school recently to cover an athletic deficit.

So it looks like you went back 20 years to find one example of a year that they had decent draw.

I'm not sure that's proving the point you think it is.

 

61,000 in 2018 is pretty good (BTW it was just less-about 58k in 2017).  There are only 23 schools that have averaged over 60k for the last 4 years and only ND, Clemson, FSU and Virginia Tech are not in the P2.

[TKthunder2 4,985]

17 minutes ago, bullet said:

61,000 in 2018 is pretty good (BTW it was just less-about 58k in 2017).  There are only 23 schools that have averaged over 60k for the last 4 years and only ND, Clemson, FSU and Virginia Tech are not in the P2.

Only 20 stadiums outside the P2 that can even hold 60k and 7 of those are off campus built for bowls/pros.

[Huckleberry 32,848]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

This is a different fight than we've seen before, like Fox is using the Mouse pulling back as an opportunity to take space.   We always knew they were not giving CFB the attention they could have for years, with limited marketing.   But once they decided to hit hard, Fox Noon became the premier slot, and their LA studios got some hometown love.

But it's interesting that their premier slot is a no go for home games at the 4 schools they just brought in. They're not really going to kick off at 9am are they?

[mdmost 43,000]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But it's interesting that their premier slot is a no go for home games at the 4 schools they just brought in. They're not really going to kick off at 9am are they?

No but that's 4 more options for away game teams for Big Noon. Ohio State-Oregon or Penn State-Washington is certainly going to get Big Noon. You also have USC and UCLA when they travel to any number of Big 10 away games. Not all the Big Noon games were great matchups. Home games on the West Coast will now be in the 2:30-6 Central time frame. Fox will also get some night games I believe. The problem I see is CBS and NBC are also going to get some first cracks and now Fox loses some evening content. I'm not sure who gets what first in those time frames. I know NBC has a prime time slot for the Big 10 and CBS now has a 2:30 Big 10 game of the week. Then you have Peacock getting the lesser games. Notre Dame will always be a 2:30 kickoff for their home games on NBC. 

[gatormarc 911]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

61,000 in 2018 is pretty good (BTW it was just less-about 58k in 2017).  There are only 23 schools that have averaged over 60k for the last 4 years and only ND, Clemson, FSU and Virginia Tech are not in the P2.

Yup. There are a handful of teams worth expanding over. Miami isn't one of them, at least not for the SEC. B1G does different math though.

[statsman 5,451]

I don’t get the argument that the top league heads to include 64 teams in order to not lose fan viewership. 
 
In the UK, there is a Premiere League and lesser leagues, based on attendance, win % and revenue. People still watch their teams, even if relegated. 
 
In Texas HS, there are different divisions based on student body size. People still watch the games. 
 
Are you arguing that if ISU, OSU and BYU were in a lower division than the SEC and B1G 10, their fans would stop attending and tuning in?

[nunna yo bizness 1,687]

20 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t get the argument that the top league heads to include 64 teams in order to not lose fan viewership. 
 
In the UK, there is a Premiere League and lesser leagues, based on attendance, win % and revenue. People still watch their teams, even if relegated. 
 
In Texas HS, there are different divisions based on student body size. People still watch the games. 
 
Are you arguing that if ISU, OSU and BYU were in a lower division than the SEC and B1G 10, their fans would stop attending and tuning in?

Maybe not their fans, but fans of other teams and casual fans might be affected.  Right now, depending on the games that are on, I will sit and watch ISU, OSU, and BYU because it's still beg time college football.  If they are relegated to a lower tier I will be disinclined to care about watching them, just like I would be unlikely to sit and watch two FCS teams play now.

Also, as someone above pointed out, if you relegate the current bottom feeders and punching bags, someone else has to become that.  Wins and lisses are a zero sum game.  How enthused will fanbases continue to be that suddenly become perennial cellar dwellers that were once middle of the road with occasional good seasons?

[notre dame joe 187]

12 hours ago, Gidnik said:

this account was more wrong on everything than that mhver3. Absolute shit account. 

And the BUG is moving into Texas.  So, Baylor and Houston new rivals for Northwestern and Minnesota?

10 hours ago, 89Horn said:

I agree.  I don’t know, maybe two divisions with four conferences.  Each of the four conferences could comprise of 16 schools each.  Maybe loosely organized by geographic region.  Does that sound crazy?

 

7 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

this puts 34 of 100 senators in play

purdue makes the cut over a dozen other schools?

 

First time ever that the sport would be better off being designed by the federal government. 

[statsman 5,451]

8 hours ago, nunna yo bizness said:

Maybe not their fans, but fans of other teams and casual fans might be affected.  Right now, depending on the games that are on, I will sit and watch ISU, OSU, and BYU because it's still beg time college football.  If they are relegated to a lower tier I will be disinclined to care about watching them, just like I would be unlikely to sit and watch two FCS teams play now.

Also, as someone above pointed out, if you relegate the current bottom feeders and punching bags, someone else has to become that.  Wins and lisses are a zero sum game.  How enthused will fanbases continue to be that suddenly become perennial cellar dwellers that were once middle of the road with occasional good seasons?

I don’t know. The Dallas Cowboys seem to sell out. 
 
When I first became sports-conscious, the NCAA tournament was 32 teams. A team with six losses was considered practically ineligible. 
 
If major college football converged on 40 teams, with those teams mostly playing each other, fans would get used to 9-3 teams making the playoffs and then winning them, I suspect. 

[Huckleberry 32,848]

A team's diehard fans still go to the matches when they're relegated, but there's a reason that the Championship Playoff final is called the most lucrative game in sports. Viewership and therefore TV contract numbers between the Premier League and the next level down is an absolutely huge gulf. This year's calculation for the Luton Town vs. Coventry City match was that the winner would make $211 million for winning. That's a calculation based on just two seasons, the season they're up and parachute payments if they're immediately relegated back down. If they manage to stay up for two seasons it balloons to $360 million.

The top level versus the next level down is a completely different sport when it comes to revenue.

[HookEm 2,463]

As long as there are crappy teams like Northwestern and Vanderbilt in the Big 10 and SEC, then there should be at least another conference (Big 12) full of the remaining teams that are better than them.

With 16 teams, a conference can still feel like a conference. Not sure at 18 or 20. 24 teams is ridiculous.

With 12 playoff spots it will sort itself out. The better conferences will get more teams in than the weak conferences, but they still matter. Even if they only get a team or two in.

The best cast for me is to get to 3 conferences of 20 and stop there. In a typical playoff, the Big might get 4-5 teams, the SEC 4-5 teams, the Big 12 2-3 and maybe 0-1 comes from the rest.

So to get there the following adds make sense:
Big 10 - Notre Dame and UNC
SEC - FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA
Big 12 - VT, Pitt, Louisville, Duke

Best homeless: NC State, Georgia Tech, Stanford, WSU, Oregon St, Syracuse, UConn, Villanova, SD State

[statsman 5,451]

The problem is conferences have to weigh adding teams to strengthen the conference vs. conference members’ desire to maximize their own team’s outlook. Yes, FSU and Clemson are competitive at very high levels. Yes, they would like to be in the SEC. Yes, ESPN might like them in the SEC (maybe not- that’s a sweet deal for ESPN the ACC has). But, what’s in it for MSU? Or Arkansas?

 
Maybe the right end result is two conferences having a lot more money than the others, but the others are allowed into the playoffs. They might even win a first round game, as TCU did. 
 
TCU won, because it had a modern offense, and a puncher’s chance, and they made it. Duggan carried the ball 15 times against Michigan. Very few QBs can do that two games in a row against top defenses, and be effective in the second game. No B12 OL and DL can be competitive two games in a row. That’s the advantage the B10 and SEC have - the line play. 
 
So we can have a future where five conferences send teams to the playoffs, but only B10 and SEC teams ever make it to the semifinals. 

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

11 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

But it's interesting that their premier slot is a no go for home games at the 4 schools they just brought in. They're not really going to kick off at 9am are they?

My guess, at the money Fox spent, is that those are T2 pick ups.    Noon/3/Prime will be for USC/OSU/Michigan/Penn State and, to a lesser degree, Nebraska or Wisconsin games.    Now if OSU plays the Ducks, then that will bump to T1, but the Ducks/Iowa or Washington/Purdue will be on FS1 during the day and Oregon/UCLA will be a prime time FS1..

[bolverk 29,655]

Interesting ranking of schools by athletics revenue. Quite a number of surprises. The author does note that some of them might not be typical for a given year (e.g., Virginia got a one-time $40 million donation). He says they're normally in the UNC range. Louisville appears to be overlooked in a lot of conference realignment preferences if their listed revenue figures are like that every year, but Old Dominion and James Madison are the real surprises.

It'd be really interesting to see a multi-year average for all the athletics departments.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,452]

As long as there are crappy teams like Northwestern and Vanderbilt in the Big 10 and SEC, then there should be at least another conference (Big 12) full of the remaining teams that are better than them.

With 16 teams, a conference can still feel like a conference. Not sure at 18 or 20. 24 teams is ridiculous.

With 12 playoff spots it will sort itself out. The better conferences will get more teams in than the weak conferences, but they still matter. Even if they only get a team or two in.

The best cast for me is to get to 3 conferences of 20 and stop there. In a typical playoff, the Big might get 4-5 teams, the SEC 4-5 teams, the Big 12 2-3 and maybe 0-1 comes from the rest.

So to get there the following adds make sense:
Big 10 - Notre Dame and UNC
SEC - FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA
Big 12 - VT, Pitt, Louisville, Duke

Best homeless: NC State, Georgia Tech, Stanford, WSU, Oregon St, Syracuse, UConn, Villanova, SD State

I think the SEC would take NC State over Miami. It’s an invested fanbase in a new, growing market. Miami becomes kind of pointless with FSU in the fold

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

11 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t get the argument that the top league heads to include 64 teams in order to not lose fan viewership. 
 
In the UK, there is a Premiere League and lesser leagues, based on attendance, win % and revenue. People still watch their teams, even if relegated. 
 
In Texas HS, there are different divisions based on student body size. People still watch the games. 
 
Are you arguing that if ISU, OSU and BYU were in a lower division than the SEC and B1G 10, their fans would stop attending and tuning in?

I think they would.   The issue I hear often from the ISU/OSU/BYU crowd isn't that they wouldn't support their team, its that they are against silver spoons.  So, if there is a path to promotion and relegation that they could achieve, set it up.  But Vandy shouldn't get a free meal over them due to luck and happenstance.

If there isn't a way for that to happen, then that's when the number swells.

I don't mind 64 teams too much, if, and only if, every single game on every one of those 64 teams is against each other.   Having a quarter to a third of the schedule against teams a tier or three below is a bigger problem in my mind, like A&M vs Abeline Christian, than if Ohio State plays Rutgers.

[Texas Wahoo 3,389]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Interesting ranking of schools by athletics revenue. Quite a number of surprises. The author does note that some of them might not be typical for a given year (e.g., Virginia got a one-time $40 million donation). He says they're normally in the UNC range. Louisville appears to be overlooked in a lot of conference realignment preferences if their listed revenue figures are like that every year, but Old Dominion and James Madison are the real surprises.

It'd be really interesting to see a multi-year average for all the athletics departments.

 

Louisville is probably overlooked because they do not really have a path to joining the Big Ten or SEC.  The Big Ten is never going to invite them for academic reasons and the SEC is not going to invite them as a second school in the state of Kentucky.

[Huckleberry 32,848]

I think 80 is the right number, personally. 64 leaves too many good fanbases out and results in too many losses each season for the top teams. That would be a shock to the system when solid top 25 teams are 6-6.