Realignment talk not going away

['stache 21815]

58 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’ve been reading these threads for a while. Observation- it is stated by most (and all of the Left Behind) that the B12 is a stronger, better and more stable conference than the ACC. That assumption seems to be based on two points:

1. The B12 having a better media deal. 
2. Clemson and FSU clearly trying to leave. 
 
I offer some counterpoints. 
 
A. The ACC got more media revenue last year, when the ACC network revenue is included. Yes, they have a longer contract locking them in. I counter that with: the ACC plays eight conference games while the B12 plays nine. The ACC still has more potential for increasing revenue. 
B. On the new B12 media contract, Fox really didn’t increase their payment. The growth came from ESPN, and my belief is ESPN is paying for an early release of UT and OU, and this won’t be carried into the next contract. 
C. I have no idea what Clemson and FSU have for plans, but I’m 99% sure they’re not fighting to leave the ACC so that they can join the B12. 
 
A lot of words to support this premise I have: I don’t see the B12 as necessarily having a better position (and future) than the ACC. 

As it currently stands, they are pretty equal. ACC has better brands at the top and way worse brands at the bottom. The Big 12's appeal is parity, there are like 7 teams this season that have a legitimate shot at making the CCG and playoff. I don't think anybody believes that Clemson and FSU are looking to leave for the Big 12, and I don't believe the bs that came out a while back that the SEC wouldn't add them, I think they would, under the right conditions, the first being a clean break from the ACC. If those two schools would just shut the fuck up in public and stop shitting on their own league your argument would be a lot stronger.  

Edited August 27 by 'stache

[BurntOrange&White 39932]

Big 12 fucking sucks. Eat shit losers.

[HookEm 2467]

Quote

This move pushes us to a spot where the Big 12 can credibly say “if you cut us out of the football playoff, we’re cutting you out of the basketball playoff”.  

The big thing the Big 12 has going for it in basketball is lack of really crappy teams at the bottom, at least as it currently stands.  They are having a pretty good run in hoops, but in terms of true blue bloods, they currently only have one: Kansas. 

If the SEC wanted, they could add UNC and then suddenly they have the top two brands in college basketball: Kentucky and UNC.  Nobody is locking Kentucky and UNC out of the tourney.  Get real.  Adding UConn doesn't get the Big 12 anywhere close to that outcome.

According to Kenpom, here are the top 64 team hoops program rankings since 1997:

• SEC: 2. Kentucky, 10. Texas, 11. Florida, 16. Tennessee, 25. Alabama, 30. OU, 36. Arkansas, 41. Auburn, 47. LSU, 53. MSU, 54. Mizzou, 60. Aggy, 62. Vandy
  • 1 top-5, 5 top-25, 13 top-64
• ACC: 1. Duke, 4. UNC, 15. Louisville, 21. Syracuse, 26. Virginia, 35. FSU, 37. Stanford, 39. Pitt, 43. NC State, 45. Miami, 49. Notre Dame, 55. Clemson, 57. Wake 
  • 2 top-5, 4 top-25, 13 top-64
• BIG12: 3. Kansas, 5. Arizona, 14. Baylor, 27. Cincinnati, 29. Okie St, 32. West Virginia, 38. Iowa State, 44. Houston, 48. Tech, 50. K-State, 52. BYU, 58. Colorado, 61. ASU, 63. Utah
  • 2 top-5, 3 top-25, 14 top-64
• BIG10: 6. MSU, 12. UCLA, 13. OSU, 17. Wisconsin, 18. Purdue, 19. Michigan, 20. Illinois, 22. Maryland, 23. Indiana, 24. Oregon, 34. USC, 46. Iowa, 51. Washington
  • 0 top-5, 10 top-25, 13 top-64
• Other: 7. UConn, 8. Villanova, 9. Gonzaga, 28. Memphis, 31. Marquette, 33. Xavier, 40. Creighton, 56. Butler, 59. Providence, 64. SDSU

In terms of the top basketball programs over that period, you would have to say the ACC is the strongest at the top, but the Big 10 is the deepest with ten of the top-25.  Really though, they all look about equal and the Big 12 doesn't stand out in any way.  And while teams like Baylor, TCU and BYU are good right now, they are only a hire away from being terrible.  

[Magus Ossis 2800]

Yoga Berra is quoted as saying that it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future. That said, money talks. The NCAA is a leech that lives off of basketball tournament money, and that money is eventually going to find a home with someone who has something to offer other than being pretentious. 20 years from now, and probably much sooner, NCAA will have ceased to have meaningful existence with respect to big college sports.

Conferences may not disappear though, because they have meaning, function, and value outside of CFB and basketball. Call whatever contract settles how the teams in Prestige Worldwide interact a super-conference charter, but don't be surprised if vestiges of the old system remain. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 8/27/2024 at 6:17 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

Adding UConn would make Big 12 basketball analogous to SEC football - possibly beyond that.  We all know that football is king, but March Madness is massive financially, and it would hurt the Big 10 and SEC financially if that blew up.

This move pushes us to a spot where the Big 12 can credibly say “if you cut us out of the football playoff, we’re cutting you out of the basketball playoff”.  A Big 12/East/ACC plus the Cinderellas tournament would be a lesser product, but still viable - much like an SEC/Big 10 exclusive football post season.

I see this as a move towards a “mutually assured self destruction so let’s all play nice” type arrangement.

I don't know if it does that, but what it does do is bring the same bargaining chip to March Madness when that inevitably is pulled out of the NCAA.   If you apply the same payment structure to March Madness as they did to the CFP, which is like a 6-year participation payout.   The more you have in, the more you get of the payment.

This actually isn't nothing.   March Madness currently funds the entire NCAA.  ESPN is paying $1.3B per year for the 12 team playoff.   CBS pays $1.1B for March Madness.  

Its foreshadowing step two.

[notre dame joe 187]

On 8/27/2024 at 12:01 PM, HookEm said:

The big thing the Big 12 has going for it in basketball is lack of really crappy teams at the bottom, at least as it currently stands.

🤨There lies plenty of crappiness at the bottom of Big12 basketball, just as there is in any oversized conference in any sport. 

[hornian 5219]

12 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

Yoga Berra is quoted as saying that it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future. That said, money talks. The NCAA is a leech that lives off of basketball tournament money, and that money is eventually going to find a home with someone who has something to offer other than being pretentious. 20 years from now, and probably much sooner, NCAA will have ceased to have meaningful existence with respect to big college sports.

Conferences may not disappear though, because they have meaning, function, and value outside of CFB and basketball. Call whatever contract settles how the teams in Prestige Worldwide interact a super-conference charter, but don't be surprised if vestiges of the old system remain. 

[GTNY 284]

On 8/27/2024 at 3:01 PM, HookEm said:

The big thing the Big 12 has going for it in basketball is lack of really crappy teams at the bottom, at least as it currently stands.  They are having a pretty good run in hoops, but in terms of true blue bloods, they currently only have one: Kansas. 

If the SEC wanted, they could add UNC and then suddenly they have the top two brands in college basketball: Kentucky and UNC.  Nobody is locking Kentucky and UNC out of the tourney.  Get real.  Adding UConn doesn't get the Big 12 anywhere close to that outcome.

According to Kenpom, here are the top 64 team hoops program rankings since 1997:

• SEC: 2. Kentucky, 10. Texas, 11. Florida, 16. Tennessee, 25. Alabama, 30. OU, 36. Arkansas, 41. Auburn, 47. LSU, 53. MSU, 54. Mizzou, 60. Aggy, 62. Vandy
  • 1 top-5, 5 top-25, 13 top-64
• ACC: 1. Duke, 4. UNC, 15. Louisville, 21. Syracuse, 26. Virginia, 35. FSU, 37. Stanford, 39. Pitt, 43. NC State, 45. Miami, 49. Notre Dame, 55. Clemson, 57. Wake 
  • 2 top-5, 4 top-25, 13 top-64
• BIG12: 3. Kansas, 5. Arizona, 14. Baylor, 27. Cincinnati, 29. Okie St, 32. West Virginia, 38. Iowa State, 44. Houston, 48. Tech, 50. K-State, 52. BYU, 58. Colorado, 61. ASU, 63. Utah
  • 2 top-5, 3 top-25, 14 top-64
• BIG10: 6. MSU, 12. UCLA, 13. OSU, 17. Wisconsin, 18. Purdue, 19. Michigan, 20. Illinois, 22. Maryland, 23. Indiana, 24. Oregon, 34. USC, 46. Iowa, 51. Washington
  • 0 top-5, 10 top-25, 13 top-64
• Other: 7. UConn, 8. Villanova, 9. Gonzaga, 28. Memphis, 31. Marquette, 33. Xavier, 40. Creighton, 56. Butler, 59. Providence, 64. SDSU

In terms of the top basketball programs over that period, you would have to say the ACC is the strongest at the top, but the Big 10 is the deepest with ten of the top-25.  Really though, they all look about equal and the Big 12 doesn't stand out in any way.  And while teams like Baylor, TCU and BYU are good right now, they are only a hire away from being terrible.  

This is also all historical looking. With the new money discrepancy between conferences and the ability to pay athletes, who knows how much the basketball landscape will change for the Big10 and SEC

[TKthunder2 4991]

On 8/27/2024 at 3:59 AM, PittsburghTiger said:

I don’t understand why UCONN keeps flirting with big-time football.  They are in a perfect basketball situation with the Big East.  

UConn basketball pulls in $7 million a year and football loses money.

Kansas football and basketball will pull in $32 million a year.

Most people I know would leave the best job in the world if the new one offered them a 450% increase.

How long before Kansas/Kentucky just start poaching their coach and players every year because UConn can’t keep up with their $ ?

Also big time football may split off and form their own post season basketball tournament. What happens if the don’t include the Big East (say it’s only for FBS conferences). and UConn is playing in a lesser division.

For UConn is a no brainer. If they get the invite they 100% take it. For the Big 12 I think this is far more risky.

[BrazilHorn 6606]

This is where all the P/E talk baffles me. So few of these athletic departments make a real profit. No idea what kind of payback P/E firms would want but what does the investment in Rutgers eg get you? 
 

Would it have to be at conf level? How do you just carve out revenue sports? How will this (if it happens) potentially impact realignment?

[Hurtlocker 2212]

51 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

Also big time football may split off and form their own post season basketball tournament. What happens if the don’t include the Big East (say it’s only for FBS conferences). and UConn is playing in a lesser division.

For UConn is a no brainer. If they get the invite they 100% take it. For the Big 12 I think this is far more risky.

This is the part II right here.   CBS is paying $1.1B currently for March Madness and, yes, the Autobids get their moment, but, while those upset games generate a lot of fun and a metric fuck-ton of gambling and website ad revenue, they don't year over year generate the $1.1b.     The Final Four alone is watched like the CFP, it's probably 70% of the contract, the Sweet Sixteen is likely 90%.   

Let's pretend for a moment that the P4 or Autonomy Four, live up to that second name and finally become their own NCAA.  The year end tournament would now be split between the same 68 teams.   To pay out the next six years for the CFP, they looked at the last six years and said "here's how many times they were in, so we pay that forward, get in more, get paid more next time."   So, I'd imagine the same system would hold true.   By adding UCONN, the Big12 would have 4 of the last 6 champs, with only the ACC having Virginia and Covid getting another.   And in that Virginia year, they beat Texas Tech.   

It is not out of the realm of financial possibilities to see where UConn could pay for itself IF, and kind of only if, the P4 take control of men's basketball too.   Even if they gave the G5 access still, like they do in the CFP, the vast majority of the revenues are flowing to the P4 and, by the same math, with this move, the Big 12 would be very well leveraged in the discussion.

The problem with all this is everyone wants the NCAA to exist because no one wants to operate all the other sports.  So either they take the revenue and pay the NCAA to manage, or they keep the status quo.   But if the money is the same as the football playoff, and it is set to grow too, I cannot imagine it is safe from plundering for long

[Hurtlocker 2212]

6 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

This is where all the P/E talk baffles me. So few of these athletic departments make a real profit. No idea what kind of payback P/E firms would want but what does the investment in Rutgers eg get you? 
 

Would it have to be at conf level? How do you just carve out revenue sports? How will this (if it happens) potentially impact realignment?

Sports investment is more long-term investment.   They're looking at 5% over 20 years instead of a huge hit quick by liquidating assets like a raiding strategy.   They do this through a variety of means including bringing in partners, which they get a cut of, to handle various marketing, or merchandise, or broadcasting.     Sports investment has been proven to be an extremely lucrative and safe bet...over time, so they all want in to the US markets.

And to your point, the conference level is likely valued higher than the school level, unless the school is a major brand, like FSU, where you may be able to open up new markets to them.    Same sort of situation is likely what would drive that investment in the B12 too, whether those markets are east coast or Mexico or even monetizing other partnerships they aren't using yet.  The nice thing about the conference level is they don't really need to get involved in the day to day at schools nor, as you point out, look at the profitability of sport.   All they need to do is bring in more revenue, that's their job, invest and grow.   Their investing tide rises all boats, including theirs, so they get their return out of the conference revenues and the schools see an increase even with the PE payout, since it is over time, like an extra cut.

I had read one estimation that with around $200m of investment the B12's broadcast revenues alone were projected to double in 2031.   So if they put in $200m, looking for a 5% return per year, that's only $10m/y and if they were the ones facilitating that doubling of the contract, which would be for about $1.3b/y, they could likely take their $200m back out of the first year and keep collecting $10m a year for the duration as a rounding error the conference would never even notice long term.

Long story short, the PEs that invest in sport are far different than the PEs that raid, they know what they're doing and they come with a lot more resources than just money.    However, with each aspect they help, they also shave some money off for themselves so its a win/win for both.   Unless you want to detether.

[HookEm 2467]

12 hours ago, GTNY said:

This is also all historical looking.

Opinions vary, but I think looking historically is much more valid than just looking at the last 5 years. Coaches change and teams run hot and cold. Taking a longer view smooths that out. Long term results also generate lasting fan engagement which results in infrastructure improvements.  Those improvements generates better recruiting and more long term success and the cycle continues.

Take Houston for example. They currently have a great coach in Samson. He is 68 years old. They have made the tourney 6 of the last 7 years and have gone to a Final Four, an Elite Eight and 3 more Sweet 16s.  Over that time, their attendance has grown to the point that they were at capacity last year (2,635 -> 3,705 -> 3,661 -> 6,052 -> 6,817 -> 7,150 -> 7,400).  For reference, you need 12,000+ attendance to crack the top-30. 

What is going to happen when Sampson retires? Odds are low that they will hire someone who replicates his success.  More likely they will gradually trend back to their long term averages and draw 3,000 fans and be mediocre.

On the other hand, Arkansas averaged 19,000 fans last year, despite being down, and are generally in the top-10 in attendance.  If I had to bet who will have a better next 30 years between Houston and Arkansas, I would take Arkansas all day every day.  I also expect schools like Wisconsin are going to beat out TCU and BYU, even if they are a little down at the moment.  

 

[statsman 5470]

26 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Sports investment is more long-term investment.   They're looking at 5% over 20 years instead of a huge hit quick by liquidating assets like a raiding strategy.   They do this through a variety of means including bringing in partners, which they get a cut of, to handle various marketing, or merchandise, or broadcasting.     Sports investment has been proven to be an extremely lucrative and safe bet...over time, so they all want in to the US markets.

And to your point, the conference level is likely valued higher than the school level, unless the school is a major brand, like FSU, where you may be able to open up new markets to them.    Same sort of situation is likely what would drive that investment in the B12 too, whether those markets are east coast or Mexico or even monetizing other partnerships they aren't using yet.  The nice thing about the conference level is they don't really need to get involved in the day to day at schools nor, as you point out, look at the profitability of sport.   All they need to do is bring in more revenue, that's their job, invest and grow.   Their investing tide rises all boats, including theirs, so they get their return out of the conference revenues and the schools see an increase even with the PE payout, since it is over time, like an extra cut.

I had read one estimation that with around $200m of investment the B12's broadcast revenues alone were projected to double in 2031.   So if they put in $200m, looking for a 5% return per year, that's only $10m/y and if they were the ones facilitating that doubling of the contract, which would be for about $1.3b/y, they could likely take their $200m back out of the first year and keep collecting $10m a year for the duration as a rounding error the conference would never even notice long term.

Long story short, the PEs that invest in sport are far different than the PEs that raid, they know what they're doing and they come with a lot more resources than just money.    However, with each aspect they help, they also shave some money off for themselves so its a win/win for both.   Unless you want to detether.

Seriously, is there really PE that isn’t looking for big near-certain returns immediately, to start paying the debt on the huge initial investment? That doesn’t heavily leverage their investment with debt, but rather uses their own principal? Can you give an example?

The reason so many PE firms have reps for leveraging their initial investment while scavenging going concerns for near term gains is - it works. It makes a lot of money, at little risk. 
 
Please explain your concept in more detail, starting with where the money comes from for the investment, and where the returns come from. If the idea is that they will manage and market the athletics bettter than the ADs and conference offices, why wouldn’t the ADs and conferences just get consultants to teach them how to operate better?

[TKthunder2 4991]

7 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The problem with all this is everyone wants the NCAA to exist because no one wants to operate all the other sports.  So either they take the revenue and pay the NCAA to manage, or they keep the status quo.   But if the money is the same as the football playoff, and it is set to grow too, I cannot imagine it is safe from plundering for long

I think the NCAA will still exist just like the NAIA does. Running Track and field and rowing competitions does not need a gigantic organization another cost savings.

I’ve said it on here before but I think the mainstream team sports where you have teammates working together on a floor/field will get pulled into this new “CFP” like organization: men’s football, basketball, baseball, and women’s basketball, softball, volleyball, soccer.

The more individual Olympic can remain with the NCAA, these generally don’t make money and would limit teams from competing against the best. The best golfer, swimmer, or runner could go to Harvard or UCSD but it’s unlikely that their mainstream team sports would be competitive enough to truly compete for a national championship. Examples are: Tennis, Golf, S&D, T&F, cross country, wrestling, and gymnastics.

The more regional sports with less participation would also need to stay in the NCAA for the wider field. Here are some examples along with how few currently compete in a P4 conference men’s soccer (30), rowing (30), LAX (15), ice hockey (10)…

[Hurtlocker 2212]

8 minutes ago, statsman said:

Seriously, is there really PE that isn’t looking for big near-certain returns immediately, to start paying the debt on the huge initial investment? That doesn’t heavily leverage their investment with debt, but rather uses their own principal? Can you give an example?

The reason so many PE firms have reps for leveraging their initial investment while scavenging going concerns for near term gains is - it works. It makes a lot of money, at little risk. 
 
Please explain your concept in more detail, starting with where the money comes from for the investment, and where the returns come from. If the idea is that they will manage and market the athletics bettter than the ADs and conference offices, why wouldn’t the ADs and conferences just get consultants to teach them how to operate better?

Sports PE work different than Raid PE.   They're pretty prevalent in the European market.   Unlike raids they make their money more over time in either an equity stake appreciation, like buying into a team likely not a thing you can do in college, revenue sharing growth, operational improvements, media rights, and real estate development.   Its not all quick slash and burn its mostly revenue growth, margin growth and multiple expansion.   The rates they get out pace most long-term as sports investments have been wildly successful, largely rivaling AI to outpace the SP500.  

And, they can do what you suggest.   Matter a fact, Sanky said the same thing.    The question is how much.   If the top number is $100m and the SEC is at $80m, then the work to get from $80 to $100 is a hard and likely not worth the investment because most of that investment was done in the 70s, 80s and 90s.    The ACC and B12, however, are sitting at $40m because that work wasn't done.   It can be bought though.  So a PE could invest in increasing their $40 to $80-100 and taking a cut of that increase.   Why would Kansas State care if they didn't get all of $100m if someone got them $80 and took $20?   

Granted, I kept that math simple for explanation purposes only please do not get into a "that won't happen" stuff.   Hell what if the PE could only get the B12 to $80, but also dropped their expenses by half, or helped develop all the land around their sport venues to generate more game day revenues for their universities.   This is kind of untapped so there are lots of places for PE to bring in their expertise to make money in the margins.   

Personally, I think the real PE money is sitting on the outside waiting for the big win, which is the complete liquidation of conferences.   Even with all the dick stroking that is going on about media money in the Big Ten and SEC, those figures are likely undervalued by around 40% of the maximum the market will bear for one simple reason that the NFL has proven...they don't go to the market with all the inventory.    Tradition is still holding on, but the PEs already are pushing proposals with numbers that are insane, but it requires all the teams, aligned, in one media package that one entity controls, schedules, negotiates and manages, much like the NFL.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Sports investment is more long-term investment.   They're looking at 5% over 20 years instead of a huge hit quick by liquidating assets like a raiding strategy.   They do this through a variety of means including bringing in partners, which they get a cut of, to handle various marketing, or merchandise, or broadcasting.     Sports investment has been proven to be an extremely lucrative and safe bet...over time, so they all want in to the US markets.

And to your point, the conference level is likely valued higher than the school level, unless the school is a major brand, like FSU, where you may be able to open up new markets to them.    Same sort of situation is likely what would drive that investment in the B12 too, whether those markets are east coast or Mexico or even monetizing other partnerships they aren't using yet.  The nice thing about the conference level is they don't really need to get involved in the day to day at schools nor, as you point out, look at the profitability of sport.   All they need to do is bring in more revenue, that's their job, invest and grow.   Their investing tide rises all boats, including theirs, so they get their return out of the conference revenues and the schools see an increase even with the PE payout, since it is over time, like an extra cut.

I had read one estimation that with around $200m of investment the B12's broadcast revenues alone were projected to double in 2031.   So if they put in $200m, looking for a 5% return per year, that's only $10m/y and if they were the ones facilitating that doubling of the contract, which would be for about $1.3b/y, they could likely take their $200m back out of the first year and keep collecting $10m a year for the duration as a rounding error the conference would never even notice long term.

Long story short, the PEs that invest in sport are far different than the PEs that raid, they know what they're doing and they come with a lot more resources than just money.    However, with each aspect they help, they also shave some money off for themselves so its a win/win for both.   Unless you want to detether.

5% seems crazy low for a PE investment.

['stache 21815]

I don't understand this stuff at all, but I saw a discussion on another page that the PE payout would come for the Big XII in 2031 when there is a new contract that pays more. First, the contract will be more because sports media contracts have been exploding for 20+ years now (and live sports one of the only areas left where advertisers are guaranteed a large captive tv audience). Second, and more inline with an "investment" view, the upfront PE money would be expected to improve the product and interest for the Big XII caliber teams through better stadiums, better gameday activities, better coaches, and additional coaches and staff to navigate the portal and NIL, etc. That made a little bit of sense to me from a very basic perspective.

[TKthunder2 4991]

31 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't understand this stuff at all, but I saw a discussion on another page that the PE payout would come for the Big XII in 2031 when there is a new contract that pays more. First, the contract will be more because sports media contracts have been exploding for 20+ years now (and live sports one of the only areas left where advertisers are guaranteed a large captive tv audience). Second, and more inline with an "investment" view, the upfront PE money would be expected to improve the product and interest for the Big XII caliber teams through better stadiums, better gameday activities, better coaches, and additional coaches and staff to navigate the portal and NIL, etc. That made a little bit of sense to me from a very basic perspective.

The booming TV deals have slowed, see the PAC12. They will still go up but it won’t be a boom.

The hope is that PE can recoup its cost in the next deal on the increase, meaning take my $100million now and we’ll start paying ourselves back on the increase so you won’t feel the pinch.

I think you’re a bit off on what PE will do for the Big 12. NIL, coaches, and stadiums? Maybe in some aspects but they will mainly stick to their bread and butter, branding/marketing deals, putting your logo on cheap from China then charging out the ass for it, real estate deals like turning turning stadium parking lots into garages to fit more parking and opening up a high rise hotel/bar on top that will print money during football season…that kind of thing. They may have a hand in some other the others but their impact in those areas will be minimal.

[BurntOrange&White 39932]

Sell your soul to PE at your own peril poor broke ass conference 

['stache 21815]

6 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The booming TV deals have slowed, see the PAC12. They will still go up but it won’t be a boom.

The hope is that PE can recoup its cost in the next deal on the increase, meaning take my $100million now and we’ll start paying ourselves back on the increase so you won’t feel the pinch.

I think you’re a bit off on what PE will do for the Big 12. NIL, coaches, and stadiums? Maybe in some aspects but they will mainly stick to their bread and butter, branding/marketing deals, putting your logo on cheap from China then charging out the ass for it, real estate deals like turning turning stadium parking lots into garages to fit more parking and opening up a high rise hotel/bar on top that will print money during football season…that kind of thing. They may have a hand in some other the others but their impact in those areas will be minimal.

The PAC 12 died because nobody gives a shit about football outside of USC, Oregon, and sometimes Washington. Utah has a strong following, but nobody on the coast gives a shit except for the aforementioned fanbases and only when they play each other. For all their crying, Utah should be happy that they'll be playing programs every week that care and who might tune into their games otherwise because of standings, interest, etc. You're probably right where the money would go. It still sounds shady as fuck either way, I really hope nobody goes that direction. But I can guarantee that if Big XII does it, so will SEC, it's all $$$$$$ anymore. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

5% seems crazy low for a PE investment.

yeah, true, just sort of napkining the conversation.   I just went and looked it up 10.48% is the going average of sports investment, which is why its booming.

[TKthunder2 4991]

31 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The PAC 12 died because nobody gives a shit about football outside of USC, Oregon, and sometimes Washington. Utah has a strong following, but nobody on the coast gives a shit except for the aforementioned fanbases and only when they play each other. For all their crying, Utah should be happy that they'll be playing programs every week that care and who might tune into their games otherwise because of standings, interest, etc. You're probably right where the money would go. It still sounds shady as fuck either way, I really hope nobody goes that direction. But I can guarantee that if Big XII does it, so will SEC, it's all $$$$$$ anymore. 

The PAC12’s TV numbers weren’t horrible, just not great. I give BY credit for jumping the line and understanding that the appetite/money for more just wasn’t there. I also think expanding to 16 was wise because with a quantity of 8 games a week you’ll likely find at least one worthwhile marquee level which the networks will like that could get casual fans to watch especially if the SEC/B1G games are lackluster.

I think some universities could use some PE money and investment. I would shy away from any deal in perpetuity and make their equity stake non transferable. You have to get a PE firm into a deal where there are realistic scenarios where they can lose money and not put yourself on the hook. There are plenty of schools that would love to build things to drive revenue but don’t have the funds and this could be a good thing, but I don’t see how getting them involved in a specific athletic program would bring value. The land, fans, logo, and facilities are all owned the by school. Only the coach, players and media deals are program specific.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

On 8/27/2024 at 3:59 AM, PittsburghTiger said:

I don’t understand why UCONN keeps flirting with big-time football.  They are in a perfect basketball situation with the Big East.  

UConn will not be a basketball power much longer if they cannot fund NIL.

['stache 21815]

For all the chirping by Utah's internet fans about how they should be in the Big 10, I was surprised at how cheap their stadium looked on TV last night when I tuned in for a few minutes. If they truly believe they are in the class of the Big 10 powers, they might want to sink some money into this thing.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3284]

The PAC12/2 shade on the B1G members for their games not getting carried by Comcast is rather hilarious on all sides 

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

This isn't surprising at all.   The Pac12Net couldn't get carriage, why would a different logo just get carriage?   When they added Rutgers they put Ohio State and Michigan in market on BTN, Ohio State/Oregon is likely FOX, why would Comcast ante up for Idaho?

[closetohumping 17442]

8 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

UConn will not be a basketball power much longer if they cannot fund NIL.

I’d think they made some promises to get Hurley to stay

[Jabberwocky 1666]

8 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I’d think they made some promises to get Hurley to stay

The UConn athletic department had something like a 35 MM dollar deficit last year, and the university had to fulfill this shortfall. UConn basketball will be affected in time.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

For all the chirping by Utah's internet fans about how they should be in the Big 10, I was surprised at how cheap their stadium looked on TV last night when I tuned in for a few minutes. If they truly believe they are in the class of the Big 10 powers, they might want to sink some money into this thing.

To be fair 2/3rds of the Big 10 plays in similar stadiums.

Once you get past the blue bloods, that conference is no different than the Big 12.  Most of those schools are just beneficiaries of Ohio State and Michigan’s altruistic benevolence.

[closetohumping 17442]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To be fair 2/3rds of the Big 10 plays in similar stadiums.

Once you get past the blue bloods, that conference is no different than the Big 12.  Most of those schools are just beneficiaries of Ohio State and Michigan’s altruistic benevolence.

Congrats on the win over Stanford.  #power3

[closetohumping 17442]

4 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

The UConn athletic department had something like a 35 MM dollar deficit last year, and the university had to fulfill this shortfall. UConn basketball will be affected in time.

I get it but NIL is for the players not the school.  It will be affected but something had to push Hurley away from the laker job 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

21 hours ago, 'stache said:

For all the chirping by Utah's internet fans about how they should be in the Big 10, I was surprised at how cheap their stadium looked on TV last night when I tuned in for a few minutes. If they truly believe they are in the class of the Big 10 powers, they might want to sink some money into this thing.

In their defense, there’s some space between the walls and the sidelines. 

Plus (not that Indiana, well, a power):

Edited August 31 by Doc Daneeka

[statsman 5470]

14 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To be fair 2/3rds of the Big 10 plays in similar stadiums.

Once you get past the blue bloods, that conference is no different than the Big 12.  Most of those schools are just beneficiaries of Ohio State and Michigan’s altruistic benevolence.

There is a lot of bs in this post. 
 
Who are the blue bloods? Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, USC, for sure. That’s over 20% of the conference.  
 
The middle class is Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan State. Any one of these would be the tent pole program in the B12. They have bigger stadiums, and a lot more alums and fans tuning into games. There are very good reasons the B1G makes twice the TV revenue as the B12. 
 
The B1G lower class looks like B12 teams, except for Rutgers, which looks like a Sunbelt program. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

12 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I get it but NIL is for the players not the school.  It will be affected but something had to push Hurley away from the laker 

UConn just does not have an endless or robust NIL collective that will be necessary to keep it going.

Then you have to consider the situation UConn faces once the House lawsuit gets negotiated. At that point revenue sharing will be even more important and UConn will be even less comeptitive with most Big 12, ACC, BigTen, or SEC schools for players and staff.

[TKthunder2 4991]

PAC2 and MWC did not reach a deal for 2025. Still time but looking like OrSU/WSU are going to have to fill a full 12 games as independents in less than a year. Oregon State will need 5 games and Washington St will need 6 but nothing they currently have is scheduled for October or November. Looks like ND and UConn could use one more game so that could help but not sure how they’ll make this happen.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41100415/sources-pac-12-mountain-west-football-reach-deal-25

[thunderlounge 7832]

[LTbear 4169]

Surely OSU and WSU will just join the MWC at some point. They're fantastic fits for that league. Unless they try to do the thing where all the MWC joins them under the PAC name, but it's still the same thing. 

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

On 8/31/2024 at 12:36 AM, closetohumping said:

I get it but NIL is for the players not the school.  It will be affected but something had to push Hurley away from the laker job 

[TKthunder2 4991]

2 hours ago, LTbear said:

Surely OSU and WSU will just join the MWC at some point. They're fantastic fits for that league. Unless they try to do the thing where all the MWC joins them under the PAC name, but it's still the same thing. 

Agree. They should but they are arrogant and the MW conference wants them to come in on equal footing. They just got past Boise State’s special TV deal they don’t want to add 2 more programs that think they are above reproach. I get them not joining until 2026 and waiting to see if anymore realignment/playoff changes shake out but thinking you’ll cherry pick over half of the MWC is just lunacy.

['stache 21815]

I thought it was because the Pac still had contracts through next season that they possibly had some rights to compensation from which is why they aren't disbanding the conference just yet? I think they'll ultimately join MWC. I don't think they should try to keep the PAC name or transfer it to MWC, the PAC at this point is known less for 100 years of history but for incompetent and arrogant leadership that caused it to implode. Not to mention that with only two original brands, the PAC name has no real meaning anymore. The MWC is known as being one of the best G5 conferences and has been for a long time. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

35 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I thought it was because the Pac still had contracts through next season that they possibly had some rights to compensation from which is why they aren't disbanding the conference just yet? I think they'll ultimately join MWC. I don't think they should try to keep the PAC name or transfer it to MWC, the PAC at this point is known less for 100 years of history but for incompetent and arrogant leadership that caused it to implode. Not to mention that with only two original brands, the PAC name has no real meaning anymore. The MWC is known as being one of the best G5 conferences and has been for a long time. 

They have the playoff payout and some bowl/sponsorship agreements plus they have some conference assets still to be liquidated…but joining the MWC is not what they want.

They want to take the best of the MWC (Boise, Fresno, SDSU, etc) and AAC (Tulane, Memphis, UTSA) and make a new PAC that is better than both.

They will only join the MWC once they have exhausted all of their other options.

[thunderlounge 7832]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

They will only join the MWC once they have exhausted all of their other options.

So next week?

[TKthunder2 4991]

3 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

So next week?

I assume the MWC is playing hard ball here to get them to join. Adding two formerly P5 level schools in new states is appealing, but the reality here is if they don’t then and those two school peel off a best of the rest conference, that would be a direct threat to the majority of the MWC.

At first, with the shock of the PAC12 dying, the MWC offering the PAC2 a scheduling agreement was an olive branch to hopefully get them to join. But as a year has gone by and they don’t appear to be interested in joining as full members, the MWC has no need or desire to continue to help them.

[TKthunder2 4991]

Wazzu write up on the PAC2/MWC situation…or lack there of, complete with Big12/ACC wishcasting.

https://www.cougcenter.com/2024/9/2/24234631/pac-12-acc-big-12-mwc-wsu-cougars-osu-beavers

 

and another one from Nevada on the situation 

https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporters/whats-next-for-mountain-west-after-football-scheduling-alliance-with-pac-2-not-extended

Edited September 4 by TKthunder2

[bullet 1597]

On 8/31/2024 at 11:49 AM, statsman said:

There is a lot of bs in this post. 
 
Who are the blue bloods? Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, USC, for sure. That’s over 20% of the conference.  
 
The middle class is Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan State. Any one of these would be the tent pole program in the B12. They have bigger stadiums, and a lot more alums and fans tuning into games. There are very good reasons the B1G makes twice the TV revenue as the B12. 
 
The B1G lower class looks like B12 teams, except for Rutgers, which looks like a Sunbelt program. 

Illinois???   And while they have bigger fan bases, KSU, Okie St., TCU, Baylor and Colorado have had seasons better than Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan St. can claim in the last 50 years.  Oregon, Washington and Nebraska, are of course, different stories.  The Big 10 lower class looks like Kansas in football.  Its just that the Big 12 has nothing to match the top 7 or 8.

[bullet 1597]

Today it was announced the UConn to Big 12 discussions were "paused."

 

So its dead until the House fallout gets understood and/or FSU/Clemson get their situation settled.

[statsman 5470]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

Illinois???   And while they have bigger fan bases, KSU, Okie St., TCU, Baylor and Colorado have had seasons better than Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan St. can claim in the last 50 years.  Oregon, Washington and Nebraska, are of course, different stories.  The Big 10 lower class looks like Kansas in football.  Its just that the Big 12 has nothing to match the top 7 or 8.

Stassen.com can run win % for all teams over any period of time. For the last 50 years, it’s:

26. Wisconsin 

27. Iowa

30. Okie State

38. Mich State

58. TCU

59. KSU

68. Baylor

I think you have recency bias and B12 myopia. Those B1G programs have had great years, big bowl games and high final rankings. There are reasons their fanbases are larger. 

[statsman 5470]

Previously, I called out Oregon as a cotton candy program- a lot of fluff and sugar, but little substance. Check out their week 1 ratings:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
 
Idaho at Oregon on BTN: the number three team in the nation drew 425K. Sure, it’s just the BTN, but…FAU at MSU almost doubled the ratings, Friday on the BTN. And Idaho St at Oregon St attracted more eyes on the CW!

I get it. The number of Oregon fans only matters to the extent that Phil Knight is still one of them…

[Hiphopopotamos 20873]