Realignment talk not going away

[markstanco 12577]

I dont follow this thread, but how long are current contracts in place until something like this could happen?

[utee94 15832]

9 minutes ago, markstanco said:

I dont follow this thread, but how long are current contracts in place until something like this could happen?

Tuesday of 2023

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

10 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Stay the course I say.

I don't like the Big 12 much, but I can't see a better alternative-- the Pac-X is a dumpster fire and I am not sure they even care, as long as they can say they win national championships in water polo. None of the ACC chatter ever made a lick of sense to me. The Big 10 is too big to append Texas and OU to it. The SEC is too gleefully WE'S-FOOTBALL-FACTORIES!!!! to fit our academic mission. 

Fuck 'em all, stay in the Big 12. I guess. 

[angelos's frog 83]

Here's my pipe dream of a conference.  This conference could potentially match the Big 10 and SEC in TV revenue and would be good enough to lure both Nebraska and Mizzou back.

Southwest Division

Texas

OU

Tech

TCU

OSU

KU

Nebraska

Mizzou

Pacific Division

USC

UCLA

Cal

Stanford

CU

Washington

Oregon

ASU

 

10 conference games (7 in division and 3 out incl. a permanent CU/Neb rivalry game).  5 conference home games would be great for season ticket holders.

CCG

All revenue shared equally except for schools get a bigger % of their own bowl revenue and basketball tourney credits which would sweeten the pot for the schools that are actually having success and bringing more attention to the conference.

Edited June 3, 2019 by angelos's frog

[Dolemite 143]

Texas and or OU to SEC. 'Nuff said.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

On 6/3/2019 at 10:21 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

I don't like the Big 12 much, but I can't see a better alternative-- the Pac-X is a dumpster fire and I am not sure they even care, as long as they can say they win national championships in water polo. None of the ACC chatter ever made a lick of sense to me. The Big 10 is too big to append Texas and OU to it. The SEC is too gleefully WE'S-FOOTBALL-FACTORIES!!!! to fit our academic mission. 

Fuck 'em all, stay in the Big 12. I guess. 

This.  PAC sucks these days, and merging with them means playing their shitty teams as often as their decent teams (actually there are a lot more shitty PAC teams than decent).

If we want any kind of "prestige" games against any PAC teams, there is nothing stopping us from regularly scheduling Oregon and Stanford OOC (assuming they would be game to make it a regular occurrence).  I would love to start the season off with a win or two against those teams before we get into conference play.

Merging with the PAC, B10, or SEC doesn't help us with the playoffs - the B12 has gotten more teams into the playoffs than the PAC in the past 5 years, and the other two conferences would arguably make it harder for us to get in.

[rickyspub 801]

I wonder what will happen when the playoffs inevitably expand and whether the timing will be early enough to affect any changes when the Pac, Big 12, and Big 10 contracts go up.

I initially thought that playoff expansion would make leaving the Big 12 a more or less moot point for Texas and OU. An expanded playoff either codifies a spot for the Big 12 champ or at least all but guarantees the Big 12 a spot, short of the conference being mediocre, headed by a weak 9- or 10-win team. If the set up guarantees a spot for each P5 champ, then it might be better to stay, as wildcard spots will be limited. However, if they keep the committee approach and pick a Top 8, what really holds us back from leaving for another conference? In that scenario several conferences are getting in at least 2 teams every year and perhaps more if the rules don't limit each conference to 2 teams. The fear of getting left out by being in a bigger conference with more top-level competition is somewhat lessened, while the dollars earned would be huge. 

[Valmy77 13243]

17 hours ago, Dolemite said:

Texas and or OU to SEC. 'Nuff said.

Nah. I am not a big fan at all of huge super conferences.

Granted if OU goes than we pretty much have to. IMO anyway. So I am counting on Oklahoma State and its vast political clout to make sure OU behaves.

[Valmy77 13243]

16 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

However, if they keep the committee approach and pick a Top 8, what really holds us back from leaving for another conference?

The fact that all the other options suck shit.

[rickyspub 801]

2 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

The fact that all the other options suck shit.

I mean it from the AD/admin POV. If there is much bigger money elsewhere, our admins will have to consider what additional millions in media money might mean to the overall university. Or if the Big 12 gets rejected financially on the next TV deal, OU is definitely gone and I am pretty certain we aren't going to stay in that version of the Big 12. I am generally inclined to stay with the Big 12, but there are scenarios where we don't control the Big 12's future.

['stache 21819]

28 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Nah. I am not a big fan at all of huge super conferences.

Granted if OU goes than we pretty much have to. IMO anyway. So I am counting on Oklahoma State and its vast political clout to make sure OU behaves.

Admins at OU and OSU play nice, but if OU really wanted to go SEC and SEC refused to add OSU, we wouldn't have any clout to stop them. I think the administration likes the Big 12 setup and doesn't seriously want SEC. David Boren always wanted Big 10 or Pac 12 for academic prestige. Neither wanted OU but they would have gone in a heartbeat and left us behind if those conferences wanted them.

[notre dame joe 188]

2 hours ago, rickyspub said:

I wonder what will happen when the playoffs inevitably expand and whether the timing will be early enough to affect any changes when the Pac, Big 12, and Big 10 contracts go up.

I initially thought that playoff expansion would make leaving the Big 12 a more or less moot point for Texas and OU. An expanded playoff either codifies a spot for the Big 12 champ or at least all but guarantees the Big 12 a spot, short of the conference being mediocre, headed by a weak 9- or 10-win team. If the set up guarantees a spot for each P5 champ, then it might be better to stay, as wildcard spots will be limited. However, if they keep the committee approach and pick a Top 8, what really holds us back from leaving for another conference? In that scenario several conferences are getting in at least 2 teams every year and perhaps more if the rules don't limit each conference to 2 teams. The fear of getting left out by being in a bigger conference with more top-level competition is somewhat lessened, while the dollars earned would be huge. 

You'd want to ditch the Big12  ccg in that scenario.  If there was only one RRS game then both UT and OU can finish in the top 8 and both  get playoff  berths.  Forget about it if you double the losses by playing twice.

[joeycovers 391]

Add 2 teams (Doesnt matter who at this point). Split in 2 divisions. 8 conf games

Schedule agreement with P12 to open the season playing each other. Thats your 9th game and everyone guaranteed at least 1 P5 team OOC

Other 3 games up to each school. 

 

[rickyspub 801]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

You'd want to ditch the Big12  ccg in that scenario.  If there was only one RRS game then both UT and OU can finish in the top 8 and both  get playoff  berths.  Forget about it if you double the losses by playing twice.

Or add 2 teams like joeycovers says and keep the CCG. The problem, as always, is money. Unless OU's new admins are OK with them likely remaining behind us and over time behind not only the Big 10 but also the SEC, then they might stay under some scenario like this, but I doubt it. Adding teams that aren't already better than average P5 teams will reduce the payout as would dropping the CCG. OU has signaled their desire to leave at almost every opportunity, so I think the Big 12 survives only if the conference gets a payday that is enough to keep OU among the top media earners. I am also not sure we stay in a Big 12 that requires us to pool our T3 rights short of the conference getting paid in the same tier as the Big 10 and SEC, which seems highly unlikely.

Edited June 4, 2019 by rickyspub

[utee94 15832]

37 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Or add 2 teams like joeycovers says and keep the CCG. The problem, as always, is money. Unless OU's new admins are OK with them likely remaining behind us and over time behind not only the Big 10 but also the SEC, then they might stay under some scenario like this, but I doubt it. Adding teams that aren't already better than average P5 teams will reduce the payout as would dropping the CCG. OU has signaled their desire to leave at almost every opportunity, so I think the Big 12 survives only if the conference gets a payday that is enough to keep OU among the top media earners. I am also not sure we stay in a Big 12 that requires us to pool our T3 rights short of the conference getting paid in the same tier as the Big 10 and SEC, which seems highly unlikely.

They certainly signaled their desire to leave at every opportunity 7 and 8 years ago.  Lately, not so much.  It could be that they're simply waiting out the current situation, it could be that they know they don't have any other real opportunities, or it could be that they've realized they're in a fairly desirable position compared to schools in the ACC and PAC.  Things could be much worse for them.

The only two places they could go that would improve their financial position would be the B1G or the SEC.  The B1G doesn't want them, at all.  The only way the B1G would take them is if Texas were coming and insisted on bringing OU along (which Texas likely would, IF our administration wanted to go to the B1G, which to date is has not).

So the only real option for them is the SEC.  OU doesn't bring any significant television markets, they only bring a nationally relevant brand, but the SEC already has plenty of those, plus the SECSECSEC halo effect which elevates even their crappy teams to national status.  The only thing that adding OU to the SEC would do, is threaten their existing marquee programs with another conference loss each season.  It's pretty much the opposite of why the SEC added A&M.  With the ags, they knew they were adding a school that brought television markets and fertile recruiting grounds, but would never be a threat to the established order of dominance in the conference.  OU brings nothing to their conference other than losses for their top programs.  The SEC would be foolish to add them, and they know it.

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by utee94

[atomheartbevo 89730]

We If they do go to 8, and the pressure is probably increasing the more certain conferences (markets) are left out in the existing 4-team situation (not just the PAC as a whole), then the P5s are best served by remaining where they are at.   Everybody gets their conference champ in, and three will get a second team in (occasionally a non-P5 will creep in, but let’s not kid ourselves).  

If you are a top-tier school football-wise, you want the easiest path to the playoffs that you can get, because it’s more money, boosts your brand, boosts your alumni engagement (read:donations), etc.

PAC?  It’s a dumpster fire.  We can schedule Oregon and Stanford OOC, and toss in Wazzou once in a a while, and we get the best of the PAC without the shitty teams.

UT and OU to the SEC?  That makes it harder for the two of them to get in the playoffs. UT and OU also like being the big dogs in the conference, and Bama would not allow that.  It’s a moot point since aggy, and probably LSU would vote against them joining.  Possibly Missouri and Arky as well, since that group of four stands to take a slight hit in recruiting.  Bama is tough to call - it’s rare that both UT and OU have a truly down year, so Bama picks up at least one more potential hurdle to winning the conference and getting in the playoffs. SEC got exactly what they wanted with aggy - an easy win, and an in on recruiting Texas.  UT and OU don’t add to that   

ACC?  Take Clemson out of the equation and they are shit.  We can schedule Clemson, boost our SOS, and not be saddled with their sisters of the poor.  

B1G? I don’t want to be in a conference with Ped State - Baylor is bad enough.  It’s a moot point - we’ve not shown real interest, and it’s a similar SEC situation - we’d make it harder on ourselves to get in the playoffs.  

If we want to boost our profile, make our package more expensive to the networks, make it harder to run the table, and Improve our SOS, then start scheduling two of these OOC every year: Ohio State, Stanford, Oregon, Bama, and Clemson.  

Edited June 5, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[kopp0e 1135]

16 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

This.  PAC sucks these days, and merging with them means playing their shitty teams as often as their decent teams (actually there are a lot more shitty PAC teams than decent).

If we want any kind of "prestige" games against any PAC teams, there is nothing stopping us from regularly scheduling Oregon and Stanford OOC (assuming they would be game to make it a regular occurrence).  I would love to start the season off with a win or two against those teams before we get into conference play.

Merging with the PAC, B10, or SEC doesn't help us with the playoffs - the B12 has gotten more teams into the playoffs than the PAC in the past 5 years, and the other two conferences would arguably make it harder for us to get in.

As kings & power brokers of XII neither school has much reason to become newbies of another conference, when the chance to add schools exist for XII...

*(press the word "play", after clicking on this link, for the intro to PX6)... 

A potential exists where XII raids PAC, (sans PACN equity sale) and UT & OU gain "king" USC along with western flagships under PX6 banner/ ESPN holds 3rd tier rights... 

3rd tier networks often offer content that is much more than 1 home football game per team & handful of basketball games per year, including conference tournaments & extra features...

As a matter of fact, for all the talk of why ESPN wouldn't have an interest in a PX6, in a 16 configuration for PX6 & SEC/ 15 members for ACC (~ND partial), sits well vs a 14 member B1G:

SEC: [SECN/ ESPN]
Alabama/* 101,722
Arkansas/* 63,224
Auburn/* 86,446
Florida/^ 86,715
Georgia/^ 92,746
Kansas State/* 51,301
Kentucky/* 56,468
LSU/^ 98,506
Mississippi State/* 58,100
Missouri/* 51,490
Oklahoma State/^ 56,790
Ole Miss/* 58,631
South Carolina/* 78,586
Tennessee/* 95,779
Texas A&M/* 98,802
Vanderbilt/* 31,341 -#1

Combined average attendance figures: 1,166,610

*(7 home games)
^(6 home games)
#(school in stadium attendance that falls within or below bottom half of [50% of teams in B1G] on game day)...

B1G: [BTN/ FOX]
Illinois/* 39,429 -#1
Indiana/^ 43,953 -#2
Iowa/* 66,337
Maryland/^ 39,643 -#3
Michigan/^ 111,589
Michigan State/* 72,485
Minnesota/* 44,358 -#4
Nebraska/* 89,798
Northwestern/* 35,853 -#5
Ohio State/* 107,495
Penn State/* 106,707
Purdue/^ 47,884 -#6
Rutgers/* 39,749 -#7
Wisconsin/* 78,824

Combined average attendance figures: 924,101

*(7 home games)
^(6 home games)
#(school in stadium attendance that falls within or below bottom half of [50% of teams in B1G] on game day)...

PX6: [PX6N/ ESPN]
Arizona/^ 42,632 -#1
Arizona State/* 51,380
California/^ 36,548 -#2
Colorado/^ 47,056 -#3
Iowa State/^ 57,931
Kansas/* 26,641 -#4
Oklahoma/^ 86,520
Oregon/* 55,483
Stanford/^ 47,398 -#5
TCU/^ 44,080 -#6
Texas/^ 92,778
Texas Tech/^ 55,065
UCLA/^ 56,044
USC/* 72,683
Utah/* 45,913 -#7
Washington/* 68,822

Combined average attendance figures: 886,974

*(7 home games)
^(6 home games)
#(school in stadium attendance that falls within or below bottom half of [50% of teams in B1G] on game day)...

ACC: [ACCN/ ESPN]
Boston College/^ 35,924 -#1
Clemson/* 80,773
Duke/^ 26,797 -#2
Florida State/^ 70,943
Georgia Tech/^ 46,885 -#3
Louisville/* 46,160 -#4
Miami/! 58,682
North Carolina/* 50,071
North Carolina State/^ 56,850
~Notre Dame/* 77,622
Pittsburgh/* 36,295 -#5
Syracuse/* 33,929 -#6
Virginia/* 39,398 -#7
Virginia Tech/^ 63,214
Wake Forest/^ 28,436 -#8
West Virginia/^ 55,946

Combined average attendance figures: 761,765

!(8 home games)
*(7 home games)
^(6 home games)
#(school in stadium attendance that falls within or below bottom half of [50% of teams in B1G] on game day)...

~(5/8ths partial member for football)

In this situation/ ESPN would have it's hand in 3 of the 4 power conferences (FOX/ B1G may wait to 2036 to attempt to add "indy" Notre Dame & 1 ACC brand), ESPN holds 48 3rd tier rights... A question seems to already be answered is: does Kansas hold enough sway to join B1G at #15 on it's own..? if not, then why constantly talk of adding KU with OU to B1G (until "flip" for UT)... And WVU can go ACC w/o ND, a 15 member ACC plays all schools vs Irish 1x every 3 seasons, better rotations/ ND "vowed" not to return to Norman in 1960's, yet still returned, 'Neers to ACC could happen... Meanwhile, both Kansas State & Oklahoma State would gain the "A&M effect" in being placed under the SEC banner, those brands aren't much different than Missouri in athletic championships/ not much different than adds in Arkansas & South Carolina in terms of adding new footprint (that would add about 7 million new viewers for SECN cable/ satellite subscriptions)..

Edited June 5, 2019 by kopp0e

[kopp0e 1135]

 

[rickyspub 801]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We If they do go to 8, and the pressure is probably increasing the more certain conferences (markets) are left out in the existing 4-team situation (not just the PAC as a whole), then the P5s are best served by remaining where they are at.   Everybody gets their conference champ in, and three will get a second team in (occasionally a non-P5 will creep in, but let’s not kid ourselves).  

If you are a top-tier school football-wise, you want the easiest path to the playoffs that you can get, because it’s more money, boosts your brand, boosts your alumni engagement (read:donations), etc.

PAC?  It’s a dumpster fire.  We can schedule Oregon and Stanford OOC, and toss in Wazzou once in a a while, and we get the best of the PAC without the shitty teams.

UT and OU to the SEC?  That makes it harder for the two of them to get in the playoffs. UT and OU also like being the big dogs in the conference, and Bama would not allow that.  It’s a moot point since aggy, and probably LSU would vote against them joining.  Possibly Missouri and Arky as well, since that group of four stands to take a slight hit in recruiting.  Bama is tough to call - it’s rare that both UT and OU have a truly down year, so Bama picks up at least one more potential hurdle to winning the conference and getting in the playoffs. SEC got exactly what they wanted with aggy - an easy win, and an in on recruiting Texas.  UT and OU don’t add to that   

ACC?  Take Clemson out of the equation and they are shit.  We can schedule Clemson, boost our SOS, and not be saddled with their sisters of the poor.  

B1G? I don’t want to be in a conference with Ped State - Baylor is bad enough.  It’s a moot point - we’ve not shown real interest, and it’s a similar SEC situation - we’d make it harder on ourselves to get in the playoffs.  

If we want to boost our profile, make our package more expensive to the networks, make it harder to run the table, and Improve our SOS, then start scheduling two of these OOC every year: Ohio State, Stanford, Oregon, Bama, and Clemson.  

But it isn't just about making the playoffs. The Pac and ACC could soon be making less than half of what the Big 10 and SEC bring in. What happens if the Big 12 slides down into that range? The current playoff contract pays out the bulk of the money to each P5 conference regardless of their participation, so making the playoffs isn't even necessary to get most of the payout. The teams that actually make the playoffs don't get that much individually. I doubt the intangible returns (branding, alumni engagement, etc.) for just making the playoffs are all that great. You actually have to win the title to reap real benefits. 

In an expanded playoff the need to run the table to have a chance at the playoffs is practically eliminated, so adding some good teams isn't necessarily going to make getting into the expanded playoffs any more difficult than it is to get into the 4 team version. While a conference that can boast having OU and Texas along with other reliable national powers, is going to have a huge SOS advantage and can count on a reliable media presence to make the case that the conference deserves more playoff slots than any other conference. Getting rid of the Big 12 as a power conference also makes it easier to just leave the current model in place for the expanded playoffs. The 4 remaining power conferences can assume at least one member will be in the Top 8 and they can avoid potential lawsuits from the G5 by only giving P5 champs autobids. Committee selection leaves out the G5 in most years maximizing not only the ability to keep the title among the power teams but increasing the value of the media deal by avoiding participation by less valuable media properties.

Lastly, Texas adding a second high profile OOC game isn't going to move the financial needle enough to support 9 needy conference mates. If the Big 12 gets a big deal again, it will be because of the value of the interconference games. It is also likely going to be impossible to regularly schedule 2 high-quality OOC opponents unless those schools are also forced into increasing their SOS. Those teams want to maximize home games by having patsies for the majority of their OOC schedules. The TV contract is going to be largely based on games that are already scheduled and Texas probably isn't going to have much time or room to work in a bunch of high profile deals to fill out such a robust schedule during the time we are negotiating the conference media contract.

[camel at sea 589]

22 hours ago, rickyspub said:

Or add 2 teams like joeycovers says and keep the CCG. The problem, as always, is money. Unless OU's new admins are OK with them likely remaining behind us and over time behind not only the Big 10 but also the SEC, then they might stay under some scenario like this, but I doubt it. Adding teams that aren't already better than average P5 teams will reduce the payout as would dropping the CCG. OU has signaled their desire to leave at almost every opportunity, so I think the Big 12 survives only if the conference gets a payday that is enough to keep OU among the top media earners. I am also not sure we stay in a Big 12 that requires us to pool our T3 rights short of the conference getting paid in the same tier as the Big 10 and SEC, which seems highly unlikely.

The big instability trigger for the Big 12 would be OU not getting a pretty good offer for its Tier 3 content when that gets renegotiated in about a year.  We'll see.  On the flip side, if OU gets a really good offer (particularly if it's from Disney) then the Big 12 can use that offer to help sell someone like Nebraska or USC on Big 12 membership.  If the solo Tier 3 mone is good, then it's safe to move without worrying about taking a big paycut.  Getting either of those two move would also help the Tier 1/2 deal.  

To the extent that I think the Big 12 actually likes being smaller - and I think the league really does like it - they'd be pretty happy if they could add someone like Nebraska and just stop there.  If that move created a ripple effect that sent WVU to the ACC, then even better.  If 30% of your conference is blue blood, then the per-game money from your media deals will be really good.  NU also gives OU and UT a good in-conference home game.

If the Big 12 had interest from USC, then there's probably no way to add them without adding a bunch of current PAC teams, too.  But USC moving effectively signals "everyone for themselves" where the PAC 12 is concerned. 

 

[rickyspub 801]

2 hours ago, camel at sea said:

The big instability trigger for the Big 12 would be OU not getting a pretty good offer for its Tier 3 content when that gets renegotiated in about a year.  We'll see.  On the flip side, if OU gets a really good offer (particularly if it's from Disney) then the Big 12 can use that offer to help sell someone like Nebraska or USC on Big 12 membership.  If the solo Tier 3 mone is good, then it's safe to move without worrying about taking a big paycut.  Getting either of those two move would also help the Tier 1/2 deal.  

To the extent that I think the Big 12 actually likes being smaller - and I think the league really does like it - they'd be pretty happy if they could add someone like Nebraska and just stop there.  If that move created a ripple effect that sent WVU to the ACC, then even better.  If 30% of your conference is blue blood, then the per-game money from your media deals will be really good.  NU also gives OU and UT a good in-conference home game.

If the Big 12 had interest from USC, then there's probably no way to add them without adding a bunch of current PAC teams, too.  But USC moving effectively signals "everyone for themselves" where the PAC 12 is concerned. 

 

What is the latest on OU's T3 attempts? I know Boren made a big deal about the money, but he also didn't like the fact that OU didn't have a national audience. (Basically, he was pointing out the differences between Texas's and OU's T3 deals.) Under Boren it was a Big 12 network or bust as far as OU was concerned. Is OU going to be content with continuing the financial separation, especially if UT is able to renew the LHN for some decent sum?

Has OU's position changed with regards to the 9-game conference schedule? You had said that your AD wasn't pleased with the 9-game schedule because OU wanted two OOC P5 home-and-homes while still having 2 patsies to fill out the home schedule. It seems more likely that getting a P5 to move to the Big 12 would mean the need for 2 to go back to the old two 6-team division model and an 8-game conf. schedule. (Though I suppose you could have one 5-team division...) I am not sure where Texas stands on this, but it seems like we were in the group content at 10, while OU seemed to be in the expansion group.

[notre dame joe 188]

9 hours ago, rickyspub said:

n an expanded playoff the need to run the table to have a chance at the playoffs is practically eliminated, so adding some good teams isn't necessarily going to make getting into the expanded playoffs any more difficult than it is to get into the 4 team version.

There is no math where leaving a 10 team conference makes playoff access easier.  (unless maybe the playoff returned to the BCS 2 which is never going to occur).  

[rickyspub 801]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

There is no math where leaving a 10 team conference makes playoff access easier.  (unless maybe the playoff returned to the BCS 2 which is never going to occur).  

Really? In an expanded playoff the SEC basically becomes 2 7-team conferences, whose winners almost always get invites. The Big 10 has slightly worse odds with their 9-game conference slate, but they too will likely have 2 teams in the top 8 mostly by dint of not playing a difficult schedule when you miss the best teams in the other division. A 10-team, 9-conference-game Big 12 is going toneed 2 teams that are close to perfect to get both teams in and those 2 teams will have in all likelihood played twice (outside of the odd 2008 scenario). If they split then you have a good chance of getting both in, but if one teams wins both meetings, the second place Big 12 team could stay home in place of another SEC/Big 10 team or two, ND, or another ACC team that gets the benefit of an 8-game conference slate. The other conferences can protect their two division winners in most years without that certain rematch the Big 12 always has in the CCG. Being in a bigger conference, especially as a power team that plays fewer conference games, is an advantage in an expanded playoff.

[Soldierhorn 206]

4 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Really? In an expanded playoff the SEC basically becomes 2 7-team conferences, whose winners almost always get invites. The Big 10 has slightly worse odds with their 9-game conference slate, but they too will likely have 2 teams in the top 8 mostly by dint of not playing a difficult schedule when you miss the best teams in the other division. A 10-team, 9-conference-game Big 12 is going toneed 2 teams that are close to perfect to get both teams in and those 2 teams will have in all likelihood played twice (outside of the odd 2008 scenario). If they split then you have a good chance of getting both in, but if one teams wins both meetings, the second place Big 12 team could stay home in place of another SEC/Big 10 team or two, ND, or another ACC team that gets the benefit of an 8-game conference slate. The other conferences can protect their two division winners in most years without that certain rematch the Big 12 always has in the CCG. Being in a bigger conference, especially as a power team that plays fewer conference games, is an advantage in an expanded playoff.

I think lowering the odds to get two B12 teams in a playoff format has more to do with a 10 team conference choosing to play a CCG do-over.  As we have seen, other teams have gotten in the playoff without the "13th data point" nonsense that now seems to only apply to the B12. 

[HornsOverIthaca 2334]

Fuck baylor.

That should be on every page.

[camel at sea 589]

3 hours ago, rickyspub said:

What is the latest on OU's T3 attempts? I know Boren made a big deal about the money, but he also didn't like the fact that OU didn't have a national audience. (Basically, he was pointing out the differences between Texas's and OU's T3 deals.) Under Boren it was a Big 12 network or bust as far as OU was concerned. Is OU going to be content with continuing the financial separation, especially if UT is able to renew the LHN for some decent sum?

Has OU's position changed with regards to the 9-game conference schedule? You had said that your AD wasn't pleased with the 9-game schedule because OU wanted two OOC P5 home-and-homes while still having 2 patsies to fill out the home schedule. It seems more likely that getting a P5 to move to the Big 12 would mean the need for 2 to go back to the old two 6-team division model and an 8-game conf. schedule. (Though I suppose you could have one 5-team division...) I am not sure where Texas stands on this, but it seems like we were in the group content at 10, while OU seemed to be in the expansion group.

There is no news on OU's T3 at the moment.  Currently Sooner Sports TV uses "powered by FOX" as part of its branding.  But the FOX Sports RSNs will soon be owned by Sinclair.  I'm pretty curious as to how that will play out.  That change-over will happen very shortly before renegotiation begins.  OU was the last Big 12 school to have a relationship with FOX for Tier 3.   Everyone else is now partnered with Disney.

OU would get the majority of what Boren asked for if ESPN+ offered a competitive sum to park Tier 3 content on the Big 12's ESPN+ platform.  You'd have at that point a CCG, a nationally branded digital conference platform, and OU would still be competitively paid with everyone else in the country.  With the entire Big 12 under the same Tier 3 partner (Disney), it would also make planning beyond 2031 an easier thing to do.  Texas wouldn't be giving up the LHN but in this scenario that doesn't really matter.  

Currently OU makes about $4.2M per (escalating up to $4.5M by 2022) from Fox for its rights, plus another $1.8M per for production reimbursement, and it gets paid a couple million at least from Learfield to sell advertising.  So I don't think it would actually take a big raise to keep Sooner brass feeling pretty good about things.  Oklahoma is already even with everyone in the SEC.  Staying even with the SEC is not a bad place to be.  The B1G might be able to offer a media rights pay bump.  But I think it would need to be an enormous bump to pull up stakes.  OU's athletic department is having as good a run as it ever has (12 Olympic NCs, 4 straight Big 12 football titles, 2 Heisman winners, and a men's BB Final Four since 2013.)  Rocking the boat is going to be an increasingly more difficult sales pitch on the part of those pushing it.

 

That said, if OU doesn't get a good T3 offer, then this entire discussion changes.  At that point, I think OU would be looking at leaving outright or facilitating some kind of B12/PAC partnership/merger.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

This realignment conversation, or trying to make it to 16 or whatever, I think is a relic of the past.  It was needed for a cable channel only, but those don't have the power they used to, scheduling is a shitshow, and nearly everything is moving towards a streaming set up (which will become increasingly more popular when 5G has 5-10 years of maturity and you can blast games to your hand held device with zero lag and a ton of individualized options, like including the ability to pick your own camera angles. )

Conferences formed to provide agreed upon rules for sports.   That's basically it.    There is no reason that couldn't devolve to it again where its a collection of schools who play by the same rules and pool media inventory to leverage higher rewards.

At that point, it doesn't matter how divisions are laid out.   The Big Ten and the Big 12 could literally join forces, merge together for business, go to market with inventory from NYC to Dallas, and yet break into two 12 school conferences for regional match ups. (WVU in the east with Maryland and PSU, and UM, Nebby, and Iowa in the west with the Big 12 schools for those of you who like maps) They could still be the Big Ten and Big 12, operating under a shared "Big" media entity.  All that matters going forward is pooling inventory at such a volume that you maximize revenue.  Everything else is really just scheduling.

It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if they did that with these contracts coming due at the same time, giving us some combination of the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac 12 creating a rights pooling agreement in a few years .. and it won't have anything to do with schools jumping conferences.

 

Also, fuck Baylor.

[notre dame joe 188]

4 hours ago, rickyspub said:

Really? In an expanded playoff the SEC basically becomes 2 7-team conferences, whose winners almost always get invites.

If TX&OU moved in it's now a 16 team conference, probably bigger if you brought UH or TT along.  So to draw the 2nd slot (let's say it's a given for the SEC) you had to finish 2nd in the division and be better than CCG loser and other division #2.  That's a lot of variables to clear vs simply winning your 10 team conference.

[Lidig8r 1873]

I think HurtLocker is on to something.

Who knows what television will be like in 10 years? Streaming and other internet based viewing options could very well make cable obsolete. The traditional over the air networks are likely to take a beating as well. With viewership and subscriptions to the ESPiNs of the world already dropping, television contracts in the future could be reduced dollar wise to reflect that reality.

The Big 12 model of 10 teams could be, in the long run, the ideal structure as revenue is split amongst fewer universities and schools are allowed to enter into individual Tier 3 contracts.

[PencilPusher 454]

7 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

This realignment conversation, or trying to make it to 16 or whatever, I think is a relic of the past.  It was needed for a cable channel only, but those don't have the power they used to, scheduling is a shitshow, and nearly everything is moving towards a streaming set up (which will become increasingly more popular when 5G has 5-10 years of maturity and you can blast games to your hand held device with zero lag and a ton of individualized options, like including the ability to pick your own camera angles. )

Conferences formed to provide agreed upon rules for sports.   That's basically it.    There is no reason that couldn't devolve to it again where its a collection of schools who play by the same rules and pool media inventory to leverage higher rewards.

At that point, it doesn't matter how divisions are laid out.   The Big Ten and the Big 12 could literally join forces, merge together for business, go to market with inventory from NYC to Dallas, and yet break into two 12 school conferences for regional match ups. (WVU in the east with Maryland and PSU, and UM, Nebby, and Iowa in the west with the Big 12 schools for those of you who like maps) They could still be the Big Ten and Big 12, operating under a shared "Big" media entity.  All that matters going forward is pooling inventory at such a volume that you maximize revenue.  Everything else is really just scheduling.

It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if they did that with these contracts coming due at the same time, giving us some combination of the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac 12 creating a rights pooling agreement in a few years .. and it won't have anything to do with schools jumping conferences.

 

Also, fuck Baylor.

I agree that this is the more likely direction. Pooling of content, which we are already seeing to a degree with what Disney is doing (Marvel, Star Wars, etc.), is the model for the 2020's. I still think that the P5 conferences plus a few extras is likely to create a new football "league" separate and apart from the NCAA whereby they pool all the content together (NFL style) and create new regional divisions whereby the division champions go to the playoffs and there are bowl games for the other teams. That won't necessarily work for the other sports, but I can see certain conferences pooling rights together for basketball and maybe baseball. The current conferences as we know them (with maybe some realignment) would still be the league for all of the other sports and potentially house all of the Tier 3 content.

[Extra Anejo 99]

I don't guess I really care how any future realignment shakes out as long as college football survives. I don't want to see an NFL-Light creation of a bunch of blue bloods. I like seeing a really good G5 team that can punch above it's weight class. I like going to regional rivalry games and I like playing schools where students can do road trips by auto. I don't enjoy going to NFL games and I'm afraid some of these super conference ideas would become similar.

[rickyspub 801]

I think the conferences (especially the SEC and Big 10) are too resilient to let the changing TV landscape be a major disruptor in the near term. Maybe the Big 12 and Pac team up, but then the Big 12 goes from sharing a pot 10 ways to sharing it 22 ways. It could make sharing a pie 16 ways seems better by comparison for teams like Texas and OU. There is also the fact that none of these TV contracts coincide to set up a single 'major college' football media package, or at least without some major disruption. If there is going to be a break, it probably happens if and when players get the right to a more open market on what schools can pay them for their participation. 

 

[kopp0e 1135]

There could be a bit of rumbling out west that USC may be unhappy with current setup/ look to place Trojans & Bruins (thus, more PAC teams may llok at joining XII) Baylor is dropped/ WVU joins ACC:

John McKay's 'USC should quit Pac-8' words make sense today

247Sports-Jun 4, 2019
And while the problems might not be exclusively with the Northwest ... Sharing equally with Oregon State the little money the Pac-12 offers ...

Then you make it clear what the Pac-12 has to do to keep you. Or you cut a deal with the Big 12. Think the Big 12 wouldn't be interested in adding USC and UCLA to actually get to a 12-team league?

Or does USC try for the same deal with the Pac-12 that Notre Dame has with the Atlantic Coast Conference -- full membership in all other sports with a half-schedule and half-share of conference revenues in football while keeping an independent deal with NBC?

Think the Pac-12 might be willing to change the way it does business if LA were about to be no more a part of the conference's footprint?

 

Quote

PAC-12 Reportedly Facing Serious Financial Trouble | The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/27/p...ance-problems/
Apr 27, 2019 - The PAC-12 conference apparently might be on the verge of some serious financial trouble. Expenses are outpacing revenue.

How is this even possible? The conference is home to USC and UCLA. Those two programs alone should be able to draw and generate enough attention to stop any potential problems.

Add in Oregon, Standard, Cal, Arizona and Arizona State, and you’ve got a solid group of programs. Yet, they apparently haven’t done enough at all to stop the program.

We’re talking about USC! They’re one of the most premier programs in all of college football. Any conference tied to them shouldn’t be struggling at all.

Well, for the B1G posters who always like to quote Flug, he & Dude have a bit of info (allegedly) on both current situations of PAC & XII: *(take it as you will)...

[SPOILERS]

Christopher Lambert

@theDudeofWV

“Our league is about as cohesive as I’ve seen it in my 14 years at Iowa State, and a lot of that credit goes to the commissioner’s leadership, but we also have good people at Oklahoma and Texas that are just thinking about the best long-term interest of the Big 12.”

6:52 AM - 5 Jun 2019

-*-*-*-

Greg Flugaur
@flugempire

BTM

“Dam ugly is the phrased used in describing to me the offers PAC received from the Rain Group who search for investment offers. I presumed the “ugly” adjective has to do with high equity margin, percentage needed for PAC to secure any of the deals, but I’m not sure.”

You could be talking about a situation in 2024/ 2025, when PAC & XII GoR's end where its "all brands for themselves" giving XII a chance to add PAC brands as GoR's wouldn't be an issue...

Edited June 6, 2019 by kopp0e

[notre dame joe 188]

3 hours ago, rickyspub said:

I think the conferences (especially the SEC and Big 10) are too resilient to let the changing TV landscape be a major disruptor in the near term. Maybe the Big 12 and Pac team up, but then the Big 12 goes from sharing a pot 10 ways to sharing it 22 ways. It could make sharing a pie 16 ways seems better by comparison for teams like Texas and OU. There is also the fact that none of these TV contracts coincide to set up a single 'major college' football media package, or at least without some major disruption. If there is going to be a break, it probably happens if and when players get the right to a more open market on what schools can pay them for their participation. 

 

The Networks, are too savvy to let NCAAF turn into an NFL.  Well, actually just Disney but they're most of the duopoly.  

[atomheartbevo 89730]

On 6/5/2019 at 6:21 PM, rickyspub said:

What is the latest on OU's T3 attempts? I know Boren made a big deal about the money, but he also didn't like the fact that OU didn't have a national audience. (Basically, he was pointing out the differences between Texas's and OU's T3 deals.) Under Boren it was a Big 12 network or bust as far as OU was concerned. Is OU going to be content with continuing the financial separation, especially if UT is able to renew the LHN for some decent sum?

Disney/ESPN want to pay less, and they want to tighten up on what they are offering (see Disney+, Hulu, etc.).  No way the LHN comes back after the contract is up at the same amount.  

Pre-LHN, UT explored doing their own internet service - I don't know how serious they were, but I remember some of the the staff talking to a company I worked at, about what would be involved.  This was before Netflix/Amazon/Roku/etc. really got people open to streaming anything and everything, so the talks went nowhere - we weren't focusing on delivering video to set-top TV services like we should have at the time.  We happened to be here in Austin, so it was easy for them to come over and check out what we were doing.

Now, it almost makes more sense for UT to do their own app for Roku/AppleTV/Amazon Fire/Google Play/etc. and charge customers directly, rather than deal with the hassle of ESPN and providers.  They would get less up front for subscription fees (vs their payout from ESPN), but they would make it up in having full control of all advertising.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

11 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

Who knows what television will be like in 10 years? Streaming and other internet based viewing options could very well make cable obsolete. The traditional over the air networks are likely to take a beating as well. With viewership and subscriptions to the ESPiNs of the world already dropping, television contracts in the future could be reduced dollar wise to reflect that reality.

In the mid-2020s when contracts start coming up, on the one hand, ESPN is not in a position to make it rain like they used to, unless they magically reverse the declining subscriptions.

On the other hand, ESPN is going to be competing with Amazon, and at least one (or both) of AppleTV and Netflix, and those last three have the kind of deep pockets that would stabilize all of the conferences.

Edit: I forgot about Comcast/whatever.  And I forgot about Sinclair dropping $10 billion on the Fox Sports regional networks.

If anything, the P5 could see a lot more competition for their rights in the next 5-10 years.

Edited June 7, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89730]

10 hours ago, rickyspub said:

I think the conferences (especially the SEC and Big 10) are too resilient to let the changing TV landscape be a major disruptor in the near term.

Like I said above, the streaming networks will help make up the money.

The problem for college football is the head injury debate, and how there could be a decline in kids playing football at the younger levels, which could screw up the Jr. High/HS pipelines.  I cannot picture what things look like 10 years from now, because I know plenty of parents who aren't going to let their sons play at the lower levels, and may not even do so beyond Jr. High.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

On 6/5/2019 at 3:52 PM, camel at sea said:

On the flip side, if OU gets a really good offer (particularly if it's from Disney) then the Big 12 can use that offer to help sell someone like Nebraska or USC on Big 12 membership. 

As long as Texas is in the B12, I don't see Nebraska coming back.  Plus, you're asking them to trade being a mid-tier team in the B10 for being a mid-tier team in the B12 - travel maybe easier for them, but nothing else changes.  In the B8, Nebraska and OU were the top dogs.  UT (and OU) mostly put an end to.  That's painful for some Nebraska fans as well.

As for USC: Fuck No!   Keep those cheating bastards the hell away from us.  If people want to play the occasional OOC against them, fine.  But fuck them.  

[Hurtlocker 2213]

35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

On the other hand, ESPN is going to be competing with Amazon, and at least one (or both) of AppleTV and Netflix, and those last three have the kind of deep pockets that would stabilize all of the conferences.

 

This is also something that I think is missed.   The reason most sports don't stream currently is due to reliability.   Its OK if halfway through a movie you need to do a bit of lag, then it starts back in.   You also don't usually have millions of people streaming the same movie at exactly the same time.   When Game of Thrones was on, watch it on the app right after the show aired and you'd see HBOGO hiccup a lot.   Amazon and ESPN struggle with this with sports right now, but they are working on it.   This is why you're seeing the NFL on Amazon and Twitter, not because most people are going to switch, but because they're perfecting the technology.

The moment someone like Amazon can reliably offer live sports without issue, these rights deals may get stupid.    There are over 100m Prime members, which is more than carry ESPN.  ESPN's carriage is about $90 a year, Prime is $80.   If Amazon increased Prime by $10 and offered live sports, it would have one billion to spend.   

Google (YouTube) and Amazon have more viewers than cable as it is.   How much is it worth to keep them there longer?   Quite a bit.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

The moment someone like Amazon can reliably offer live sports without issue, these rights deals may get stupid.    There are over 100m Prime members, which is more than carry ESPN.  ESPN's carriage is about $90 a year, Prime is $80.   If Amazon increased Prime by $10 and offered live sports, it would have one billion to spend.   

Google (YouTube) and Amazon have more viewers than cable as it is.   How much is it worth to keep them there longer?   Quite a bit.

Amazon has the infrastructure in place, and they keep adding and improving to it.  Their NFL endeavors are providing lots of data.   

And I always forget about YouTube.   

Both Google and Amazon would love to have captive live audiences for their advertising.  

[Hurtlocker 2213]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Amazon has the infrastructure in place, and they keep adding and improving to it.  Their NFL endeavors are providing lots of data.   

And I always forget about YouTube.   

Both Google and Amazon would love to have captive live audiences for their advertising.  

And its already bigger than TV, as internet ads make $40 billion more than TV in total.   Google makes nearly $100 billion a year on advertising alone, which is twice as much as all of Disney's revenues and ten times more than ESPN's total revenues.  Amazon has $177 billion in revenues.   And of those internet ads, 19% of them, or around $32 billion a year, are video ads, like the ones that show up prior to the cat video you really want to watch.

When Google and Amazon are ready to stream sports, they'll collect whatever they want with what amounts to rounding errors on their books.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

On 6/5/2019 at 7:48 AM, rickyspub said:

But it isn't just about making the playoffs. The Pac and ACC could soon be making less than half of what the Big 10 and SEC bring in. What happens if the Big 12 slides down into that range? 

This was our concern, dude.....at least back in the day it was. It's proven to show that massive amounts of money don't help shitkicker programs evolve into powerhouses. Maryland is still Maryland, so is UofSC and Miss St etc etc. Texas to the ACC and Oklahoma to the secsecsec and we can start an ACC/SEC challenge.... 

 

14 hours ago, kopp0e said:

There could be a bit of rumbling out west that USC may be unhappy with current setup/ look to place Trojans & Bruins (thus, more PAC teams may llok at joining XII) Baylor is dropped/ WVU joins ACC:

Bro, nobody wants your WVU castoff. If the ACC was interested in WVU, they'd be a member, but those battery throwing hillbillies have burned too many bridges to ever get an ACC invite. They can join window cougar and uconn on the outside looking in, nobody needs to save them. 

[ButtFumble 5180]

On 6/3/2019 at 5:28 PM, angelos's frog said:

Here's my pipe dream of a conference.  This conference could potentially match the Big 10 and SEC in TV revenue and would be good enough to lure both Nebraska and Mizzou back.

Southwest Division

Texas

OU

Tech

TCU

OSU

KU

Nebraska

Mizzou

Pacific Division

USC

UCLA

Cal

Stanford

CU

Washington

Oregon

ASU

 

10 conference games (7 in division and 3 out incl. a permanent CU/Neb rivalry game).  5 conference home games would be great for season ticket holders.

CCG

All revenue shared equally except for schools get a bigger % of their own bowl revenue and basketball tourney credits which would sweeten the pot for the schools that are actually having success and bringing more attention to the conference.

 

10 conference games is the dumbest idea in the history of ever that conference would rot in 2 or 3 years to steaming piles of shit

no matter what people think at the end of the day you cannot have even a decent conference if you sacrifice the lower level programs in your conference to give wins to the better programs and if you have "parity" then you have the PAC 12 weakness amplified (and what is currently killing the Big 12)

16 teams playing 12 games is 192 wins and losses total and that is 160 wins and losses in conference and 32 wins and losses in the OOC

no matter what you are going to have a conference record of 80-80 in those conference games and the best you could wish for is 32-0 in the OOC for a best possible conference record of 112-80 or a 58.33% winning record (so a conference with barely over a .500 record not even .600)and that is pretending that you would go 32-0 in the OOC......cut that OOC down to 75% and you have a record of 106-86 or a 55.2% winning record so a conference barely breaking .500....that is shit

compare that to the SEC SEC SEC with 16 teams playing 8 conference games

168 wins and losses total and a conference record of 56-56 then a POSSIBLE OOC of 56-0.....of course they are not going 56-0 in the OOC, but a shittastic conference with 16 teams playing 10 conference games is not going 32-0 in the OOC either 

the SEC SEC SEC had 105 wins last year total in the conference regular season so they were 105-49 or .625 and winning 87.5% of their OOC games

you simply can't start your conference out being a pile of shit with a best possible conference win loss record of 58.33% while another conference has a best possible record of 66.77% and the one conference has no issue playing D1-AA teams (even more so late in the season to stay even or move up in the polls while other conferences beat each other up) and G5 shit in the OOC

a conference that was stupid enough to play 10 conference games would have had a record of 58.33% winning every possible OOC game while the SEC SEC SEC would have had 62.5% winning what they usually win every year

that 4.17% difference for a conference with 16 teams is 8 games.....so half the teams in your conference win one less game because you are so stupid that you beat up on each other instead of beating up on other conferences

a conference where half the teams have one less win every year is a steaming pile of shit and will go straight to hell fast

of course regarded people will pretend that if you do something smart like play 7 conference games like the Big 12 needs to do that means that Texas and OU have to start playing D1-AA dogshit.....but that is just stupid what that means is that each member of the conference is free to schedule for their needs if Texas and OU feel they need to be in position to make the play offs each year they they schedule better and if Kansas and Texas Tech and Baylor simply need wins then why do Texas and OU care who they schedule as long as they win those OOC games 

Alabama does not give a fuck who Vandy beats every year they just care that Vandy has 5 to 7 wins most years so they can claim they are a better program than Kansas and Illinois and Rutgers and Oregon State.....they do not give a fuck of Vandy has an undefeated year and missed the playoffs because Alabama expects to make the playoffs they let aggy get a hard on for some other team in the SEC SEC SEC making the playoffs even if it is Vandy )or crying if an undefeated Vandy with a shit OOC misses the playoffs).....Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee and others in the SEC SEC SEC fire their coach if they let Vandy make the playoffs or go undefeated and miss the playoffs because of a shitty OOC schedule

people need to stop being stupid and counting on the strength of the LOSSES of the teams in your conference to mean something because losses NEVER MATTER (unless you are aggy and lose to Clemson and Alabama).....what you want is the weak teams in your conference to simply have wins no matter who they beat because a shitty win is ALWAYS better than a "good loss" from the stand pint of strength of schedule especially for other teams in the conference

no one gives a fuck if a 13 team conference plays 12 conference games and goes .500 every year.....that is a shitty conference no matter what teams are in that conference and it will always be shitter than an 8 team conference that plays 7 conference games and goes .650 beating a lot of dog shit and a few good teams

[atomheartbevo 89730]

11 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

And its already bigger than TV, as internet ads make $40 billion more than TV in total.   Google makes nearly $100 billion a year on advertising alone, which is twice as much as all of Disney's revenues and ten times more than ESPN's total revenues.  Amazon has $177 billion in revenues.   And of those internet ads, 19% of them, or around $32 billion a year, are video ads, like the ones that show up prior to the cat video you really want to watch.

When Google and Amazon are ready to stream sports, they'll collect whatever they want with what amounts to rounding errors on their books.

One more for the ever-growing list: AT&T/WarnerMedia are also looking for content. 

ESPN is in deep shit when it comes to conference contracts coming up   

Conferences will rake it in.   

Edited June 7, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[Thiefery 5012]

I'm for Texas eventually starting it's own app for all sporting events, hopefully they will begin to show TXHSFB games/playoffs on it too.  ESPN plus and LHN have been streaming fine for me while watching live boxing and the Longhorn football games. I have LHN through verizon Fios however it is not available in HD.  So I watch it through the ESPN app (from my ps4).  Texas (and the Big 12) will rake it in for it's first and second tier games regardless.  It would be cool for them to start it's own app for third tier, but offer much more than what the LHN content currently carries

 

[Machinator 32099]

 

[Machinator 32099]

 

[ButtFumble 5180]

43 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

 

the JG Wentowrth PAC 12

[ButtFumble 5180]

39 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

it is ridiculous to think that CBS or anyone else will pay $1 billion (or close to that) much less $2 billion for 16 games plus a CCG

even the Big 10 CCG was paying about $25 million last time and there is nothing that indicates the payment for that specifically went up with their new deal and even if it doubled it is still a CCG featuring the two conference winners at the end of the year

so if you pretend that the Big 10 gets $50 million for their CCG are you going to pretend that the SEC SEC SEC will get $50 million for one game a week and $75 million for their CCG so that CBS (or anyone else) is paying them $875 million a year?......that is just fucking stupid

regular season games are going for about $2.5 to $3 million each as it is now

with the CBS deal if you say the SEC SEC SEC is getting $25 million for their CCG (because it is on old "bad deal") that means $30 million for the other 15 games of the week or $2 million each.......are we really pretending that the SEC SEC SEC will get 20X or 25X that amount....no fucking way

[Hurtlocker 2213]

The SEC was in the midst of back to back to back to back to back or whatever championships and they were going to put the screws to CBS then too, and they didn't.   Then they were going to get the screws when they added A&M and Mizzou, and they didn't.   CBS just added a couple games and it was a big issue because they couldn't add games early in the season due to other sports, like golf.

The value is pretty low, compared to the rest, but CBS pays a shit ton of money on marketing the games more than any other network, and the SEC benefits greatly from that exposure.   I'd take less money for that slot.

You're not going to see billions, but making a hundred mill or so more wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.   CBS just has never shown a lot of desire to do anything more than offer a fair number on 15 games, always at 3:30 eastern.   It wouldn't shock me if ESPN pushed all their chips in to try and grab it as well.