Realignment talk not going away

[2300 Nueces 163]

19 hours ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

Are you implying that the Big 12 provides competent administrative leadership? LOL

They would need to dump off the dead weight and promote programs of value in order to make it viable.  

So you're for firing CDC?  CDC is the real head of the Big 12.  Was it Bowlsby or Texas that sent out feelers to 7 Pac schools?

[2300 Nueces 163]

21 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Little fun with numbers.   Here's the latest from the USAToday Database, comparing the Pac 12 with the Big 12 on several financial categories (USC/Stanford/TCU/Baylor not included due to being private:

Big 12/Pac 12	2017-18 Finances
Revenue Rank	School	Conference	Revenue	Expenses	Profit	School Support	% Support	Profit After Support
7	Oklahoma	Big 12	$175,325,500	$152,674,475	$22,651,025	$0	0.00%	$22,651,025
1	Texas	Big 12	$219,402,579	$206,554,432	$12,848,147	$0	0.00%	$12,848,147
50	Kansas State	Big 12	$86,911,309	$77,633,258	$9,278,051	$350,000	0.40%	$8,928,051
37	West Virginia	Big 12	$102,684,423	$91,807,281	$10,877,142	$4,107,003	4.00%	$6,770,139
26	Oregon	Pac-12	$122,541,827	$119,811,239	$2,730,588	$240,598	0.20%	$2,489,990
22	Washington	Pac-12	$130,919,331	$126,133,008	$4,786,323	$3,834,746	2.93%	$951,577
33	Kansas	Big 12	$106,307,326	$104,108,072	$2,199,254	$1,804,397	1.70%	$394,857
48	Oklahoma State	Big 12	$88,516,367	$88,228,667	$287,700	$89,466	0.10%	$198,234
47	Iowa State	Big 12	$88,753,664	$88,670,048	$83,616	$2,093,104	2.36%	($2,009,488)
21	UCLA	Pac-12	$130,960,560	$130,960,560	$0	$2,608,165	1.99%	($2,608,165)
46	Texas Tech	Big 12	$89,259,783	$88,948,721	$311,062	$3,334,854	3.74%	($3,023,792)
43	Utah	Pac-12	$91,386,593	$87,578,834	$3,807,759	$12,374,118	13.54%	($8,566,359)
45	Colorado	Pac-12	$89,581,544	$89,826,611	($245,067)	$12,338,945	13.77%	($12,584,012)
53	Washington State	Pac-12	$65,117,715	$73,775,035	($8,657,320)	$5,337,518	8.20%	($13,994,838)
51	Oregon State	Pac-12	$80,712,000	$88,600,330	($7,888,330)	$9,763,192	12.10%	($17,651,522)
44	California	Pac-12	$91,247,489	$110,558,630	($19,311,141)	$0	0.00%	($19,311,141)
41	Arizona	Pac-12	$95,867,717	$103,329,464	($7,461,747)	$12,463,914	13.00%	($19,925,661)
29	Arizona State	Pac-12	$113,636,755	$126,782,387	($13,145,632)	$20,611,739	18.14%	($33,757,371)

 

 

Big 12 Average			$119,645,119	$112,328,119	$7,317,000	$1,472,353	1.54%	$5,844,647
Pac 12 Average			$101,197,153	$105,735,610	($4,538,457)	$7,957,294	8.39%	($12,495,750)
Pac 12 v Big 12	Difference		($18,447,966)	($6,592,509)	($11,855,456)	$6,484,941	6.85%	($18,340,397)

The top half of the Pac 12 has more in common with the bottom half of the Big 12.   So what if the Big 12 took the top half of the Pac 12 to make the Big 16?

Big 16 Average			$117,119,293	$111,764,247	$5,355,046	$3,321,184	3.44%	$2,033,862
Remaining Average			$89,316,335	$100,609,169	($11,292,834)	$9,635,273	10.29%	($20,928,107)
Remaining vs Big 16	Difference		($27,802,958)	($11,155,077)	($16,647,880)	$6,314,088	6.85%	($22,961,968)

Absorbing the top half (minus private schools in the calcs obviously) basically leaves the Big 12's averages the same, which is a pretty good add.   Ironically, this would not be the Arizona schools that everyone talks about.   Instead its USC, Washington, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Colorado.   Which, while ceding Phoenix, isn't the worst add in the world.

Why are Texas' Expenses so high?  Debt service or a bloated Belmont Hall?

[Hurtlocker 2212]

15 minutes ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Why are Texas' Expenses so high?  Debt service or a bloated Belmont Hall?

I think capital expenditures.   

Staff = $68m

Scholarships = $12m

Facilities/Overhead = $60m

Other = $64

That other category is always hard to read.  Some of the AD payback to the school is in there too.

Looking in the Equity in Athletics database, it cost around $45m to run the football team, but none of the other categories are massively high.   So its probably some debt obligations or a slush fund for hookers and blow..   

Edited April 7, 2020 by Hurtlocker

[notre dame joe 187]

17 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think capital expenditures.   

Staff = $68m

Scholarships = $12m

Facilities/Overhead = $60m

Other = $64

That other category is always hard to read.  Some of the AD payback to the school is in there too.

Looking in the Equity in Athletics database, it cost around $45m to run the football team, but none of the other categories are massively high.   So its probably some debt obligations or a slush fund for hookers and blow..   

Does travel count as overhead??

[Hurtlocker 2212]

29 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Does travel count as overhead??

I don't know how they lump it at USA today, its not as defined as EIA

The Knight Commission has this for 2018:

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/reports/ce0f87ce

Biggest areas seem to be:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Facility expenses include debt service, leases, and rental fees for athletic facilities. This includes overhead and administrative expenses. Equipment expenses includes spending for items provided to teams, including in-kind equipment.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $64,190,646 29.54%

SUPPORT AND ADMIN COMPENSATION W/SEVERANCE

Support and administrative staff compensation includes bonuses and benefits paid to all administrative and support staff. This category includes direct payment from the institution and payment from a third party. Severance payments for former coaches and administrators are also included.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $49,901,820 22.96%

COACHES COMPENSATION

Coaches compensation includes bonuses and benefits, but not severance payments. This category includes direct payment and bonuses to coaches from the institution and from a third party.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $26,211,512 12.06%

OTHER EXPENSES

 

Expenses related to the following categories: Sports equipment, uniforms and supplies, fundraising, marketing and promotion, sports camps, spirit groups, direct overhead and administrative expenses, indirect institutional support, membership and dues, student-athlete meals, and, other operating expenses.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $25,779,186 11.86%

GAME EXPENSES AND TRAVEL

Game expenses relate to competition expenses other than travel. Travel relates to spending on transportation, lodging, meals, and incidentals related to preseason, regular season, and post-season competition.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $20,778,855 9.56%

ATHLETIC STUDENT AID

Total expenses for athletic student aid, including tuition and fees, room and board, books, summer school, tuition discounts, and waivers, including aid given to student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility or who are inactive due to medical reasons.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $12,655,927 5.82%

EXCESS TRANSFERS BACK

Positive net revenues generated by athletics and transferred to the institution for non-athletics purposes. These funds are in excess of the transfers subtracted from the institutional and governmental funds allocated to athletics.

2018
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $10,772,577 4.96%

 

The rest are all rounding errors

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Hurtlocker

[Gaffords 755]

On 4/1/2020 at 10:33 AM, JWinTX said:

The Pac-12 GOR expire at the end of 2023, while the Big 12 expires in June of 2025.

I think the way this goes is that the Pac-12 gets a new deal with the idea that behind the scenes, the networks know the Pac will get the Texomakan 6 and move to be the Pac-18. Three time zones, big names in Texas, OU, and KU (hoops), and Pac gets two AAU institutions in UT and KU. It also keeps the lawsuits from Baylor from really ever getting off the ground because they were not invited, most likely because of religious reasons (see BYU) that don't mesh with the liberal views of the West Coast.

Iowa State and WVU join the AAC, while TCU and Baylor join the MWC.  

I wouldn't hold my breath on Fox/ESPN going "all in" on saving the PAC.  Both make money on tier 1, 2, AND 3 content from the other conferences. That's not something they can do with the PAC.  Unlike last time, there was a big incentive to keep the Texas market from the PACNET, this time there is more incentive in flushing the big names from the PAC over saving it.  It puts good Tier 3 content back on the market... 

Fox or ESPN could easily be ready for another conference network (NOT good for the PAC). Even if not, there is 0 benefit in letting anyone from the BIG12 defect to the PAC, but there is good reason to let the PAC come apart at the seams with the main one being to kill the PACNET.

Personally I think the thing that sparks the next go around is going to be the ADs the same way it did with the formation of the BIG 12. You know the ADs in the PAC and BIG 12 are well aware of the potential for huge revenue hikes by combining the TX/CA markets. When the contract negotiations begin and the ADs get the feeling  they will fall short of what they believe the BIG 10 and the SEC will pull when they go through their renegotiations, all hell will break loose...

[Thiefery 4995]

19 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Little fun with numbers.   Here's the latest from the USAToday Database, comparing the Pac 12 with the Big 12 on several financial categories (USC/Stanford/TCU/Baylor not included due to being private:

Big 12/Pac 12	2017-18 Finances
Revenue Rank	School	Conference	Revenue	Expenses	Profit	School Support	% Support	Profit After Support
7	Oklahoma	Big 12	$175,325,500	$152,674,475	$22,651,025	$0	0.00%	$22,651,025
1	Texas	Big 12	$219,402,579	$206,554,432	$12,848,147	$0	0.00%	$12,848,147
50	Kansas State	Big 12	$86,911,309	$77,633,258	$9,278,051	$350,000	0.40%	$8,928,051
37	West Virginia	Big 12	$102,684,423	$91,807,281	$10,877,142	$4,107,003	4.00%	$6,770,139
26	Oregon	Pac-12	$122,541,827	$119,811,239	$2,730,588	$240,598	0.20%	$2,489,990
22	Washington	Pac-12	$130,919,331	$126,133,008	$4,786,323	$3,834,746	2.93%	$951,577
33	Kansas	Big 12	$106,307,326	$104,108,072	$2,199,254	$1,804,397	1.70%	$394,857
48	Oklahoma State	Big 12	$88,516,367	$88,228,667	$287,700	$89,466	0.10%	$198,234
47	Iowa State	Big 12	$88,753,664	$88,670,048	$83,616	$2,093,104	2.36%	($2,009,488)
21	UCLA	Pac-12	$130,960,560	$130,960,560	$0	$2,608,165	1.99%	($2,608,165)
46	Texas Tech	Big 12	$89,259,783	$88,948,721	$311,062	$3,334,854	3.74%	($3,023,792)
43	Utah	Pac-12	$91,386,593	$87,578,834	$3,807,759	$12,374,118	13.54%	($8,566,359)
45	Colorado	Pac-12	$89,581,544	$89,826,611	($245,067)	$12,338,945	13.77%	($12,584,012)
53	Washington State	Pac-12	$65,117,715	$73,775,035	($8,657,320)	$5,337,518	8.20%	($13,994,838)
51	Oregon State	Pac-12	$80,712,000	$88,600,330	($7,888,330)	$9,763,192	12.10%	($17,651,522)
44	California	Pac-12	$91,247,489	$110,558,630	($19,311,141)	$0	0.00%	($19,311,141)
41	Arizona	Pac-12	$95,867,717	$103,329,464	($7,461,747)	$12,463,914	13.00%	($19,925,661)
29	Arizona State	Pac-12	$113,636,755	$126,782,387	($13,145,632)	$20,611,739	18.14%	($33,757,371)

 

 

Big 12 Average			$119,645,119	$112,328,119	$7,317,000	$1,472,353	1.54%	$5,844,647
Pac 12 Average			$101,197,153	$105,735,610	($4,538,457)	$7,957,294	8.39%	($12,495,750)
Pac 12 v Big 12	Difference		($18,447,966)	($6,592,509)	($11,855,456)	$6,484,941	6.85%	($18,340,397)

The top half of the Pac 12 has more in common with the bottom half of the Big 12, when it comes to profit after subsidies.   So what if the Big 12 took the top half of the Pac 12 in this category (as opposed to total revenue) to make the Big 16?

Big 16 Average			$117,119,293	$111,764,247	$5,355,046	$3,321,184	3.44%	$2,033,862
Remaining Average			$89,316,335	$100,609,169	($11,292,834)	$9,635,273	10.29%	($20,928,107)
Remaining vs Big 16	Difference		($27,802,958)	($11,155,077)	($16,647,880)	$6,314,088	6.85%	($22,961,968)

Absorbing the top half (minus private schools in the calcs obviously) basically leaves the Big 12's averages the same, which is a pretty good add.   Ironically, this would not be the Arizona schools that everyone talks about.   Instead its USC, Washington, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Colorado.   Which, while ceding Phoenix, isn't the worst add in the world.

Damn what's up with the AZ schools? No wonder they would jump ship ASAP if an offer was made.  I still think AZ is an important piece since the population keeps growing there. However if you can only take one of the two.. Would it be ASU because of hot wimminz or the AAU membership AZ? Or is it still both?

[Hurtlocker 2212]

28 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Damn what's up with the AZ schools? No wonder they would jump ship ASAP if an offer was made.  I still think AZ is an important piece since the population keeps growing there. However if you can only take one of the two.. Would it be ASU because of hot wimminz or the AAU membership AZ? Or is it still both?

Dames over Brains

[Gaffords 755]

4 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Damn what's up with the AZ schools? No wonder they would jump ship ASAP if an offer was made.  I still think AZ is an important piece since the population keeps growing there. However if you can only take one of the two.. Would it be ASU because of hot wimminz or the AAU membership AZ? Or is it still both?

I would Target USC, UCLA (likely needed to get USC), Oregon, Washington, and both AZ schools.  

As long as the Big 12 gets USC, they could choose to stay at 10 (unlikeky), or go balls deep...  

JUST for FUN.. If it does come out the BIG 12 is targeting 7 teams from the PAC,  I'm curious who the BIG 12 believes they would lure as the 18th...  I don't see them leaving the spot open just to add some minor leaguer as a travel partner for WVU...

I don't see Arkansas or LSU being ready to jump just because of some PAC schools joining.

Maybe Colorado being the 7th could lure Nebraska, but I'm not convinced it would just yet.  Too much pride and money to swallow. Nor am I sure the BIG 12 is beating on their door asking just yet.

The ACC?  Probably not...  Maybe PITT for WVU?  Or FSU?  Both are highly unlikely. No real incentive to move...

Would Stanford as the 7th coupled with USC be enough lure ND?  Maybe... possible... Not sure...  Does anyone know how much ND gets from the accnet? I haven't looked it up.

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

28 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

I would Target USC, UCLA (likely needed to get USC), Oregon, Washington, and both AZ schools.  

As long as the Big 12 gets USC, they could choose to stay at 10 (unlikeky), or go balls deep...  

JUST for FUN.. If it does come out the BIG 12 is targeting 7 teams from the PAC,  I'm curious who the BIG 12 believes they would lure as the 18th...  I don't see them leaving the spot open just to add some minor leaguer as a travel partner for WVU...

I don't see Arkansas or LSU being ready to jump just because of some PAC schools joining.

Maybe Colorado being the 7th could lure Nebraska, but I'm not convinced it would just yet.  Too much pride and money to swallow. Nor am I sure the BIG 12 is beating on their door asking just yet.

The ACC?  Probably not...  Maybe PITT for WVU?  Or FSU?  Both are highly unlikely. No real incentive to move...

Would Stanford as the 7th coupled with USC be enough lure ND?  Maybe... possible... Not sure...  Does anyone know how much ND gets from the accnet? I haven't looked it up.

 

 

ND doesn't make much off their ACC connection, outside the ease of scheduling.   Its less than $10m a year, which ND loses in the sofa on any given night.   The issue with ND is they signed the GoR with the ACC that states if they are going to join any conference before like 2037 (roughly) it will be the ACC.   That's a $50m pill to swallow.   If anyone could do it, its the Irish, but its still a bitter pill.   Additionally, if they joined in full, which seems unlikely, their scheduling flexibility evaporates.   They'd be left with Army and Navy, depending on how they structured conference games.  

While I still kind of think its BS that we're talking to seven Pac 12 schools, it doesn't necessarily mean 7 would move.   There are going to be government fights in this as well with state schools being linked, much like the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State tether or Baylor's backroom deals to ensure it was in the Big 12.   While I think Oregon would jump if USC did, will the Oregon legislator force the Beavers in a move?

Its why I think you put all your eggs in the USC bucket.   Once they are on board, then it becomes a game of who is coming with.   Let them fight those battles.   Colorado jumped the Big 12 with just a sniff of Nebraska leaving, if their SoCal connection starts to fizzle they may be knocking on the doors in Dallas before USC's plane lands.

[Gaffords 755]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

ND doesn't make much off their ACC connection, outside the ease of scheduling.   Its less than $10m a year, which ND loses in the sofa on any given night.   The issue with ND is they signed the GoR with the ACC that states if they are going to join any conference before like 2037 (roughly) it will be the ACC.   That's a $50m pill to swallow.   If anyone could do it, its the Irish, but its still a bitter pill.   Additionally, if they joined in full, which seems unlikely, their scheduling flexibility evaporates.   They'd be left with Army and Navy, depending on how they structured conference games.  

While I still kind of think its BS that we're talking to seven Pac 12 schools, it doesn't necessarily mean 7 would move.   There are going to be government fights in this as well with state schools being linked, much like the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State tether or Baylor's backroom deals to ensure it was in the Big 12.   While I think Oregon would jump if USC did, will the Oregon legislator force the Beavers in a move?

Its why I think you put all your eggs in the USC bucket.   Once they are on board, then it becomes a game of who is coming with.   Let them fight those battles.   Colorado jumped the Big 12 with just a sniff of Nebraska leaving, if their SoCal connection starts to fizzle they may be knocking on the doors in Dallas before USC's plane lands.

If we landed USC and ND showed interest, I could see the BIG 12 giving a 50 million loan with a next to nothing yearly repayment plan.  

Hell, I could see a certain TV partner seeing value in a network that has TX/West coast/ND even at the expense of stand alones such as LHN/USC/ND packaged with a BIG?NET that they might be willing to help offset penalties.

The Duck is notorious for playing the long game at the expense of a few years of loses...  

ESPN, SECNET, ACCNET, BIG12 (with the cream of the PAC), ND, HULU (merged for it's live TV content, added to D+ is long term security no matter what Amazon, ATT, Google decide to do.  

If the "others" sleep on the PAC/BIG 12 renegotiations, I can see the duck go for checkmate as described. 

[camel at sea 589]

It would be interesting to see how an expanded CFP, state politics, and the media money mix as competing forces.  

Let's say you're Oregon or Washington, and SC/UCLA have decided to leave for the Big 12 for financial reasons.  You could follow.  Or you could stay, not fight with little brother, and have an annual game against your primary rival for a conference title and a trip to the CFP.  Following the L.A. schools to the Big 12 puts a couple of new huge roadblocks in front of your hopes to even make the playoffs.  How much extra TV money offsets the improved path to titles that you get by staying?  Winning big brings financial rewards, too.

Maybe that all comes down to whether a depleted PAC gets helped out (media deals, bowl tie-ins, etc.) in a similar way to the one that the Big 12 was helped in 2011-2012.  

[markstanco 12577]

This thread:

https://i.imgflip.com/19z748.jpg

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

It would be interesting to see how an expanded CFP, state politics, and the media money mix as competing forces.  

Let's say you're Oregon or Washington, and SC/UCLA have decided to leave for the Big 12 for financial reasons.  You could follow.  Or you could stay, not fight with little brother, and have an annual game against your primary rival for a conference title and a trip to the CFP.  Following the L.A. schools to the Big 12 puts a couple of new huge roadblocks in front of your hopes to even make the playoffs.  How much extra TV money offsets the improved path to titles that you get by staying?  Winning big brings financial rewards, too.

Maybe that all comes down to whether a depleted PAC gets helped out (media deals, bowl tie-ins, etc.) in a similar way to the one that the Big 12 was helped in 2011-2012.  

They didn't get too helped out though.   They made the same money with 10 as with 12, which, yes, helped, but it was because they went to 9 conference games from 8.   They basically floated them a six game "here ya go"

[elfenix 34238]

Dames over Brains

1,1, weird birthmark wnb, 1
1,1
1,1

[hiphopfroggy 121]

 1

Edited April 11, 2020 by hiphopfroggy

[Tom 2959]

This thread has become worse than Star Trek fan fiction.  LOL at the PAC's best schools ditching a century of tradition along with Notre Dame coming to the Big 12.  We'd be lucky if we could convince the non-coastal PAC state schools to switch over.  USC, UCLA, Washington, etc. are not joining the Big 12.  These hypotheticals are dumb.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

 

http://

 

 

 

[Bartles 769]

[cochamps 1879]

3 hours ago, Bartles said:

Agspn?

[camel at sea 589]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:15 PM, Hurtlocker said:

They didn't get too helped out though.   They made the same money with 10 as with 12, which, yes, helped, but it was because they went to 9 conference games from 8.   They basically floated them a six game "here ya go"

The Big 12 had the same number of games - but the percentage of games involving a huge fanbase went from roughly 1/3 to 1/5th.   The money not dipping was help.  FOX jumping in with big money right when we needed it was help.  It was also "help" to get the Sugar Bowl tie-in.  I'm not arguing that the Big 12 didn't bring value to the table, or that the networks were acting altruistically, but there were factors outside of the Big 12's control that went the Big 12's way.

What would I view as "help" for the PAC in the context of my previous post?  Maybe they move a bunch of inventory away from their Tier 3 platform to Tier 2 and find a buyer that pays well.  That would better monetize their games than their current set-up.  Maybe they keep the Rose Bowl tie-in (post raid) or alternatively get one with the Fiesta Bowl that pays well.  Maybe the schools left behind are more willing to do the PAC After Dark, Thursday Night, Friday Night type games and get paid well for it.  So it would be akin to the Big 12's deal a decade ago.  It's not like they wouldn't bring value to those contracts.  But they wouldn't have a ton of leverage to get those deals to a point where they're financially competitive, either.

 

[camel at sea 589]

11 hours ago, Tom said:

This thread has become worse than Star Trek fan fiction.  LOL at the PAC's best schools ditching a century of tradition along with Notre Dame coming to the Big 12.  We'd be lucky if we could convince the non-coastal PAC state schools to switch over.  USC, UCLA, Washington, etc. are not joining the Big 12.  These hypotheticals are dumb.

If SC is making at least $10-15M less per year, in media money, than Iowa State... how do they fix that?  

[JFKFC 4879]

15 hours ago, Tom said:

This thread has become worse than Star Trek fan fiction.  LOL at the PAC's best schools ditching a century of tradition along with Notre Dame coming to the Big 12.  We'd be lucky if we could convince the non-coastal PAC state schools to switch over.  USC, UCLA, Washington, etc. are not joining the Big 12.  These hypotheticals are dumb.

Here is a link discussing USC to the Big 12 from an analyst who focuses on USC: 

https://247sports.com/Article/USC-joining-the-Big-12-down-the-line-makes-a-lot-of-sense-Trojans-PAC-12-television-contract-2024-144592787/

[Thiefery 4995]

19 hours ago, hiphopfroggy said:

 

http://

 

 

 

Can't we just have two divisions? Pac and the Big 8/BigStar division?

[utee94 15822]

20 hours ago, Tom said:

This thread has become worse than Star Trek fan fiction.  LOL at the PAC's best schools ditching a century of tradition along with Notre Dame coming to the Big 12.  We'd be lucky if we could convince the non-coastal PAC state schools to switch over.  USC, UCLA, Washington, etc. are not joining the Big 12.  These hypotheticals are dumb.

Actually, no, we wouldn't.  Because those schools add no value.  We'd be very UNlucky to get saddled with the PAC's dead weight.  Which is precisely why that won't happen.

 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

21 hours ago, Tom said:

This thread has become worse than Star Trek fan fiction.  LOL at the PAC's best schools ditching a century of tradition along with Notre Dame coming to the Big 12.  We'd be lucky if we could convince the non-coastal PAC state schools to switch over.  USC, UCLA, Washington, etc. are not joining the Big 12.  These hypotheticals are dumb.

man, sorry this Internet sports message board is wasting your time

[hiphopfroggy 121]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Can't we just have two divisions? Pac and the Big 8/BigStar division?

Yes, divisions may end up being the preference and the scheduling model could be determined by schools #15 and #16, depending on who those may be.

Some of the reasons pods may be preferable:

 

• More central time zone kickoffs for West coast teams. Getting the West coast teams earlier kickoffs one way or another seems to be an important part of maximizing their value, same for any team really, they need good kickoff times. Pods allows the west coast teams to play 4 central teams a year as opposed to 2 w/divisions. That has the West coast teams playing 2 games in central times zones every year as opposed to just once a year in divisions.  
• Pods allow every team to play each other every other year as opposed to once every 4 years.
• Minimized travel/optimal travel.  Difference schools may have differing opinions here, but generally speaking each team would travel to each pod location once a year. Which seems optimal. UT for example would still have a large portion of the conference schedule in Texas, then also travel to the Southwest(LA/Phoenix) and Northwest(S.F./Seattle/Portland) once a year, as well as Kansahoma(perhaps every other year w/RRR).
• Maximize championship game matchups. Allows for potential conference championship games between UT and OU or Oregon USC, while also providing the conference some flexibility in maximizing the matchup. 

 

TLDR:  For UT pods would mean playing K-State, Kansas, Ok St less and the west coast schools more. 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a north and a south division? 

 

[Gaffords 755]

2 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

man, sorry this Internet sports message board is wasting your time

I guess we could post about spring practice ....

[Hurtlocker 2212]

13 hours ago, camel at sea said:

The Big 12 had the same number of games - but the percentage of games involving a huge fanbase went from roughly 1/3 to 1/5th.   The money not dipping was help.  FOX jumping in with big money right when we needed it was help.  It was also "help" to get the Sugar Bowl tie-in.  I'm not arguing that the Big 12 didn't bring value to the table, or that the networks were acting altruistically, but there were factors outside of the Big 12's control that went the Big 12's way.

What would I view as "help" for the PAC in the context of my previous post?  Maybe they move a bunch of inventory away from their Tier 3 platform to Tier 2 and find a buyer that pays well.  That would better monetize their games than their current set-up.  Maybe they keep the Rose Bowl tie-in (post raid) or alternatively get one with the Fiesta Bowl that pays well.  Maybe the schools left behind are more willing to do the PAC After Dark, Thursday Night, Friday Night type games and get paid well for it.  So it would be akin to the Big 12's deal a decade ago.  It's not like they wouldn't bring value to those contracts.  But they wouldn't have a ton of leverage to get those deals to a point where they're financially competitive, either.

 

Yeah I agree with that second section.   I think the Pac 12 needs to sell the PACN, if it can find a carrier willing at this point.   Not only could it give an influx of cash from the sale, but work carriage deals better than Scott.   Along those lines, consolidate from 5 to 1, and push 30% of the inventory to T2 and I think you'll start to catch up a bit.   I don't really classify either the old Big12s or these changes for the Pac as "help" though, its not altruistic, its inventory sales.       

I still believe a combined Pac/B12 media contract is worth more than either apart, and that takes into account the Big 12's T1 package is freakishly outdated compared to the rest.

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 4/12/2020 at 1:08 PM, Tom said:

This thread has become worse than Star Trek fan fiction.  LOL at the PAC's best schools ditching a century of tradition along with Notre Dame coming to the Big 12.  We'd be lucky if we could convince the non-coastal PAC state schools to switch over.  USC, UCLA, Washington, etc. are not joining the Big 12.  These hypotheticals are dumb.

Don't you offseason bro?

[Thiefery 4995]

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah I agree with that second section.   I think the Pac 12 needs to sell the PACN, if it can find a carrier willing at this point.   Not only could it give an influx of cash from the sale, but work carriage deals better than Scott.   Along those lines, consolidate from 5 to 1, and push 30% of the inventory to T2 and I think you'll start to catch up a bit.   I don't really classify either the old Big12s or these changes for the Pac as "help" though, its not altruistic, its inventory sales.       

I still believe a combined Pac/B12 media contract is worth more than either apart, and that takes into account the Big 12's T1 package is freakishly outdated compared to the rest.

 

Let's say we do this merger of conferences at 16 total..  Two 8 school divisions or Four, 4 school pods..  ESPN plus has a lot of the rights for most of the big 12 tier 3s.  Texas, ou and Kansas are the only ones that have it's own.. With a merger of schools like this, does ESPN go ahead and greenlight an exclusive channel to distribute most of the new conference's tier 3 content?  From the Pac side.. who really can carry it's own tier 3 like Texas/ou/ku?  USC? UCLA? Oregon? Washington?

Edited April 13, 2020 by Thiefery

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Let's say we do this merger of conferences at 16 total..  Two 8 school divisions or Four, 4 school pods..  ESPN plus has a lot of the rights for most of the big 12 tier 3s.  Texas, ou and Kansas are the only ones that have it's own.. With a merger of schools like this, does ESPN go ahead and greenlight an exclusive channel to distribute most of the new conference's tier 3 content?  From the Pac side.. who really can carry it's own tier 3 like Texas/ou/ku?  USC? UCLA? Oregon? Washington?

Actually the Mouse holds almost all of the rights, except Oklahoma's.   The Big 12 last year signed onto a T3 deal where ESPN picked everything up and there is a BIG 12 streaming channel on ESPN+.   Once Oklahoma's deal expires they'll be added too.  

It all expires at the same time as the rest of their deals in 2024

Big 12 Expands Content Agreement

Quote

In the new agreement, the Big 12 will add the conference title games in 2019, 2021 and 2023. The network already owned the rights to the others. All of the championship games will appear on either ABC or ESPN.

In addition, eight of the 10 schools in the league will ship hundreds of games across multiple sports to ESPN+ beginning this year, including one regular-season football game, as well as men's and women's basketball, baseball, softball, soccer and volleyball games.

Texas will keep its rights on the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network. Oklahoma's rights will remain with Fox Sports, as part of a previous deal. Both schools, however, will be featured on ESPN+ as road teams.

The ESPN+ agreement will start for Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Oklahoma State beginning this year. Iowa State, TCU, Texas Tech and West Virginia will join in 2020.

The deal runs through 2024-25, when the rest of the league's TV rights contracts will expire.

 

[Gaffords 755]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Actually the Mouse holds almost all of the rights, except Oklahoma's.   The Big 12 last year signed onto a T3 deal where ESPN picked everything up and there is a BIG 12 streaming channel on ESPN+.   Once Oklahoma's deal expires they'll be added too.  

It all expires at the same time as the rest of their deals in 2024

Big 12 Expands Content Agreement

 

I wonder what ESPN'S reason was for going for such a short term on T-3's and opening them up for renegotiations right along with the T-1 and T-2s.  It sounds like they plan on keeping the t3 long term if they are planning on adding OU later down the road.   Any idea when OU's come open?    

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, Gaffords said:

I wonder what ESPN'S reason was for going for such a short term on T-3's and opening them up for renegotiations right along with the T-1 and T-2s.  It sounds like they plan on keeping the t3 long term if they are planning on adding OU later down the road.   Any idea when OU's come open?    

I think OU is locked in through 24-25 too, like the rest of the content except LHN.   And they did it because the Big 12 wanted more for the CCGs they were selling.   Originally ESPN paid a premium higher than any other conference at over $30m, but they did that to get rid of the clause that they had to pay the Big 12 the same for content if they added teams.   So they weren't willing to go that high again.   They did, however, want content for ESPN+.   So they did a little of both.   

[Thiefery 4995]

10 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think OU is locked in through 24-25 too, like the rest of the content except LHN.   And they did it because the Big 12 wanted more for the CCGs they were selling.   Originally ESPN paid a premium higher than any other conference at over $30m, but they did that to get rid of the clause that they had to pay the Big 12 the same for content if they added teams.   So they weren't willing to go that high again.   They did, however, want content for ESPN+.   So they did a little of both.   

Also I think ESPN plus is still experimenting with it's app model to see if it's comparable to the ACC or SEC network it has.  For all the whining about apps, this past month has shown how easy it is to watch content through apps.  If it weren't for the LHN and premium channels, I too would be canceling my Fios cable deal.  One good thing Verizon has done, however, is that it carries a netflix, youtube channel.  You sign in your info when you tune into it, then you can switch back and forth like a regular channel.  Be nice for them to do an ESPN plus, DAZN, Fox go channel like that as well.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

55 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Also I think ESPN plus is still experimenting with it's app model to see if it's comparable to the ACC or SEC network it has.  For all the whining about apps, this past month has shown how easy it is to watch content through apps.  If it weren't for the LHN and premium channels, I too would be canceling my Fios cable deal.  One good thing Verizon has done, however, is that it carries a netflix, youtube channel.  You sign in your info when you tune into it, then you can switch back and forth like a regular channel.  Be nice for them to do an ESPN plus, DAZN, Fox go channel like that as well.

Yeah the big issue with streaming with live sports is they are live. Netflix rarely has anything being watched concurrently in a massive volume, just lots of different things that are in various stages of delivery, which taxes the system less.  If you streamed Game of Thrones at it peak, during episode launch the HBO ap would fail, or you'd get the spinning disk of go get a drink while you wait.   No one wants to wait on live events though so streaming has always been hit or miss on live sports.

Amazon has been doing a lot of work with the NFL on this and ESPN has been dumping tons into its app over the past few years to solve this problem.   Once this is fully stable then cable channels will start to evaporate.

Another massive change that doesn't get talked about a lot is that all ratings for cable viewership are estimated.   No one exactly knows how many do, they aren't tracking who turns it on or off or when.   They rely on people filling out viewing logs and then statistically model what was watched when.

Apps, however, know exactly who is watching, when, for how long.   This is going to drastically change how rights are valued.   On the negative side, if only 1M people streamed your game, instead of 1.8m estimated via a cable channel, its far more accurate and you'd be paid less for that.   On the plus side, advertisers currently value on reach and frequency, now they can use that and engagement, which could increase it.  Google is worth billions due to targeted advertising and has made YouTube personalities millionaires with it.   

Odds are that, outside the game itself, this is all going to look a lot different over the next decade.

[Thiefery 4995]

5 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah the big issue with streaming with live sports is they are live. Netflix rarely has anything being watched concurrently in a massive volume, just lots of different things that are in various stages of delivery, which taxes the system less.  If you streamed Game of Thrones at it peak, during episode launch the HBO ap would fail, or you'd get the spinning disk of go get a drink while you wait.   No one wants to wait on live events though so streaming has always been hit or miss on live sports.

Amazon has been doing a lot of work with the NFL on this and ESPN has been dumping tons into its app over the past few years to solve this problem.   Once this is fully stable then cable channels will start to evaporate.

Another massive change that doesn't get talked about a lot is that all ratings for cable viewership are estimated.   No one exactly knows how many do, they aren't tracking who turns it on or off or when.   They rely on people filling out viewing logs and then statistically model what was watched when.

Apps, however, know exactly who is watching, when, for how long.   This is going to drastically change how rights are valued.   On the negative side, if only 1M people streamed your game, instead of 1.8m estimated via a cable channel, its far more accurate and you'd be paid less for that.   On the plus side, advertisers currently value on reach and frequency, now they can use that and engagement, which could increase it.  Google is worth billions due to targeted advertising and has made YouTube personalities millionaires with it.   

Odds are that, outside the game itself, this is all going to look a lot different over the next decade.

We watched the final season of GOT live through the HBO GO app on my PS4 rather than the HBO on Fios.  The picture was clearer and the closed captioning was much better than the standard outdated block lettering verizon fios offers. We never had any issues watching the episodes live each week.

Also, as a boxing head, we were told that PPVs were higher to us consumers because the cable companies took half of the price off the top. the remainder was for the promoters and boxers on the card.  Does verizon get that advertising money that is shown on ESPN?  or does it go straight to ESPN?  Because if there is a cut there, ESPN could make more money selling advertising on an app instead, no?  so if only 1 mil watch okie light vs wv on a saturday night on the ESPN plus, who cares if NBC drew 800k more viewers televising ND vs Indiana?

[Hurtlocker 2212]

10 hours ago, Thiefery said:

We watched the final season of GOT live through the HBO GO app on my PS4 rather than the HBO on Fios.  The picture was clearer and the closed captioning was much better than the standard outdated block lettering verizon fios offers. We never had any issues watching the episodes live each week.

Also, as a boxing head, we were told that PPVs were higher to us consumers because the cable companies took half of the price off the top. the remainder was for the promoters and boxers on the card.  Does verizon get that advertising money that is shown on ESPN?  or does it go straight to ESPN?  Because if there is a cut there, ESPN could make more money selling advertising on an app instead, no?  so if only 1 mil watch okie light vs wv on a saturday night on the ESPN plus, who cares if NBC drew 800k more viewers televising ND vs Indiana?

Dang, I wish we didn't have an issue.  We started streaming an hour later just so we'd miss the constant time outs the app would give us.

Advertising is a bit of a mix.   The broadcasts have national and local ad slots.  If you pay attention you'll start to see where they are grouped.   ESPN sells the national spots, the provider, Fios in your example above, would be selling the locals to car dealerships etc.   The channels figured out a long time ago that local advertising is priced on how awesome they are (or not awesome) and that is how carriage rates work into the equation.   So, basically, the 8ish bucks the mouse charges Verizon per month per customer is their take of local ads and people signing up for service to get ESPN.  

You're right though, in a streaming environment, the ads currently go to the content creator, e.g. ESPN.   I'm sure there will be a role reversal at some point as the pipeline owners will want a cut of the content they're allowing to go down their infrastructure.   To date companies like Comcast have tried to add charges to streaming providers, or charge them for preferred bandwidth.   However, what they've been doing mostly to claw back some of that money is charging the end user a fee if they go over a data cap.   One way or another they'll get paid.

As for PPV, its not quite 50/50, but its close.   The promoter works with a distributor (HBO/Showtime/etc), then the distributor works out deals with the cable platforms(Verizon/Comcast/DirecTV).   Generally speaking the distributor gets 10%, the promoter gets 45%, and the remaining 45% is provided to the platforms.   The promoter pays the cards and pockets the rest.   

[ButtFumble 5172]

On 4/13/2020 at 1:06 PM, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah I agree with that second section.   I think the Pac 12 needs to sell the PACN, if it can find a carrier willing at this point.   Not only could it give an influx of cash from the sale, but work carriage deals better than Scott.   Along those lines, consolidate from 5 to 1, and push 30% of the inventory to T2 and I think you'll start to catch up a bit.   I don't really classify either the old Big12s or these changes for the Pac as "help" though, its not altruistic, its inventory sales.       

I still believe a combined Pac/B12 media contract is worth more than either apart, and that takes into account the Big 12's T1 package is freakishly outdated compared to the rest.

 

 

the PAC 12 was offered zero dollars and zero cents by ESPN to take over the network and then work a profit sharing deal and the PAC 12 declined

that was probably stupid, but there is really no chance at all of "selling the PAC 12n" the market has spoken and it is worth nothing

in addition to the shrinking cable market in general and the SLIGHT push back by cable MSOs for cramming new channels the PAC 12 in particular made it where there is no denying that the market has spoken and there is no demand for their network

sure ESPN could take it and try and cram it on MSOs, but the Big 10 network was just pushed off of some basic cable tiers and had some "in market rates" rejected by MSOs and with ESPN already trying to cram the ACCn they have their hands full and the PAC 12n is the perfect one for cable MSOs to finally tell them "fuck off" and start pushing back against all conference networks

 

On 4/12/2020 at 11:39 PM, camel at sea said:

The Big 12 had the same number of games - but the percentage of games involving a huge fanbase went from roughly 1/3 to 1/5th.   The money not dipping was help.  FOX jumping in with big money right when we needed it was help.  It was also "help" to get the Sugar Bowl tie-in.  I'm not arguing that the Big 12 didn't bring value to the table, or that the networks were acting altruistically, but there were factors outside of the Big 12's control that went the Big 12's way.

What would I view as "help" for the PAC in the context of my previous post?  Maybe they move a bunch of inventory away from their Tier 3 platform to Tier 2 and find a buyer that pays well.  That would better monetize their games than their current set-up.  Maybe they keep the Rose Bowl tie-in (post raid) or alternatively get one with the Fiesta Bowl that pays well.  Maybe the schools left behind are more willing to do the PAC After Dark, Thursday Night, Friday Night type games and get paid well for it.  So it would be akin to the Big 12's deal a decade ago.  It's not like they wouldn't bring value to those contracts.  But they wouldn't have a ton of leverage to get those deals to a point where they're financially competitive, either.

 

those factors did not "just go the Big 12's way"

1. Fox knew the Big 12 was 10 teams when they offered the Big 12 deal.....it was with aggy and MU at the time, but they only specified 10 teams to keep the deal whole so they knew the chances of the Big 12 losing 2 teams and needing to add 2 others and accepted that

2. ESPN had the ACC and Big 12 to choose from to sign the Sugar Bowl deal and that was AFTER the Big 12 had TCU and WVU.....not only did the Big 12 the Sugar Bowl, but they offered the same money as they offered the SEC SEC SEC 9$40 million) and they offered the ACC $27.5 for the Orange Bowl

3. the tier 1 deal with ESPN was set to expire 3 years after the Big 12 had TCU and WVU added to the conference.....ESPN offered the Big 12 a chance to renegotiate and extend that deal to match the Fox tier 2 deal in length 3 years early and in addition to that Fox offered slightly more money to the brand new tier 2 deal to get some better picks for games

so none of those factors point to "dumb luck" or "things just went the Big 12's way"......all of those things point to the fact that the networks wanted the product and paid for it

 

[Tom 2959]

On 4/13/2020 at 3:45 AM, JFKFC said:

Here is a link discussing USC to the Big 12 from an analyst who focuses on USC: 

https://247sports.com/Article/USC-joining-the-Big-12-down-the-line-makes-a-lot-of-sense-Trojans-PAC-12-television-contract-2024-144592787/

 

I'll happily eat all the crow if it comes to pass.  It just seems highly unlikely to me and I also think revenue models are going to change with continued cord cutting.  But you all do you.  I won't continue interrupting.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

the PAC 12 was offered zero dollars and zero cents by ESPN to take over the network and then work a profit sharing deal and the PAC 12 declined

 

 

It wasn't altruistic, ESPN was tying it to an extension of their current rights deal with the Pac 12 nearly 20 years into the late 2030s

[Tom 2959]

On 4/13/2020 at 1:07 PM, Hurtlocker said:

Don't you offseason bro?

On 4/13/2020 at 9:25 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

man, sorry this Internet sports message board is wasting your time

 

It's okay, bud.  I forgive you.

[Gaffords 755]

4 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

 

the PAC 12 was offered zero dollars and zero cents by ESPN to take over the network and then work a profit sharing deal and the PAC 12 declined

that was probably stupid, but there is really no chance at all of "selling the PAC 12n" the market has spoken and it is worth nothing

in addition to the shrinking cable market in general and the SLIGHT push back by cable MSOs for cramming new channels the PAC 12 in particular made it where there is no denying that the market has spoken and there is no demand for their network

sure ESPN could take it and try and cram it on MSOs, but the Big 10 network was just pushed off of some basic cable tiers and had some "in market rates" rejected by MSOs and with ESPN already trying to cram the ACCn they have their hands full and the PAC 12n is the perfect one for cable MSOs to finally tell them "fuck off" and start pushing back against all conference networks

 

those factors did not "just go the Big 12's way"

1. Fox knew the Big 12 was 10 teams when they offered the Big 12 deal.....it was with aggy and MU at the time, but they only specified 10 teams to keep the deal whole so they knew the chances of the Big 12 losing 2 teams and needing to add 2 others and accepted that

2. ESPN had the ACC and Big 12 to choose from to sign the Sugar Bowl deal and that was AFTER the Big 12 had TCU and WVU.....not only did the Big 12 the Sugar Bowl, but they offered the same money as they offered the SEC SEC SEC 9$40 million) and they offered the ACC $27.5 for the Orange Bowl

3. the tier 1 deal with ESPN was set to expire 3 years after the Big 12 had TCU and WVU added to the conference.....ESPN offered the Big 12 a chance to renegotiate and extend that deal to match the Fox tier 2 deal in length 3 years early and in addition to that Fox offered slightly more money to the brand new tier 2 deal to get some better picks for games

so none of those factors point to "dumb luck" or "things just went the Big 12's way"......all of those things point to the fact that the networks wanted the product and paid for it

 

Just wait until streaming becomes the main way content is delivered.  It gives the duck even more control.  They can't force packages on national cable carriers carriers, but streaming gives them all the control to package their content any way they see fit and force the consumer to take it or leave it...   

You got to admit that it will be hysterical if they decided to piggyback the LHN on anyone wanting the SECNET (or accnet).  What a conundrum for aggy.  They can send all the strongly worded letters they want threatening to cancel their streaming service, but we all know they will suck it up and pay anyways...  secsecsecnet...  They refuse to admit it, but we all know they are all closet horn viewers as it is, but the amount of threads started on texags each time we play says it all.  

[kopp0e 1135]

On 4/13/2020 at 10:22 PM, Hurtlocker said:

I think OU is locked in through 24-25 too, like the rest of the content except LHN.   And they did it because the Big 12 wanted more for the CCGs they were selling.   Originally ESPN paid a premium higher than any other conference at over $30m, but they did that to get rid of the clause that they had to pay the Big 12 the same for content if they added teams.   So they weren't willing to go that high again.   They did, however, want content for ESPN+.   So they did a little of both.   

The Sooners  3rd tier media deal, is set to be renewed by 2022...

The latest insight from Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione, gives an idea of how thoughts of this crisis has impacted the university:
 

 

Castiglione: Financial impact will be felt 'in a noticeable way'

• Joey HelmerSTAFF
  Posted on Apr 14th, 12:37 AM, , User Since 136 months ago, User Post Count: 0
  • Apr 14th, 12:37 AM
  • 136 months
  
  NORMAN, Okla. — Iowa State and Louisville are a couple of schools that have already made budget and pay cuts in their athletic departments to deal with the financial implications of COVID-19. Oklahoma may not be that far behind.
  
  “Some of them are taking short-term action. Some are long-term,” Castiglione said. “Any and everything you could consider as a possibility is on the table.”
  
  What’s certain are economic repercussions from the ongoing crisis. Castiglione said it “would be grossly naïve” to assume otherwise.
  
  “It’s a moving target,” Castiglione said. “I think at a minimum it’s going to impact us in a noticeable way. Can I put a percentage on it right now? I hesitate to do that because it would just be a guess because I don’t know the rest of the equation, and nor do you, nor does anyone. If I had a crystal ball, we might be able to get closer to quantifying that.”
  
  The Sooners have already accounted for their share of revenue losses from the cancellation of the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, a figure of $375 million that won’t be distributed. Now they’re simply bracing and preparing for what may be next.
  
  “We’re just hoping to minimize it because one doesn’t know,” Castiglione said. “This affects the economy of all those that support our athletic program or programs or universities or the businesses that are affected. I just read something today where unemployment is now at 10%. That’s a large number for our country. And so we start to see that, and not sure whether how much more that’s going to grow. Experts are telling us it’s going to grow. So it’s anybody’s guess how much higher that grows.
  
  “But you can’t look at those kinds of things and ignore the possibility that it will impact us to some degree. So that’s why I hesitate to say we’re taking this step or that step right now, because it’s not really completely certain what one would base it on. We might take a step that may sound good for a sound byte, but it might fall woefully short of where we need to be. And so we will announce those steps as we feel it’s appropriate and prudent.”
  
  Castiglione has dealt with similar situations before, be it the 2008 financial crisis, fluctuating energy prices, which he labeled as events that are “national in nature, sometimes statewide in nature and sometimes campus wide in nature.” Yet, he again reiterated as in recent days that this is unprecedented.
  
  “This is way beyond anybody’s imagination,” Castiglione said. “I was telling somebody the other day I feel like we’re living one of those movies that we rent to watch, and the storyline and the cinematography and the drama and whatever emotions that really hit, and then the movie would end and you get up and walk out of the theatre and realize, ‘Wow, that was quite a story, but it was just a movie.’
  
  “This one we are living day-to-day and we still don’t know exactly if we are a fourth of the way through it, halfway through it, three-fourths of the way through it. We don’t know.”
  
  Like he said, there are simply a lot of moving parts. Castiglione, though, did report some good news, noting that just more than 70% of donors and ticketholders have renewed for the 2020 season.
  
  “That’s positive,” Castiglione said. “But I also realize it may be a while before we know how much or how many of the other 30% decides they can renew. So we’re grateful. We’re thankful for all of them. We’re constantly talking to them, interacting with them, and I think, if anything, we’re building stronger relationships.”
  
  These trying times continue to make forecasting difficult. The uncertainty continues, although the one certainty is things are quite a bit different right now.

In my opinion, it makes it more likely that Oklahoma will look to stay with as many rivals (long term, as well as preserve UT game as a league event), & could still include adding USC, etc...
Oklahoma/ Texas, are 2 of most solvent athletic departments, but the same can't be said for Washington/Oregon/California/USC/UCLA/Arizona/Arizona State/Colorado, who need XII now...
The idea of "doubling down" in losing tv revenues, along with cutting into donors & ticketholders in giving games that have no history, vs that of (many) known rivalries, I'm doubtful about it.

[JFKFC 4879]

11 hours ago, Tom said:

 

I'll happily eat all the crow if it comes to pass.  It just seems highly unlikely to me and I also think revenue models are going to change with continued cord cutting.  But you all do you.  I won't continue interrupting.

I'm not saying it is likely or that it certaintly will happen. I just wanted to point out that it isn't off the rails crazy to think it could happen.

Personally, I want Texas in the B1G. Let's go to 4 18-team conferences. KU, Texas, Stanford & Cal to the B1G. 

[Thiefery 4995]

32 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

I'm not saying it is likely or that it certaintly will happen. I just wanted to point out that it isn't off the rails crazy to think it could happen.

Personally, I want Texas in the B1G. Let's go to 4 18-team conferences. KU, Texas, Stanford & Cal to the B1G. 

No, thank you.

[ButtFumble 5172]

9 hours ago, Gaffords said:

Just wait until streaming becomes the main way content is delivered.  It gives the duck even more control.  They can't force packages on national cable carriers carriers, but streaming gives them all the control to package their content any way they see fit and force the consumer to take it or leave it...   

You got to admit that it will be hysterical if they decided to piggyback the LHN on anyone wanting the SECNET (or accnet).  What a conundrum for aggy.  They can send all the strongly worded letters they want threatening to cancel their streaming service, but we all know they will suck it up and pay anyways...  secsecsecnet...  They refuse to admit it, but we all know they are all closet horn viewers as it is, but the amount of threads started on texags each time we play says it all.  

I am not sure it works out that way

the facts are that disney/abc/espn, comcrap, nbc, Fox and all the other major media companies are shit at streaming.....they have shit quality apps, shit quality streams (espn being one of the worst), and they still view streaming as being just like cable only over the internet and something that can be treated like cable (with channel cramming and the like)

their overhead is massive and that is just for the streaming operations and not including all the legacy bullshit they will try and cram into the price of their streaming, they are poor at monetizing advertising on it (again espn one of the worst with that black screen with espn on it and that little tune that repeats even on streams directly off of their site while the TV ads play) and they are just fucking idiots overall that think their "talent" makes the event vs the event being the focus of the audience

there is a lot of room for companies outside of the big media companies to step in and cut espn and the other shit bags out of the equation

with USC and others there is no reason to think they could not get $1 or $2 per subscriber per month and get perhaps 500,000 subs at that price and get $6 to $12 million per year in gross income with a streaming service taking 10% or 20% off the top and then some low overhead for some former USC players to make $20,000 per game to not say much and some production cost.....netting them perhaps $4 to $10 million per year for third tier content that they get less than #3 million for now

add in some single game sales where the tomato can of the week gets them $50,000 in one game purchases so they can see their team play USC and some maybe a bit more for some top basketball games and it all adds up

but you have to get past the idea that the big media companies are worth a fuck and that they only bring high overhead and massive legacy cost to the equation along with shit technical abilities

[TXK 0]

It's going to be interesting to see how the COVID-19 fallout impacts everything. Could be harder for conferences to secure large contracts. Could be easier since live programming might become even more sought after. I've not thought much about CV19 impact on sports, but I feel like a huge shift is coming. Things are NOT going to be the same kind of normal. 

Some schools will cancel sports - some might even cancel football?

A few leagues will contract. Maybe leagues like the MAC and CUSA downgrade?

All in all, I think everything works out well for Texas. Status quo was our enemy. Shifting landscapes make large, profitable properties even more valuable.

Maybe we can tell the SEC we'll come with OU but you have to kick A&M out? (That's a joke.) 

[kopp0e 1135]

15 hours ago, TXK said:

It's going to be interesting to see how the COVID-19 fallout impacts everything. Could be harder for conferences to secure large contracts. Could be easier since live programming might become even more sought after. I've not thought much about CV19 impact on sports, but I feel like a huge shift is coming. Things are NOT going to be the same kind of normal. 

Some schools will cancel sports - some might even cancel football?

A few leagues will contract. Maybe leagues like the MAC and CUSA downgrade?

All in all, I think everything works out well for Texas. Status quo was our enemy. Shifting landscapes make large, profitable properties even more valuable.

Maybe we can tell the SEC we'll come with OU but you have to kick A&M out? (That's a joke.) 

Looking at it from the angle of G5 (those schools' are in trouble):

As pandemic persists, USF and AAC brace for possible budget crisis

The Bulls haven’t taken any drastic cost-cutting measures, but are preparing for the possibility.

By Joey Knight
Published YesterdayAt this point of the pandemic, the clouds remain thousands of feet above the Selmon Athletics Center; present and visible but remote and distant. Sort of like worst-case scenarios.

As a Group of Five entity trying to weather the coronavirus crisis, USF must prepare for the possibility of that sky falling. So far it hasn’t: No non-revenue sports have been eliminated (unlike at Cincinnati), no athletic department staffers have been furloughed or laid off.

On the contrary, the school still plans to honor emergency NCAA legislation that will permit seniors in spring sports to compete in 2021 if they so desire.

“It may not be at the same level (of financial aid),” Bulls athletic director Michael Kelly said. “But we’re working toward making as much of that happen as possible.”

Yet as we’ve all been reminded, this is a fluid situation, even as the flow of revenue streams decreases. If society’s shutdown lingers into autumn, things could get dicey ― or even calamitous ― for the Bulls and their American Athletic Conference peers.

RELATED:At USF, academic eligibility waits for no vaccine
“(Losing) football (in 2020) would be a huge impact,” AAC commissioner Mike Aresco told SirusXM radio host Mark Packer on Tuesday. “And I think we could probably weather it, but there could be ramifications.”

The severity of the ramifications varies depending on a school’s revenue sources, and a hearty chunk of USF’s arrives from student fees.

A USA Today study of athletic department budgets at public universities indicated nearly $24 million (53 percent) of USF’s athletic department revenues for the 2017-18 fiscal year came from “allocated” funds. Student fees represented a large portion of that ($17.2 million).

Similarly, more than $28 million (45.6 percent) of UCF’s revenue came from allocated money, including $23.1 million in student fees. By contrast, Florida’s revenue included only 1.45 percent of allocations.

“And you don’t know what the situation will be in the fall, whether there will be online courses again, whether people will be in session,” said Aresco, whose schools already lost a substantial slice of revenue with the cancellation of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

“You don’t know whether enrollment will drop, you don’t know whether student fees will be affected. So there are some definite clouds on the horizon financially, even though … our conference is healthy and we’ve got reserves, but we’ll just have to see how that goes.”

RELATED:How the coronavirus pandemic has impacted college football recruiting
Meantime, the Bulls brace themselves. Cost-reducing measures have been discussed in case the sky-falling scenario comes to fruition. Similarly, Aresco said the AAC has explored obtaining a line of credit.

“If football doesn’t happen, everybody’s got big problems, but we will absolutely survive,” Aresco said. “We’ll figure out a way to get through it.”

If the 2020 football season is nixed, also teams like Washington State/ Oregon State & Wake Forest, could be the next "Idaho" (move to a lower league)...

[hiphopfroggy 121]

 

Washington Mailbag: Would UW jump without WSU if invited to another conference?

 

By Christian Caple  3h ago 3 

SEATTLE — I don’t know how I found time for it, what with my social calendar bursting at the seams, but, by golly, we’ve got ourselves a mailbag.

Would Jen Cohen value the relationships with Washington State/Oregon State enough to not go with Oregon/USC to the Big 12 if/when that happens? — Jason J.

If conference realignment and/or expansion ever become that serious of a consideration, there will be many other decision-makers at the table besides the athletic director — like the president and Board of Regents, for example. The relationship between UW and WSU at the AD level has been a cordial one; Cohen got along well with ex-WSU athletic director Bill Moos and has a strong relationship with current AD Pat Chun. I’m not as sure what that relationship looks like among the campus heads. There was the spat a few years back involving the new medical school in Spokane, but it seems as if UW president Ana Mari Cauce and WSU president Kirk...

 

 

 

https://theathletic.com/1751437/2020/04/16/washington-huskes-mailbag-conference-realignment-jimmy-lake-sean-mcgrew/

 

 

Sorry paywall...