Jump to content

Big12 is NOT dead

joeycovers

By joeycovers
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

But the idea that conference networks will be as lucrative as they once were, or that poaching schools from large population states is the way to maximize value for a conference that carries one seems to be dead.  The Big 10 Network isn't going anywhere, but the incentive to gobble up new states isn't what it was, which has made it easier for the Big 12 to compete financially, and as we've seen it's clearly in the middle of the P5 conferences. 

As much as you'd like this to be a fact, it's an opinion at this point.  I'll disagree with it and we'll see where it goes.  Streaming TV will make it so everyone will get the same basic content they had 10 years ago, but it will just be cheaper because you're cutting out overhead of the TV company, that's my view.

GORs are what stopped realignment, we'll have a much better idea where this is headed in 2021-2022, it's just on pause for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Thiefery said:

I pay $210 a month to Verizon Fios for the ultimate package (which includes the sporting, premium channels and yes the LHN) and quantum internet.  I just signed up for another two year contract because I was about to pay more with bundling and internet.  This a la cart shit can get out of hand .. doesn't help that I'm a boxing fan and have to keep showtime just for that plus the annual ppv or two.

I pay $60 for cable internet, then piggy back Youtube TV for $40/month, that gets me everything I need.  My only real concern is college football and NFL Redzone (which Youtube TV doesn't have yet, hoping they add it by 9/1), so I don't feel I need to spend beyond that.

I rotate between Netflix/Showtime/HBO depending on when I want to watch their content.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

Do you produce all of the hundreds of videos you post here?  Or do you get some sort of royalty for generating clicks?

Neither... Although I have thought of studying how to do production/ editing on my own... But that would actually take away from my ability to post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12409

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

As much as you'd like this to be a fact, it's an opinion at this point.  I'll disagree with it and we'll see where it goes.  Streaming TV will make it so everyone will get the same basic content they had 10 years ago, but it will just be cheaper because you're cutting out overhead of the TV company, that's my view.

GORs are what stopped realignment, we'll have a much better idea where this is headed in 2021-2022, it's just on pause for now.

I understand that you probably want further realignment as much as I don't, so we're both arguing from a position of self interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21744

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

As much as you'd like this to be a fact, it's an opinion at this point.  I'll disagree with it and we'll see where it goes.  Streaming TV will make it so everyone will get the same basic content they had 10 years ago, but it will just be cheaper because you're cutting out overhead of the TV company, that's my view.

GORs are what stopped realignment, we'll have a much better idea where this is headed in 2021-2022, it's just on pause for now.

The model was to charge people in markets who don't care about the network.  That never made sense.  Paying for shit you don't watch is why people are cutting the cord and why the cable racket is falling apart.  We're not going backwards on this.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I understand that you probably want further realignment as much as I don't, so we're both arguing from a position of self interest.

For Iowa, I'd prefer 14 or 20, I think 16 is worst case scenario.

I'd be perfectly fine staying at 14 forever, not sure that's realistic though.  We're in holding pattern fro the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The model was to charge people in markets who don't care about the network.  That never made sense.  Paying for shit you don't watch is why people are cutting the cord and why the cable racket is falling apart.  We're not going backwards on this.  

People are cutting the cord because TV has gotten too expensive, not because "we're paying for shit we don't want" - people were paying for shit they didn't want in the 90's, but it was OK because the cost was reasonable.  This is a cost problem, not a content problem.  The channels you don't want are probably charging you less than $0.75 per month, in many cases probably less than $0.30 per month.  Fewer bundles mean sports fans will start bearing more of the burden of the cable bill, because non sports fans will probably get rid of it, and the networks won't take less money, so they'll just charge more.  But we won't stop watching sports, we'll just have to pay more to watch them.  This is probably the way it should be anyway, I'd agree with that, non-sports fans have been subsidizing sports fan's viewing for a long time.

If you go purely ala carte (channel by channel), everyone ends up paying more and getting less content, it's why some form of bundling makes sense.  The current base bundles have gotten too large and overhead costs (i.e. Rob Lowe commercials) have gotten too high, it's why streaming services will continue to become more popular.  With streaming TV you're using existing infrastructure/hardware to watch television rather than paying for an entirely different set of hardware for just TV, cutting out the TV provider overhead reduces the cost of the service.

All the channel providers are going to work together to preserve some degree of bundling because they benefit from it (and as consumers, we do too, or at least sports fans have).  It's the reason ESPN's plus bundle ($5 per month) still holds back everything valuable - "Sure, we'll let you subscribe to ESPN+, but you don't get to see any good college football and no NFL games".  I imagine what eventually happens is that there will be a sports "basic" tier that will include both ESPN/FOX, it will cost the same as it does now, but after cutting out the TV provider (i.e. Dish/DirecTV) it becomes much more affordable and everyone is a lot happier

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13093

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hawkfan said:

GORs are what stopped realignment, we'll have a much better idea where this is headed in 2021-2022, it's just on pause for now.

Glad to see the ruining of College Football is on hold for a few more years. Pity the once great Big 10 is one of the leading forces in this farce.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12409

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

For Iowa, I'd prefer 14 or 20, I think 16 is worst case scenario.

I'd be perfectly fine staying at 14 forever, not sure that's realistic though.  We're in holding pattern fro the next few years.

Destruction of Iowa State is in Iowa's best interest, too.  Iowa fans might say they don't want to see it, but at the same time you're aware it will only be a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jinx

jinx 2635

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

People are cutting the cord because TV has gotten too expensive, not because "we're paying for shit we don't want"

Gonna have to disagree here.  There is almost nothing aside from live sports that I watch on "TV", and I used to have to have the most expensive bundle to get all of the channels that my kids liked to watch.  I still have 3 kids under 18 and they NEVER watch TV anymore, they just stream Netflix or Youtube.  Now I pay for much fewer channels, and I didn't cut the cord for the sole reason that I want to be able to watch every college game that I can.

Once this contract is up, I am probably done with TV because the streaming options cover what I want.  TV is a dying media, ask any kid you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21744

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

People are cutting the cord because TV has gotten too expensive, not because "we're paying for shit we don't want" - people were paying for shit they didn't want in the 90's, but it was OK because the cost was reasonable.  This is a cost problem, not a content problem.  The channels you don't want are probably charging you less than $0.75 per month, in many cases probably less than $0.30 per month.  Fewer bundles mean sports fans will start bearing more of the burden of the cable bill, because non sports fans will probably get rid of it, and the networks won't take less money, so they'll just charge more.  But we won't stop watching sports, we'll just have to pay more to watch them.  This is probably the way it should be anyway, I'd agree with that, non-sports fans have been subsidizing sports fan's viewing for a long time.

If you go purely ala carte (channel by channel), everyone ends up paying more and getting less content, it's why some form of bundling makes sense.  The current base bundles have gotten too large and overhead costs (i.e. Rob Lowe commercials) have gotten too high, it's why streaming services will continue to become more popular.  With streaming TV you're using existing infrastructure/hardware to watch television rather than paying for an entirely different set of hardware for just TV, cutting out the TV provider overhead reduces the cost of the service.

All the channel providers are going to work together to preserve some degree of bundling because they benefit from it (and as consumers, we do too, or at least sports fans have).  It's the reason ESPN's plus bundle ($5 per month) still holds back everything valuable - "Sure, we'll let you subscribe to ESPN+, but you don't get to see any good college football and no NFL games".  I imagine what eventually happens is that there will be a sports "basic" tier that will include both ESPN/FOX, it will cost the same as it does now, but after cutting out the TV provider (i.e. Dish/DirecTV) it becomes much more affordable and everyone is a lot happier

That shit adds up, and there weren't 900 channels in the 90's, nor were there "bundles" which cost a ton and require you to purchase a bunch of channels you don't want.  There sure as fuck wasn't a Big 10 network, PAC network, LHN, etc., which they make you pay for in the "sports bundle" even if you only really want ESPN and FS1.  The model during realignment was that everyone in Texas with the "sports bundle" pays something for the SEC network simply because they added A&M (TV markets yo!  Hence Rutgers and Maryland).  Nobody watches that shit but aggy during their mason jar sessions.  There is simply too much content these days, which has made the cost skyrocket ridiculously, and is a big reason why people are cutting the cord.  Ala carte may not be where were heading, but a vast reduction in useless content will be required to lower the costs.    

Edited by 'stache
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
camel at sea

camel at sea 589

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, JBJ said:

OU just hit the $1BB brand valuation mark - passing up Alabama (Texas and tOSU are the other two above $1BB).  They aren't going anywhere.

Just depends on which OU fans you talk to.  If you read OU threads on this topic, there are definitely a few people bordering on the fanatical about leaving the Big 12.  It's a perspective thing.  If you see OU's valuation as unrelated to conference affiliation, then maybe the school is being held back by the status quo.  

The most common position I run into from the "we have to leave" people on the OU boards is that there are academic/research benefits to leaving.  The other big position is that there aren't any helmet programs in the Big 12 that can *ever* visit Norman now that Nebraska is gone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, hawkfan said:

The PAC 12 made a really stupid decision by deciding to start their own network - they have no partners and no leverage.  That's the main reason their network is failing miserably.

The B1G only has 49% ownership of the BTN, but Fox has 51% ownership and has just as much incentive as the B1G to see the network succeed.  The deal with Comcast will get done because Fox has the ability to blackout B1G games on FS1 if a carrier doesn't carry the BTN.  I believe the B1G has already been lining up some key games on FS1 to setup problems for Comcast if they do hold out past 8/31 (I think Michigan/Nebraska might have been announced as a FS1 game with this dispute in mind).  The fact that Fox can blackout high demand games on FS1 gives them a lot of leverage.  This was another major reason Fox paid a premium for the B1G Tier 1/2 rights, because they knew it gave them more leverage w/ the BTN (by controlling games on FS1).

"Cord cutters" won't have much of an impact on the model once streaming TV sorts itself out.  The fact is, every channel, and consumers, benefit from bundling to some degree.  The internet is going to make it so you can have a lot more choice in what bundles you want to pay for (like pairing Youtube TV w/ Philo, for instance).  The problem is that the cost for TV got to a point where people weren't wiling to pay for it anymore, and the internet has provided a great solution.  A lot of people have a problem paying $120 a month for TV, no one probably complains at $40-$50 a month, which is what I'm spending on Youtube TV now, and I'm still paying the BTN, just like I was w/ DirecTV.  I'm just not paying DirecTV for their equipment and overhead.

With 100% ownership of the PACN, it makes it more plausible that ESPN could look to gain a % of rights to said network by incorporating LHN into a subchannel...

In doing so the PAC is backed by a powerful brand distributor in Disney, ESPN still keeps UT, while "locking in" OU/ KU/ USC/ UCLA & whichever members the 'Horns take with...

This gives ESPN flexibility to package a "college sports tier" with the ACC, SEC & PAC/XII placed as a stand alone sports network that can be streamed into home, or linear channel...

7 hours ago, hawkfan said:

Right, you're always going to have "boring" games, no matter what conference you're in.  And you need some of them to pile up wins.

For UT/OU, the question comes down to what would tangible benefits would they get from moving?  Unless it was the right circumstances, I'm not sure they'd gain much as of now.  It would require 4+ schools coming with them to maintain some degree of regional identity, which means the PAC would need to go to 16, and the other three would probably have to be willing to go to 20 to accommodate that type of move.

As long as ESPN is willing to renew the LHN deal, UT might as well stay put.  If ESPN is losing money on the LHN and decides to dramatically reduce the terms or scrap it altogether, then things could get interesting.  The B1G is expected to pull down close to $52M for each school next year (less Rutgers/Maryland until they're fully vested):

http://footballscoop.com/news/big-tens-revenue-distributions-will-top-52-million-per-school-next-year/

If there is a significant revenue gap between UT/OU and the B1G revenue keeps going up, that could become a reason OU tries to make a jump when the GOR gets close to expiring, or at least uses that threat to leverage the best terms they can out of the Big 12.

Why should OU go to the B1G and leave it's main rival in UT, when there is a chance for the XII to add top PAC brands to build a stronger division, when comparing the two:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If the Big 10 were expanding today, would they add Rutgers and Maryland?

I would guess not, as it would have made more sense in 2010 to look at adding both Missouri & Kansas as well as Nebraska in growing to 14... 

Thus would make a selling point of adding both Texas & Oklahoma to reach 16 much more feasible to the appetite of the common fan, who grew up with those "rivalries" in the XII...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Glad to see the ruining of College Football is on hold for a few more years. Pity the once great Big 10 is one of the leading forces in this farce.

The B1G oversold it's position of relative strength to look at damaging the ACC at the time, to force Notre Dame to eventually reconsider joining years later...

The crux was to take Maryland, and the "flood gates" to the ACC would open in UVA & UNC looking to join along with another nor'eastern team as Syracuse, but it didn't work, and even backfired, as now the B1G is stuck with a team even the ACC passed over a time or two... Eventually the conference will be fine, but chasing "revenues over rivalries: was a folly indeed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, hawkfan said:

I assume they probably would, none of us can answer that question.  I think they're operating under the assumption that it's a lot easier to cultivate a fan base than it is to grow a city out of nowhere.  Those schools fit the academic profile, have large alumni bases, and are located in huge metro areas - they check every box except "football prestige".  I think their inclusions probably require that any further additions have some kind of national prestige (football most likely, or at least basketball).

Just two years ago the B1G renegotiated their TV deal and opted to go with only a six year deal rather than lock in their fat contract for a longer term (prior deal was a 10 year deal) - what does that tell you about what Fox/BTN think about "cord cutting"?  They obviously aren't worried about it or they would have opted for a longer term agreement.

I'm not going to operate under the assumption that I know more about the future of TV rights than Fox.

When the B1G signed it's contract 2 years ago, cord cutting was still expected to "flatline" at some point, and it hasn't done so, actually it's rapidly increasing the rate of  cancellations...

In the mindset explained of the B1G, why not add both Connecticut and The State University of New York - Buffalo, as both are AAU schools, and adds new regions, & leave the XII as is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12409

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

Just depends on which OU fans you talk to.  If you read OU threads on this topic, there are definitely a few people bordering on the fanatical about leaving the Big 12.  It's a perspective thing.  If you see OU's valuation as unrelated to conference affiliation, then maybe the school is being held back by the status quo.  

The most common position I run into from the "we have to leave" people on the OU boards is that there are academic/research benefits to leaving.  The other big position is that there aren't any helmet programs in the Big 12 that can *ever* visit Norman now that Nebraska is gone.

They're aware that the schedules produced by these larger conference won't deliver a "helmet" program any more frequently than a non-conference arrangement, correct?

Obviously they aren't aware of this, but that's been the reality of 14 team conferences over the past 7 seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Not only is realignment thread not going away, it has now manifested itself in new and oh-so-exciting threads.

Depending on the context of the proposed argument, no thread is safe... 😳 #InfestLikeGremlins

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
camel at sea

camel at sea 589

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They're aware that the schedules produced by these larger conference won't deliver a "helmet" program any more frequently than a non-conference arrangement, correct?

Obviously they aren't aware of this, but that's been the reality of 14 team conferences over the past 7 seasons.

Hypothetically:  If OU is in the SEC West, the Sooners are at least sharing a division with LSU (which I think most would consider a helmet school.)  So that's an upgrade from zero.  in the B1G West OU gets Nebraska annually.  In both conferences, you'd get occasional cross-division games against helmet schools.  In the Big 12 though?  Never.  

 

The Big 12 could offset the situation to some degree by reducing the number of conference games back to 8.  A 2nd helmet school on the annual OOC schedule would be easier to work out with 4 open OOC slots instead of just 3.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, jinx said:

Gonna have to disagree here.  There is almost nothing aside from live sports that I watch on "TV", and I used to have to have the most expensive bundle to get all of the channels that my kids liked to watch.  I still have 3 kids under 18 and they NEVER watch TV anymore, they just stream Netflix or Youtube.  Now I pay for much fewer channels, and I didn't cut the cord for the sole reason that I want to be able to watch every college game that I can.

Once this contract is up, I am probably done with TV because the streaming options cover what I want.  TV is a dying media, ask any kid you know.

But you just agreed with me... My argument is that streaming TV allows you to pay less and still get the content you want to see, and the content providers still get paid what they're currently making.

No matter which streaming service you choose - PS Vue, YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Etc., they all include the sports channels you want for the most part, and you're paying the same rate to the content provider as you were with DirecTV/Dish/Comcast/Etc.  The difference is, you just cut out the overhead for the middleman.

You can get things like Philo or Sling's package with no sports, but if you want to watch UT, you're going to get one of the services with the sports channels, and once you bump to the $40-$50 sport tier, they include almost all of them (including SECN & BTN).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Destruction of Iowa State is in Iowa's best interest, too.  Iowa fans might say they don't want to see it, but at the same time you're aware it will only be a benefit.

Not really what I find interesting about conference realignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeadArmadillo

DeadArmadillo 907

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, kopp0e said:

When the B1G signed it's contract 2 years ago, cord cutting was still expected to "flatline" at some point, and it hasn't done so, actually it's rapidly increasing the rate of  cancellations...

In the mindset explained of the B1G, why not add both Connecticut and The State University of New York - Buffalo, as both are AAU schools, and adds new regions, & leave the XII as is...

Might wanna check that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, DeadArmadillo said:

Might wanna check that

My bad, 1 AAU school in The State University of New York - Buffalo, and 1 top Carnegie school in The University of Connecticut...

Point is still active, the B1G adding brands that fill in the footprint in the direction of the last expansion of 2012, by complementing Rutgers & Maryland...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BluTechsan

BluTechsan 393

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/7/2018 at 2:52 PM, camel at sea said:

Hypothetically:  If OU is in the SEC West, the Sooners are at least sharing a division with LSU (which I think most would consider a helmet school.)  So that's an upgrade from zero.  in the B1G West OU gets Nebraska annually.  In both conferences, you'd get occasional cross-division games against helmet schools.  In the Big 12 though?  Never.  

 

The Big 12 could offset the situation to some degree by reducing the number of conference games back to 8.  A 2nd helmet school on the annual OOC schedule would be easier to work out with 4 open OOC slots instead of just 3.  

This. This right here. Why is it so difficult to understand?

Edited by BluTechsan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2208

Posted
Posted
On 8/7/2018 at 12:23 PM, Valmy77 said:

Glad to see the ruining of College Football is on hold for a few more years. Pity the once great Big 10 is one of the leading forces in this farce.

This I agree with, it used to be cool.   Now its just kinda meh.    Should have stayed at 10.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, kopp0e said:

XII ain't dead, with access to talent like this:

 

Rule #3, never get into a discussion of “breeding” when it relates to the state of Ohio.  It’s better to stick to happy origin stories like AIDS or National Socialism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
On 8/12/2018 at 9:53 PM, Big Frog II said:

Every conference has its pluses and minuses.  The Big 12's biggest problem was stability.  Now that the malcontents are gone, stability is now taking hold.

I think it eventually possible that the XII in fact, expand back to 12 members, as the league is better situated than just a few years back (so it's not impossible)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...