The connection is so easy.

Television networks pay conferences billions for the right to broadcast football games -- to capture moments like the Jadeveon Clowney whiplash hit in the Outback Bowl. So when conferences make major decisions, clearly television told them to do it.

Right, Steve Spurrier?

"Anything can happen when television starts telling you what to do," said the South Carolina coach from the SEC Media Days in late May about the league's possible transition to a nine-game conference schedule.

Suggesting television drives the boat in the modern game is nothing new, largely because of the money involved (well over $10 billion among the entire Football Bowl Subdivision). Fair or not, four years of conference realignment raised questions about television's role in the process.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-most-say

They polled 20 people including television executives and conference commissioners. Did they really think that either television execs or the commissioners want this thing viewed any other way that it is a mutual collaboration? The conferences sell a product and the TV networks buy it. One receives money and one pays it out. The one receiving serves the one paying. That tells you who is in control.

Texahoma is proposed and ESPN buys off Texas.

Kansas could be a target for Big 10 expansion and ESPN gives them a great tier 3 deal.

The SEC finds out Missouri would pay out more than WVU and we get Missouri (in which case either was fine by me).

The Big 12 needs two in a hurry so T.C.U. is the easy pick and then they are apparently told that W.V.U. pays more than Louisville.

The Catholic Seven form under FOX supervision.

If anything the GOR's are an attempt by the conferences to quell what seemed to be constant upheaval on the horizon due to networks fighting over product. They won't be totally effective but will slow it down quite a bit.

In retrospect the recent three years activity in realignment is almost exclusively the product of networks going after the best commercial advertising investment (live sports) with the least overhead (since conferences essentially provide the content and the networks only the crews necessary to broadcast it). Live sports is high profit yield and in the age of digital recordings the only one for which advertisers still pay top rates. So why realignment?

In order to maximize those commercial advertising dollars networks had to find a way to keep all regions of the country engaged for as much of the season as possible. They needed to eliminate dud games. And they wanted to streamline the product line to eliminate those teams which can't produce substantial regional or national viewers. They also wanted to maximize the markets for the the conferences with the strongest appeal. Hence the goal was to move toward 4 major conferences with top draws distributed among all four and with a playoff structure that would allow them to keep interest moving forward in every broadcast region at least until the semifinal week. By promising more money to the Big 10, SEC, PAC, and ACC and initially to the Big 12 they have already effectively cut down the field to 65 total teams.

So, who controls realignment? I think it is obvious. It is the networks.

(07-07-2013 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They polled 20 people including television executives and conference commissioners. Did they really think that either television execs or the commissioners want this thing viewed any other way that it is a mutual collaboration? The conferences sell a product and the TV networks buy it. One receives money and one pays it out. The one receiving serves the one paying. That tells you who is in control.

Texahoma is proposed and ESPN buys off Texas.

Kansas could be a target for Big 10 expansion and ESPN gives them a great tier 3 deal.

The SEC finds out Missouri would pay out more than WVU and we get Missouri (in which case either was fine by me).

The Big 12 needs two in a hurry so T.C.U. is the easy pick and then they are apparently told that W.V.U. pays more than Louisville.

The Catholic Seven form under FOX supervision.

If anything the GOR's are an attempt by the conferences to quell what seemed to be constant upheaval on the horizon due to networks fighting over product. They won't be totally effective but will slow it down quite a bit.

In retrospect the recent three years activity in realignment is almost exclusively the product of networks going after the best commercial advertising investment (live sports) with the least overhead (since conferences essentially provide the content and the networks only the crews necessary to broadcast it). Live sports is high profit yield and in the age of digital recordings the only one for which advertisers still pay top rates. So why realignment?

In order to maximize those commercial advertising dollars networks had to find a way to keep all regions of the country engaged for as much of the season as possible. They needed to eliminate dud games. And they wanted to streamline the product line to eliminate those teams which can't produce substantial regional or national viewers. They also wanted to maximize the markets for the the conferences with the strongest appeal. Hence the goal was to move toward 4 major conferences with top draws distributed among all four and with a playoff structure that would allow them to keep interest moving forward in every broadcast region at least until the semifinal week. By promising more money to the Big 10, SEC, PAC, and ACC and initially to the Big 12 they have already effectively cut down the field to 65 total teams.

So, who controls realignment? I think it is obvious. It is the networks.

For now. Maybe there will come a time when the power conferences get together and realize they need to bundle their Tier 1 product in its entirety to two or three networks?

Cheers,
Neil

As a fan who prefers going to games to watching them on TV, I am concerned with the stranglehold the networks have on the schools for reasons not realignment related. Here are Terry Holland's thoughts on the matter, as told to the Hartford Courant:

"Intercollegiate athletics is on a very fast train, but nobody seems quite sure where that train will end up since it seems to have little guidance or motivation to do anything other than to follow the television money. If you count the actual attendance, instead of tickets sold (or simply distributed), we should know that 9 p.m. start times to accommodate television are a two-edged sword. Those games provide wider exposure and television money to the institutions involved ... but it is entirely possible that athletics departments are unwitting participants in a strategy that trains fans to stay home and watch on television. It is important to remember that the athletics department's main goal has always been to schedule games at the most convenient time for the majority of its fans to attend each game. However, television would prefer to play the game at the least convenient time for fans to attend, since fans that stay home help the game receive high ratings for all the eyeballs watching at home. If you had a thriving business and a competitor in the same business wanted to pay you to change your business hours, would you take the easy money? What would be the likely long term result of such a business strategy? Are we asking ourselves the right questions about the long term result of taking too much television money?

At the present time, the television partners have an interest in protecting attendance because the "game atmosphere" adds value to their telecast. However, if these huge contracts with conferences are back-loaded, as I believe they are, at some point the price they are paying for content is likely to be so great that they may not have the luxury of caring about attendance and game atmosphere. The competition between conferences for television dollars is driven by the need to provide their institutions with an equal opportunity to compete at the highest level, particularly against their neighboring conference(s). That mentality, in turn, creates a tremendous focus on maximizing today's financial opportunities and is an open invitation to "dance with the devil." ... That is why the conference commissioners as a whole need to be carefully evaluating the consequences of the current arms race that could change the face of intercollegiate athletics forever."

(07-07-2013 05:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Maybe there will come a time when the power conferences get together and realize they need to bundle their Tier 1 product in its entirety to two or three networks?

That's the solution that would increase the leverage of the schools.

But, if top conferences ever get close to a deal on consolidating their TV rights (or even a merger between two or more top conferences), ESPN can ensure enough in-fighting to stop the deal by just offering a sweetheart deal/bribe (a la LHN) to a few of the big kahunas.

(07-07-2013 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They polled 20 people including television executives and conference commissioners. Did they really think that either television execs or the commissioners want this thing viewed any other way that it is a mutual collaboration? The conferences sell a product and the TV networks buy it. One receives money and one pays it out. The one receiving serves the one paying. That tells you who is in control.

Texahoma is proposed and ESPN buys off Texas.

Kansas could be a target for Big 10 expansion and ESPN gives them a great tier 3 deal.

The SEC finds out Missouri would pay out more than WVU and we get Missouri (in which case either was fine by me).

The Big 12 needs two in a hurry so T.C.U. is the easy pick and then they are apparently told that W.V.U. pays more than Louisville.

The Catholic Seven form under FOX supervision.

If anything the GOR's are an attempt by the conferences to quell what seemed to be constant upheaval on the horizon due to networks fighting over product. They won't be totally effective but will slow it down quite a bit.

In retrospect the recent three years activity in realignment is almost exclusively the product of networks going after the best commercial advertising investment (live sports) with the least overhead (since conferences essentially provide the content and the networks only the crews necessary to broadcast it). Live sports is high profit yield and in the age of digital recordings the only one for which advertisers still pay top rates. So why realignment?

In order to maximize those commercial advertising dollars networks had to find a way to keep all regions of the country engaged for as much of the season as possible. They needed to eliminate dud games. And they wanted to streamline the product line to eliminate those teams which can't produce substantial regional or national viewers. They also wanted to maximize the markets for the the conferences with the strongest appeal. Hence the goal was to move toward 4 major conferences with top draws distributed among all four and with a playoff structure that would allow them to keep interest moving forward in every broadcast region at least until the semifinal week. By promising more money to the Big 10, SEC, PAC, and ACC and initially to the Big 12 they have already effectively cut down the field to 65 total teams.

So, who controls realignment? I think it is obvious. It is the networks.

You forgot about the BC AD blabbing about "Who they told us to take..." after the ACC added Pitt and Cuse, then a few days later saying he was misquoted. That was it right there, thats the smoking gun.

(07-07-2013 05:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 05:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Maybe there will come a time when the power conferences get together and realize they need to bundle their Tier 1 product in its entirety to two or three networks?

That's the solution that would increase the leverage of the schools.

But, if top conferences ever get close to a deal on consolidating their TV rights (or even a merger between two or more top conferences), ESPN can ensure enough in-fighting to stop the deal by just offering a sweetheart deal/bribe (a la LHN) to a few of the big kahunas.

It's why I emphasized Tier 1. There will always be the egotistical amongst the power conferences that will feel they deserve more $$$ than others. Let the market place decide that for Tier 2 (which soon four conferences will have that product involved in conference networks/digital networks) and/or Tier 3.

Cheers,
Neil

I'm going to say it's (still) the individual schools. Wherever any conference or network initiative goes, it still starts with the schools.

(07-08-2013 07:17 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I'm going to say it's (still) the individual schools. Wherever any conference or network initiative goes, it still starts with the schools.

Not really