(09-10-2013 04:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (09-10-2013 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-10-2013 12:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote: The only problem with that theory is the networks don't exactly like this. Think about it: Realignment results in more TV for the conferences, right? Who do you think is paying that extra money? The networks. So why would they help the conferences to be in a position to charge them more money?
Because by structuring it as they see fit they can maximize the content, segregate the best money makers from the lesser productive in viewing numbers and eventually cull the product they do not wish to preserve. And if an upper tier of 60 to 64 teams is put in place and separated from the others in FBS it will eventually lead to paying fewer teams more and many teams less than they are currently paying out. Content will be up and ad revenue will rise accordingly with better match ups and fewer conferences with larger drawing schools.
Whatever happens next will still be just part of the initial phase of structuring the product.
They already have that and at a lower price. Super conferences are NOT what networks want. Case in point: they way ESPN is fine with losing money on the LHN because it prevented the super conferences. THEY DO NOT WANT THAT ONE BIT
You are reading the tea leaves incorrectly. ESPN didn't want Texas in the PAC because they don't have control over the top money earner in the NCAA if they join the PAC which is self owned. The LHN was an effort to hold the Horns in a position that ESPN had some, not total influence over. I'm sure that ESPN would love to have Texas in the ACC either fully or in part if it were possible because there they would own a much larger percentage of them.
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and to a lesser extent West Virginia all would be worth much more on a weekly basis if they were in another conference. Add Texas and Oklahoma to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State and the content value is multiplied in the Big 10. FOX would love that. ESPN wouldn't. The same grouping in the SEC would be a knockout on content. ESPN would love it. FOX wouldn't. Kansas immediately improves the SEC profile in basketball or strengthens basketball content for the Big 10 or the ACC. West Virginia adds great regional content to the SEC or ACC. But, right now the Mountaineers are the only sports property of value in football East of the Mississippi that FOX has a stake in. The Big 12 is a great stalemate position to hold until these issues can be resolved.
To make sense of this you need to look at the whole conference realignment scenario as if it was a hostile corporate takeover of a smaller company. They are going to sell off the lesser productive products (and indeed they are already minimizing overhead by selling off pieces of the rights to inventory, and maximizing profits by grouping the strongest products together). Only, in television, there needs to be a balance of interesting products throughout all regions of the country. Whether the country is divided into 3 regions or 4 remains to be seen. Right now we are really dealing with the North, South, and West. The ACC is an interesting hybrid but the Big 12 is essentially 5 states and only 1 of those dynamic enough to be extremely valuable, Texas.
All of the talking heads among college presidents, head coaches, and athletic directors have said they are looking at an upper tier of between 60 to 70 schools. Since no TV network owns the PAC the conferences of interest to the networks are the Big 10, ACC, and SEC. The battle is over who gets the most valuable product of the Big 12 and which teams of lesser value must be brokered to make it happen. Blurred regional boundaries add interest to regional content when a team from Texas let's say is playing in the PAC, and another in the Big 10, and another in the SEC. When those teams play each other the potential interest of 2 regions are brought into play for that game. This too maximizes advertising profits. So when the networks work out how to divide the assets of the Big 12 and optimize the value of lesser valued regional teams something will happen.
Why? The networks want a discernible structure to drive the new playoff model and to expand the playoffs. If all 4 conferences have 4 regional division then you start with 16 teams eligible for the National Championship and that holds viewers in their place from all 4 regions of the country right through the semi-finals. And that maximizes profits as well. The playoff will become the ice cream and the bowls will become the topping to finish of the final treats of the season.
Once such a structure is in place the value of all teams outside of this mix will diminish to the networks. The rich get a bit richer, and the poor a bit poorer. And the corporate takeover of an undervalued (and yes it was for many reasons) product will be complete right down to the grouping of the most profitable and the sell off the lesser product.
Live sports are the cheapest product in terms of cost of production of anything on television. When it is a popular sport ad rates will maximize. An upper tier of popular well watched teams playing essentially just each other is solid gold in the bank each week of the season, and throughout the extended season of conference playoffs and bowls. And those my friend are the facts of life from a corporate perspective. Low overhead + maximum profit - expenses for mediocre product = Bonanza for the Networks.
