(06-05-2014 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Jack Swarbrick spoke at an ND function this week. A summary of his comments:

BB Recruiting: We can only admit 20-30 of the top 250, which makes for a huge challenge. If Duke offers, we generally lose out on that one. In addition the AAU coaches run the show. Unlike football, where ND can work the HS coaches, parents, teachers guidance counselors etc., we have no leverage there in hoops. You have to have the ear of the AAU coach. He thinks that Under Armor will help us there.

Under Armour: Will help with hoops recruiting, see above. Adidas has been a great partner. We were not unhappy, but especially in hoops, we were not getting the attention from them that we will get from UA. They have Kansas, Michigan etc. We are UA's premier client. This year's Shamrock series uniform will be pretty tame. Due to somewhat limited time constraints, they did not come up with anything too drastic. Expect that to change in coming years.

Video Board: South end zone. Book it. We have shown how we will use it at the Shamrock series games, and it will be tasteful.

Crossroads: No consideration was given to a wraparound concept whole stadium. The original plan had 4 buildings and they scaled it back to 3. He did not get into it but said that would have been a much bigger challenge in construction with disruption of the use of the stadium.

Dave Brandon: (Shaking head) "different styles....just...different styles" (Brandon is Michigan's AD)

Recruiting: Behind basketball, hockey is the biggest challenge. You literally have Canadian junior league teams trying to outbid your scholarship offer. That continues while they are in school too.

Unions: Not really a major concern. Everyone thinks that the Northwestern players voted it down. The basic premise of the ruling is that football activities are not educational. They dispute that very notion. Funny thing is that if unions do happen, all scholarship athletes will be part of it. That means that football players will be a minority in the union. The union rep will likely be a fencer, soccer player or swimmer etc. The results of an agreement with that union will be likely much different than what the Northwestern football players are hoping they will get. They need to be careful what they ask for.

Navy Series: "Fr. Hesburgh committed to it, and I am not going to be the one who goes against that." The chop blocking is really an NCAA rules issue. They stay within the rules, but on the very edge of them. Maybe, way in the future that might morph into an "Academy" slot on the schedule (with some sort of rotation), but no plan on that.

Scheduling: After 5 ACC, Navy, USC, Stanford, Shamrock Series and one "buy" game we have one home and home to play with each season. (Hence, the Big Ten games had to go).

His Future: Will be on the beach within 5 years.

He had a forum this morning with Tom Bowen the AD at University of Memphis;

Biggest Challenge to College Football: The antitrust issue. Similar to how the Ivies got slapped a few years ago with their academic scholarships, the antitrust case against the NCAA is a hard one to defend legally. Ultimately they will probably need congress to grant an exemption like the NFL and MLB have. In the meantime there could be a free for all for a few years if they lose. The pro sports teams also can collectively negotiate compensation. If they lose the schools may in fact want a players union with whom the can negotiate scholarship compensation.

Eligibility: Would love to see all sports go the baseball route: If you want to go pro out of HS, then go. If you start college, you must stay 3 years.

Big 5 conference Split: Thinks that they will stay within the NCAAA but will have some additional autonomy to make rules for themselves.

History of College Football: This was interesting - we have had 3 eras. From the beginning til about the '50s the individual schools were in control of things. From the '50s-2000's the NCAA dominated, now all of the power is in the hands of the conferences and their commissioners. Thinks power will shift back to the schools over time.

Penn State: Thought there was a rush to judgment on the part of the NCAA. Did not understand why the current athletes were penalized (scholarships, bowl ban). The institution should have been penalized, but not the current students. NCAA should have waited until the legal case ran its course before acting. This was not really an athletics issue per se.

Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next.

I'll say this about ND hockey - your Joe Rogers is one classy guy, and definitely one who "pays it forward".

(06-05-2014 10:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Does Notre Dame have a bet with Maryland?

Both are wearing Under Armour uniforms, so you might see more gear like this (although this was Adidas)

Those are truly ugly.

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

I don't see schools or conferences at the P5 willingly going to a PPV or subscription model because it would be very difficult to sustain current revenue levels.

The whole arena is in serious flux. If net neutrality dies costs for Netflix and Hulu, etc., are going to skyrocket as they start having to pay ransom just to get their programming to subscribers in a usable form.

If ESPN's carriage fee model for WatchESPN/ESPN3 takes off, internet access will be no cheaper than cable.

If we go to a model where you pay a base fee to connect and then pay per programming costs per channel will be much higher.

If the SEC for example wanted to make $30 million per team at $35 per month they'd need 1 million subscribers and that doesn't account for production and transmission costs and assumes people won't dump the subscription several month a year so you'd have to make it more like $420 a year.

I don't think any regular season game did much more than 8 million viewers.

By the time you add costs, you probably would need about a $500 annual subscription and something on the order of 1.5 million to 2 million subscribers.

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

Stop the Big 12 agenda and think about what you are saying here for a moment. I for one would be all about a la carte. Now why would an SEC guy with a promising network say that? Because the SEC draws more eyeballs by 900,000 per telecast than the next closest conference, the Big 10. If we get paid by viewership then the SEC becomes by default the top money earner in television revenue in addition to being the single conference with enough football fanatics to pay $75 per ticket, over $500 per season ticket book, donate $800-$1200 more just for the privilege of buying those two season ticket books, out draw in attendance the next closest competitor (which again is the Big 10 with 5000 less per game average attendance), and collect more corporate and private athletic contributions than most at the same time.

A move to a la carte would doom small market enterprises like West Virginia and give advantages to the Florida, Alabama, and other SEC schools of football prominence while also engorging Ohio State, Michigan, Texas and Oklahoma along with Florida State while making it more difficult for everyone else to compete financially. Is that what you want?

In the world of a la carte (which is what all of those who desire schadenfreude seek) the national brands with the big houses will kick everyone else's butts into oblivion in the money game. We truly will have a separate upper tier then and it will be comprised of a couple of dozen schools. Maybe three dozen if we are lucky. My school will be in that elite club so if it comes to it, so be it. But until then these cable packages are the best guarantor of some baseline of revenue for all schools not classified as national brands.

Nothing would hamstring 7 of the Big 12 schools faster than a la carte. Why? There would be no incentive for conferences and therefore no coattails of Longhorns and Sooners to grasp onto. In a world where each school is only paid for its viewers where would a tiny state's flagship program be in the pecking order?

Terry D. as a genuine believer in self governance and individuality would be elated because his Irish would be fine and dandy. It would be fair. It would in many ways be more just. On those levels I'm for it. But it would also lay waste to Mississippi State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, T.C.U., Wake Forest, and many underachieving programs in the Big 10 and PAC and smaller second state schools everywhere.

Here is the upper tier that a la carte would bring to you (not exact but gives a general idea of who might succeed):

Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, L.S.U., Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, U.S.C., Washington, U.C.L.A., Stanford, Oregon, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana and a few more. Small states like Arizona would be hurt. Some strong regional brands like South Carolina and Clemson would still likely squeeze in. But for the most part those with national identity or large state market support would be the favorites. Rabid fan bases would help. But we wouldn't be talking P5 vs G5 or speaking in terms of 65 schools with an automatic in. There would be far less.

Is that good for the game? Is that good for college athletics? Every desire has a consequence. A la carte is the surest bet to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is a parallel reasoning to why so many have fled the Texas supremacy over the Big 12 for conferences that share and share alike. Sharing is good for competitiveness to an extent. Texas is by far the school that enjoys the greatest disparity in earnings over its fellow conference mates. A la carte only ensures disproportional distribution of revenue in favor of those who already have advantages (although rightfully earned ones). To hear a W.V.U. guy longing for that makes me laugh! Have at it!

Actually JR, ala carte doesn't just help the ones with the biggest fan base. It also helps the ones who are far less dependent on television revenue.

Right now average Joe Consumer pays X to his provider for a vast amount of content and primarily watches whatever he deems best that is available.

But if Joe Consumer cannot afford the premium for the top content or makes the decision that he would rather use his money another way he will not pay for the top content.

Now he can give up watching college football or he can treat it as a fairly fungible good.

If he chooses to not watch, then he finds some other entertainment.

But we've seen references to two different polls that show at least notable support for schools within a state that are not P5 (Arkansas poll showing AState support, Texas poll showing Houston support).

I will say upfront that such support is not strong, but in most markets sports support that is convertible to cash is a small subset anyway.

If Joe Consumer lives in Arkansas and has a choice between spending a large amount for SEC games or receiving Sun Belt content for free, a large number will select the free SBC content. That subset will be those interested in college football but unwilling or unable to afford the SEC cost as well as those who are already devoted AState fans.

In the long-run ala carte likely benefits those at the top of the pyramid and the better of those at the bottom of the pyramid while being harmful to those in the middle. The top will increase their revenue even more. The bottom will actually see an increase as well as they improve their brand awareness and market penetration, while the middle of the pyramid sees revenue fall because they can't match pace on subscriptions in numbers of subscribers or in the amount charged but they will remain a cost to watch product that has less market penetration.

(06-05-2014 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

Stop the Big 12 agenda and think about what you are saying here for a moment. I for one would be all about a la carte. Now why would an SEC guy with a promising network say that? Because the SEC draws more eyeballs by 900,000 per telecast than the next closest conference, the Big 10. If we get paid by viewership then the SEC becomes by default the top money earner in television revenue in addition to being the single conference with enough football fanatics to pay $75 per ticket, over $500 per season ticket book, donate $800-$1200 more just for the privilege of buying those two season ticket books, out draw in attendance the next closest competitor (which again is the Big 10 with 5000 less per game average attendance), and collect more corporate and private athletic contributions than most at the same time.

A move to a la carte would doom small market enterprises like West Virginia and give advantages to the Florida, Alabama, and other SEC schools of football prominence while also engorging Ohio State, Michigan, Texas and Oklahoma along with Florida State while making it more difficult for everyone else to compete financially. Is that what you want?

In the world of a la carte (which is what all of those who desire schadenfreude seek) the national brands with the big houses will kick everyone else's butts into oblivion in the money game. We truly will have a separate upper tier then and it will be comprised of a couple of dozen schools. Maybe three dozen if we are lucky. My school will be in that elite club so if it comes to it, so be it. But until then these cable packages are the best guarantor of some baseline of revenue for all schools not classified as national brands.

Nothing would hamstring 7 of the Big 12 schools faster than a la carte. Why? There would be no incentive for conferences and therefore no coattails of Longhorns and Sooners to grasp onto. In a world where each school is only paid for its viewers where would a tiny state's flagship program be in the pecking order?

Terry D. as a genuine believer in self governance and individuality would be elated because his Irish would be fine and dandy. It would be fair. It would in many ways be more just. On those levels I'm for it. But it would also lay waste to Mississippi State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, T.C.U., Wake Forest, and many underachieving programs in the Big 10 and PAC and smaller second state schools everywhere.

Here is the upper tier that a la carte would bring to you (not exact but gives a general idea of who might succeed):

Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, L.S.U., Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, U.S.C., Washington, U.C.L.A., Stanford, Oregon, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana and a few more. Small states like Arizona would be hurt. Some strong regional brands like South Carolina and Clemson would still likely squeeze in. But for the most part those with national identity or large state market support would be the favorites. Rabid fan bases would help. But we wouldn't be talking P5 vs G5 or speaking in terms of 65 schools with an automatic in. There would be far less.

Is that good for the game? Is that good for college athletics? Every desire has a consequence. A la carte is the surest bet to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is a parallel reasoning to why so many have fled the Texas supremacy over the Big 12 for conferences that share and share alike. Sharing is good for competitiveness to an extent. Texas is by far the school that enjoys the greatest disparity in earnings over its fellow conference mates. A la carte only ensures disproportional distribution of revenue in favor of those who already have advantages (although rightfully earned ones). To hear a W.V.U. guy longing for that makes me laugh! Have at it!

As I read the beginning of your post, I was ready to respond. But, you anticipated that. :)

(06-05-2014 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

Stop the Big 12 agenda and think about what you are saying here for a moment. I for one would be all about a la carte. Now why would an SEC guy with a promising network say that? Because the SEC draws more eyeballs by 900,000 per telecast than the next closest conference, the Big 10. If we get paid by viewership then the SEC becomes by default the top money earner in television revenue in addition to being the single conference with enough football fanatics to pay $75 per ticket, over $500 per season ticket book, donate $800-$1200 more just for the privilege of buying those two season ticket books, out draw in attendance the next closest competitor (which again is the Big 10 with 5000 less per game average attendance), and collect more corporate and private athletic contributions than most at the same time.




A move to a la carte would doom small market enterprises like West Virginia and give advantages to the Florida, Alabama, and other SEC schools of football prominence while also engorging Ohio State, Michigan, Texas and Oklahoma along with Florida State while making it more difficult for everyone else to compete financially. Is that what you want?

In the world of a la carte (which is what all of those who desire schadenfreude seek) the national brands with the big houses will kick everyone else's butts into oblivion in the money game. We truly will have a separate upper tier then and it will be comprised of a couple of dozen schools. Maybe three dozen if we are lucky. My school will be in that elite club so if it comes to it, so be it. But until then these cable packages are the best guarantor of some baseline of revenue for all schools not classified as national brands.

Nothing would hamstring 7 of the Big 12 schools faster than a la carte. Why? There would be no incentive for conferences and therefore no coattails of Longhorns and Sooners to grasp onto. In a world where each school is only paid for its viewers where would a tiny state's flagship program be in the pecking order?

Terry D. as a genuine believer in self governance and individuality would be elated because his Irish would be fine and dandy. It would be fair. It would in many ways be more just. On those levels I'm for it. But it would also lay waste to Mississippi State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, T.C.U., Wake Forest, and many underachieving programs in the Big 10 and PAC and smaller second state schools everywhere.

Here is the upper tier that a la carte would bring to you (not exact but gives a general idea of who might succeed):

Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, L.S.U., Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, U.S.C., Washington, U.C.L.A., Stanford, Oregon, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana and a few more. Small states like Arizona would be hurt. Some strong regional brands like South Carolina and Clemson would still likely squeeze in. But for the most part those with national identity or large state market support would be the favorites. Rabid fan bases would help. But we wouldn't be talking P5 vs G5 or speaking in terms of 65 schools with an automatic in. There would be far less.

Is that good for the game? Is that good for college athletics? Every desire has a consequence. A la carte is the surest bet to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is a parallel reasoning to why so many have fled the Texas supremacy over the Big 12 for conferences that share and share alike. Sharing is good for competitiveness to an extent. Texas is by far the school that enjoys the greatest disparity in earnings over its fellow conference mates. A la carte only ensures disproportional distribution of revenue in favor of those who already have advantages (although rightfully earned ones). To hear a W.V.U. guy longing for that makes me laugh! Have at it!

So many things wrong with this post it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's get some things clear for the viewing public:

First, I am not a "W.V.U. guy" so we will just put that to rest, not that there is anything wrong with WVU, guys or anything related to that. No affiliation to WVU.

Next- the "stop the Big 12 agenda". You obviously have an ANTI big 12 agenda. You spew it in virtually every posting on these boards. Clear as day for anyone to see. If anyone needs to stop an agenda--look in the mirror.

Now on to your absurd arguments. When we look at real tv contracts, we quickly see that regardless of real or imagined viewership, certain conferences and schools are being paid lots of money. The SEC isn't making the most money by far from television. It may one day get to that point, but it isn't very likely because they have a long way to go just to catch up with other conferences. So lets just put that to rest right away. The SEC isn't going to be paid more than the other conferences. Big 12 schools, Big Ten schools--will be making media rights revenues on par with the supposed higher rated SEC schools. A la carte tv/internet isn't going to break up conferences in the way you fantasize, its going to break up large conferences because the schools like A&M won't be needed anymore by the Florida's and Alabama's and LSU's of the world. It won't be possible to pay all those schools like before. Leagues like the Big 12 will be at a distinct advantage because they don't rely on that model.

Next we get to the what would happen if ala carte cable began--which is slowly but surely becoming reality. First, the SEC and others like it would no longer be able to just collect revenues from people forced to pay by their cable company whether they want an SECN, BTN, or whatever. It would immediately reduce the revenues for conferences such as the SEC or Big Ten by staggering amounts. Anyone getting the channels from that point forward would only get them if they specifically paid for them. The only people that would do that would be the hard core fans. Even in SEC country not many would be forking over the undoubtedly huge price hike they would have to pay just to get the SECN.

This in turn would put a league like the Big 12 in an even better spot than now, because they would still have their current revenue streams which are independent of the conference network model other than the LHN. Since UT is the only school involved in that enterprise and is one of the most successful programs in the nation, it would not be as difficult for them to turn the LHN over into something more similar to what Oklahoma or some of the other Big 12 schools have.

Unlike your fantasy scenario, what would be more likely is that the Big Ten, Pac 12, and other conference schools would attempt to buy back their media rights in order to go after deals much like the Big 12 offers. Distribution through local, regional and/or national media companies on tv and on the internet which don't require huge sums of money to be taken from those who did not want that sports package anyway but were forced to pay. All the Big 12 schools will certainly be thriving by that time. It will allow schools like Alabama or Florida to stop supporting the A&Ms of the world and let them make their own way. But, Alabama and Florida will remain in a conference because that allows them to schedule better and easier and no school is only going to play major powers every week.

(06-05-2014 01:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

I don't see schools or conferences at the P5 willingly going to a PPV or subscription model because it would be very difficult to sustain current revenue levels.

I agree, they won't want to. The problem they face is people aren't going to continue to pay higher fees because the SEC or Big Ten wants to fleece them with a channel they don't want.

The whole arena is in serious flux. If net neutrality dies costs for Netflix and Hulu, etc., are going to skyrocket as they start having to pay ransom just to get their programming to subscribers in a usable form.

If ESPN's carriage fee model for WatchESPN/ESPN3 takes off, internet access will be no cheaper than cable.

But, again, at some point they are hurting themselves. People will go without rather than pay high fees for these things. It will get to the point where people just buy a game or two and just listen to the radio, attend in person or just read about it. Jacking up prices to force people who don't want high prices or certain channels is not sustainable.

If we go to a model where you pay a base fee to connect and then pay per programming costs per channel will be much higher.

They will, and the numbers of people doing it will be much lower.

If the SEC for example wanted to make $30 million per team at $35 per month they'd need 1 million subscribers and that doesn't account for production and transmission costs and assumes people won't dump the subscription several month a year so you'd have to make it more like $420 a year.

Exactly-which is why the SEC model or Big Ten model could fall apart fairly quickly. If an ala carte system came into being-and it might-suddenly these huge conferences aren't collecting millions from those that don't want the channels. Major impact to their revenue sources.

I don't think any regular season game did much more than 8 million viewers.

By the time you add costs, you probably would need about a $500 annual subscription and something on the order of 1.5 million to 2 million subscribers.

And people just aren't going to pay that. People will go in person, go to bars. Listen to the radio and just read about the games. Again, forcing people who don't want a product to pay is unsustainable.

(06-05-2014 12:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 10:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Does Notre Dame have a bet with Maryland?

Both are wearing Under Armour uniforms, so you might see more gear like this (although this was Adidas)

Those are truly ugly.

At least if the lights went out, you'd still be able to see

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

It's for this reason that I've speculated in the past that the current series of media contracts may well be the high water mark for revenues. If schools ramp up spending to use up all the cash they are now getting, they could find withdrawal to be very painful. If they have pressing facilities needs, now would be the time to invest what could be a short term revenue source rather than committing to ongoing expenditures.

(06-05-2014 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Jack Swarbrick spoke at an ND function this week. A summary of his comments: ...

Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next.

True.

One the thing about speculating how it will play out, is its quite possible that 100% of the obvious alternatives will be obsolete in five years time and when people are counting down to the expiration of those GOR's, the deals they are looking forward to will involve something we've entirely overlooked.

So we turn around, and find everyone has a gizmo plugged into their TV that either turns the TV to pick up an OTA broadcast or pulls a stream of the web by WiFi or wireless broadband ... and conference networks talk OTA broadcasters in their footprint into making room for the advertiser supported linear channel among their side-channels, which also acts as advertising for the subscription content, and the cable systems are left out of the picture entirely.

Not setting that out as the speculation, but just saying that its bigger trends in how we consume content that will set out the range of the possible for 2025, and its that range of the possible that conferences and schools will be looking at trying to work out what is best for them.

And parts will be as somebody has projected, but other parts are likely to be a surprise ... and we have no way of knowing which parts will be the surprising parts.

(06-05-2014 03:43 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

I don't see schools or conferences at the P5 willingly going to a PPV or subscription model because it would be very difficult to sustain current revenue levels.

I agree, they won't want to. The problem they face is people aren't going to continue to pay higher fees because the SEC or Big Ten wants to fleece them with a channel they don't want.

The whole arena is in serious flux. If net neutrality dies costs for Netflix and Hulu, etc., are going to skyrocket as they start having to pay ransom just to get their programming to subscribers in a usable form.

If ESPN's carriage fee model for WatchESPN/ESPN3 takes off, internet access will be no cheaper than cable.

But, again, at some point they are hurting themselves. People will go without rather than pay high fees for these things. It will get to the point where people just buy a game or two and just listen to the radio, attend in person or just read about it. Jacking up prices to force people who don't want high prices or certain channels is not sustainable.

If we go to a model where you pay a base fee to connect and then pay per programming costs per channel will be much higher.

They will, and the numbers of people doing it will be much lower.

If the SEC for example wanted to make $30 million per team at $35 per month they'd need 1 million subscribers and that doesn't account for production and transmission costs and assumes people won't dump the subscription several month a year so you'd have to make it more like $420 a year.

Exactly-which is why the SEC model or Big Ten model could fall apart fairly quickly. If an ala carte system came into being-and it might-suddenly these huge conferences aren't collecting millions from those that don't want the channels. Major impact to their revenue sources.

I don't think any regular season game did much more than 8 million viewers.

By the time you add costs, you probably would need about a $500 annual subscription and something on the order of 1.5 million to 2 million subscribers.

And people just aren't going to pay that. People will go in person, go to bars. Listen to the radio and just read about the games. Again, forcing people who don't want a product to pay is unsustainable.

At some point, saturation becomes an issue. Just how many different football games do I want to watch in a week? I realize I'm a dinosaur, and I really don't even understand what all the current viewing options are, much less where we are going in the future. What I do know is that I'm not about to pay a premium to get more football or basketball. And by that I mean I'm not going to pay to get ESPNU, or ESPN3,

Right now, that means I'm content to get the featured games at the expense of being able to get a game with strong regional interest, even if that's a game involving local teams I have a personal interest in. In the future, if I had to pay a premium to get the Ohio State - Michigan game, and had to settle instead for watching NC State play Wake Forest as part of a base package, I'd probably watch the ACC game. It could be that all I'd get to watch are the Tier 3 games. I can live with that.

I believe if every game on TV was essentially a separate purchasing decision, I think there would be a dramatic collective reduction in how much football we watch. And that probably wouldn't be so bad in the grand scheme of things.

(06-05-2014 03:33 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:07 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "Conference Realignment: We are stable for the next 10 years while the current TV contracts run their course. The means by which we all watch TV 10 years from now will drive what happens next."

I agree that the way people watch games is what will drive the next wave of realignment, but I think it will happen within the next 5 years - 10 years is an eternity in today's fast-paced world. Individual conferences could break from ESPN and go straight to internet pay per view packages - wouldn't surprise me at all.

a la carte cable would change the way people watch games--and eliminate the casual viewers and/or non sports fans from paying for conference networks--severely altering those revenue models.

Stop the Big 12 agenda and think about what you are saying here for a moment. I for one would be all about a la carte. Now why would an SEC guy with a promising network say that? Because the SEC draws more eyeballs by 900,000 per telecast than the next closest conference, the Big 10. If we get paid by viewership then the SEC becomes by default the top money earner in television revenue in addition to being the single conference with enough football fanatics to pay $75 per ticket, over $500 per season ticket book, donate $800-$1200 more just for the privilege of buying those two season ticket books, out draw in attendance the next closest competitor (which again is the Big 10 with 5000 less per game average attendance), and collect more corporate and private athletic contributions than most at the same time.




A move to a la carte would doom small market enterprises like West Virginia and give advantages to the Florida, Alabama, and other SEC schools of football prominence while also engorging Ohio State, Michigan, Texas and Oklahoma along with Florida State while making it more difficult for everyone else to compete financially. Is that what you want?

In the world of a la carte (which is what all of those who desire schadenfreude seek) the national brands with the big houses will kick everyone else's butts into oblivion in the money game. We truly will have a separate upper tier then and it will be comprised of a couple of dozen schools. Maybe three dozen if we are lucky. My school will be in that elite club so if it comes to it, so be it. But until then these cable packages are the best guarantor of some baseline of revenue for all schools not classified as national brands.

Nothing would hamstring 7 of the Big 12 schools faster than a la carte. Why? There would be no incentive for conferences and therefore no coattails of Longhorns and Sooners to grasp onto. In a world where each school is only paid for its viewers where would a tiny state's flagship program be in the pecking order?

Terry D. as a genuine believer in self governance and individuality would be elated because his Irish would be fine and dandy. It would be fair. It would in many ways be more just. On those levels I'm for it. But it would also lay waste to Mississippi State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, T.C.U., Wake Forest, and many underachieving programs in the Big 10 and PAC and smaller second state schools everywhere.

Here is the upper tier that a la carte would bring to you (not exact but gives a general idea of who might succeed):

Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, L.S.U., Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, U.S.C., Washington, U.C.L.A., Stanford, Oregon, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana and a few more. Small states like Arizona would be hurt. Some strong regional brands like South Carolina and Clemson would still likely squeeze in. But for the most part those with national identity or large state market support would be the favorites. Rabid fan bases would help. But we wouldn't be talking P5 vs G5 or speaking in terms of 65 schools with an automatic in. There would be far less.

Is that good for the game? Is that good for college athletics? Every desire has a consequence. A la carte is the surest bet to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is a parallel reasoning to why so many have fled the Texas supremacy over the Big 12 for conferences that share and share alike. Sharing is good for competitiveness to an extent. Texas is by far the school that enjoys the greatest disparity in earnings over its fellow conference mates. A la carte only ensures disproportional distribution of revenue in favor of those who already have advantages (although rightfully earned ones). To hear a W.V.U. guy longing for that makes me laugh! Have at it!

So many things wrong with this post it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's get some things clear for the viewing public:

First, I am not a "W.V.U. guy" so we will just put that to rest, not that there is anything wrong with WVU, guys or anything related to that. No affiliation to WVU.

Next- the "stop the Big 12 agenda". You obviously have an ANTI big 12 agenda. You spew it in virtually every posting on these boards. Clear as day for anyone to see. If anyone needs to stop an agenda--look in the mirror.

Now on to your absurd arguments. When we look at real tv contracts, we quickly see that regardless of real or imagined viewership, certain conferences and schools are being paid lots of money. The SEC isn't making the most money by far from television. It may one day get to that point, but it isn't very likely because they have a long way to go just to catch up with other conferences. So lets just put that to rest right away. The SEC isn't going to be paid more than the other conferences. Big 12 schools, Big Ten schools--will be making media rights revenues on par with the supposed higher rated SEC schools. A la carte tv/internet isn't going to break up conferences in the way you fantasize, its going to break up large conferences because the schools like A&M won't be needed anymore by the Florida's and Alabama's and LSU's of the world. It won't be possible to pay all those schools like before. Leagues like the Big 12 will be at a distinct advantage because they don't rely on that model.

Next we get to the what would happen if ala carte cable began--which is slowly but surely becoming reality. First, the SEC and others like it would no longer be able to just collect revenues from people forced to pay by their cable company whether they want an SECN, BTN, or whatever. It would immediately reduce the revenues for conferences such as the SEC or Big Ten by staggering amounts. Anyone getting the channels from that point forward would only get them if they specifically paid for them. The only people that would do that would be the hard core fans. Even in SEC country not many would be forking over the undoubtedly huge price hike they would have to pay just to get the SECN.

This in turn would put a league like the Big 12 in an even better spot than now, because they would still have their current revenue streams which are independent of the conference network model other than the LHN. Since UT is the only school involved in that enterprise and is one of the most successful programs in the nation, it would not be as difficult for them to turn the LHN over into something more similar to what Oklahoma or some of the other Big 12 schools have.

Unlike your fantasy scenario, what would be more likely is that the Big Ten, Pac 12, and other conference schools would attempt to buy back their media rights in order to go after deals much like the Big 12 offers. Distribution through local, regional and/or national media companies on tv and on the internet which don't require huge sums of money to be taken from those who did not want that sports package anyway but were forced to pay. All the Big 12 schools will certainly be thriving by that time. It will allow schools like Alabama or Florida to stop supporting the A&Ms of the world and let them make their own way. But, Alabama and Florida will remain in a conference because that allows them to schedule better and easier and no school is only going to play major powers every week.

Your reading comprehension skills and your business sense are void from your response. A la carte means those that watch pay. The SEC has more viewers than anyone. There would be a transition between the current model and a pure a la carte basis but in the end there would be the greatest advantage to those with the most eyeballs. Basically that is the top SEC schools and about a dozen or so other national brand schools. The SEC averages more actual viewers per televised event than anyone, and by 900,000 over the second best the Big 10. The SEC saturates its market for a reason, the fans care. Fans will tune in and if the advertising revenue relates directly to to the payouts, and in a la carte model that will be much more likely, then we will be the best paid. Your absurdity is in claiming that in an a la carte market place the SEC would still be clinging to a network model. Not even ESPN is stupid enough to risk losing their most valuable product in a transition like the one that you imagine will happen. So apples to apples sport, means a la carte model to a la carte model.

Second, in the long run there would no longer be a need for conference affiliations. The dropping of such would actually make scheduling more regional and easier, especially if limited to the upper tier. It would be possible to simply contract with each individual school since the top brands would have less reason to want to share their numbers. Top to bottom that still favors the top national brands of which the SEC already owns 9 of the top 20 earners and that is with the TV contract that you so quickly call deficient. As to that totally misleading claim that you make all I can say is wait until 2017 and then compare numbers. The SEC front-loaded start up costs for the network and won't realize full profit until the 2016-17 season.

As to my feelings about the Big 12 they are rather precise and succinct. Two years ago I stated that if they didn't expand and remained as disparate as they are without building a bridge to W.V.U. or looking to make both market and viable program additions that it would be an indication of wanting to maintain a number more easily dissolved. In other words the decision would be to make an indecision that kept more options open. Well here we are two years later and nothing has changed. The lay of the land is the same. Two AAU programs, three national brands, two regional brands, and the smallest market footprint of the existing P5 conferences and the greatest disparity in earnings in any conference in America are the same issues that stress the Big 12.

When the Maryland case is fully over, O'Bannon is decided, the Union issue fully put to rest, and autonomy is established for the P5 in whatever form that takes then maybe we'll know for sure what is to become of the Big 12. Until then little will change with my opinion that it remains the most vulnerable of the P5 conferences and for the reasons I've cited.

If you add schools I will no longer see it that way. If you remain the same after the new tier is formed I will no longer see it that way, but until then it is my opinion that the indecision to add schools is only reflective of Oklahoma and Texas's desire to keep options open which means nothing is secure. When W.V.U. and T.C.U. get full shares and the Big 10 is renegotiated and the SECN has its first full pay day we'll talk about your TV revenue numbers, but as I have said before that only represents between 1/4 and 1/7 of a program's total revenue. It's small potatoes until one conference starts earning 8 figures more than another and that is coming but not by the Big 12.

Now if you aren't Bucanneer and a West Virginia fan then you share the same IP address as him and that means that you are one of two or more Big 12 internet police who travel between chat rooms putting down discussions that don't favor the Big 12 point of view, especially going after disgruntled Big 12 posters. Between here, Shaggy Bevo, Landthieves , and the W.V.U. board, I have seen enough of the tactics and read enough of the posts to recognize them.

I've got nothing against you, or the Big 12, but it is what it is.

(06-05-2014 01:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In the long-run ala carte likely benefits those at the top of the pyramid and the better of those at the bottom of the pyramid while being harmful to those in the middle. The top will increase their revenue even more. The bottom will actually see an increase as well as they improve their brand awareness and market penetration, while the middle of the pyramid sees revenue fall because they can't match pace on subscriptions in numbers of subscribers or in the amount charged but they will remain a cost to watch product that has less market penetration.

That is the dilemma faced power conferences as they push to 14+ members and push some of their membership into obscurity.

I think Wedge has it. Changes in TV have driven the last couple of major realignment changes and the growth of the pros drove the one before that.

What will happen in the 20s depends on changes in the TV model.

Right now all the P5 are getting on national TV and what matters is good matchups. The past 3-4 years, the SEC has had a big advantage over the other 4. Markets are really immaterial. So with the strength and balance of the Big 12, markets don't hurt it. Texas and OU are happy. The Big 12 will probably distribute more than any other conference (when you factor in the BTN vs. individual Tier 3) for the next 2 or 3 years. So the Big 12 is just fine under the current TV model.

As for the individual schools, if you look at the other thread, the average revenue per 2013 member school is Big 10 $95.9, SEC $94.1, Big 12 $88.1, Pac 12 $74.1, ACC $69.4 and AAC $53.6 (they drop into low 40s with the loss of UL and RU).

This Big 12 is doomed stuff just isn't based on financial reality.

What happens with the TV model can make a difference. However, I think the advantage of the BTN will mostly go away over the next couple of decades as the market changes. Big 10 and SEC PPV will be the best, but it won't be as profitable as networks (otherwise they would be doing PPV now). A model where you are basing it on 70-95% of the people who don't watch you paying for it, can't last that long (if you are making $15 and they are making 7.5, that's a bigger gap than you making 7.5 and them making 2.5).