(10-10-2014 07:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:18 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:31 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

Boston College's AD said after the Pitt and Syracuse additions:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."

Of course, after the uproar he then claimed he "mis-spoke"

In this case, I actually believe it. It's one voice and it's of an AD and not president. If ESPN was actively telling Conference A to raid Conference B, there would lawsuits directed at ESPN and I've never heard that even suggested. Beyond that, the fact remains, realignment cost ESPN a lot of money for very little extra in value.

Do I REALLY have to go dig out the multiple instances of ESPN folks in interviews talking about how they have never had official sit downs which the purpose of such was about whom to invite to a conference but that the topic has come up many times in regular conversations?

Do I really? Come on now people, stop being so naive. First off, an AD is right there in the mix. To say they don't know **** is just hilarious Ohio, come on. The Presidents just made official what has always been the case. The AD's are the one's running the show and the Presidents were just signing off. With such big numbers now and so many ways to anger people, the Presidents are straight up taking themselves out of the picture and letting AD's handle it.

People who don't know anything need to stop saying that AD's don't know what they are talking about. This isn't just about you Ohio, it is this highly illogical statement gets repeated over and over for some damn reason. Seriously? AD's never talk with Network Reps? Who do you think is the final word on Scheduling???????????????

Sometimes ADs don't know what they are talking about. Witness Villanova's AD when they were looking to move up. FSU's former AD was pretty clueless. Clemson's AD didn't even know how much they were making on the TV contract (that was Swofford's doing). The Big 10 ADs didn't know Penn St. was being added until it was already done. They were overwhelmingly opposed.

Some ADs are in on everything. Others aren't in on much at all.

Story was that Big East AD's learned of Tulane's admission after the vote.

(10-09-2014 07:33 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  One thing we've seen is a conference signs a TV deal and is super happy with it and likes how the money slides up each year. Then someone signs a better deal and the league is in a foul mood that they signed such a sorry TV deal.

With Fox missing on NBA and FS1 not having any content from three of the big four of pro sports and no ACC or SEC content, no NCAA Tournament, and essentially no post-season college football, it seems likely Fox is going to throw incredible money at the Big 10 and ESPN will do likewise to keep FS1 a marginal competitor that is mostly nibbling around with niche content.

I think there is a very high probability that the Big 10 is going to sign a deal that leaves the other P5 leagues unhappy with their "undervalued" contracts.

The Big Ten TV deal could end up being very destabilizing to college football.

For example if SEC starts feeling undervalued (along with everyone else) it would be very easy for ESPN to explain that they would be more than happy to get SEC to a similar per school number if certain valuable ACC properties were to rebranded as SEC (or vice versa though I think it is apparent ESPN likes the SEC brand better).

We don't know exactly how a court would deal with Grant of Rights but it is very possible that the answer would be that as long as the original conference gets paid like they are there then there is no harm and if ESPN is on both sides of the transaction that is easily dealt with.

Likewise relocating some ACC properties to Big XII could be done and the home games of those former ACC schools would purely be ESPN's property essentially increasing ESPN's stake in Big XII just as LHN upped their stake.

If B1G hits the big jackpot I don't think we are done talking realignment.

I would be just as interested to see what would happen if the B1G not only doesn't hit the jackpot, but gets a huge disappointment as well.

In a world where Major League Soccer (who get miniscule ratings for their games) just had their revenue triple on their new contract, you will probably be waiting a long time to see that.

There is a thread in the ACC forum about the lousy ratings FOX (not just FS1) is getting for college football, and how that could reduce the B1G's negotiating leverage. On the other hand, it could prompt them to double down, knowing they will lose some big bucks for a while, rather than bow out of the race altogether. I believe the market is reaching a saturation point. Whether that will result in lower payouts now, or later, remains to be seen. Murdoch has deep pockets and a big ego, but he isn't going to lose money forever.

This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

Final ratings for ND/St were 2.2 and AL/MS 3.7. OU/TCU was 1.3.

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

I'm not sure I agree.

First, Jim Delany would relish being a kingmaker.

Second there would be some appeal to being cleared more often coast-to-coast on broadcast TV.

Third ESPN is pimping SEC Network hard on air, on the website and apps. Going all-in with Fox could help the overall branding and promotion of BTN.

(10-10-2014 01:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

I'm not sure I agree.

First, Jim Delany would relish being a kingmaker.

Second there would be some appeal to being cleared more often coast-to-coast on broadcast TV.

Third ESPN is pimping SEC Network hard on air, on the website and apps. Going all-in with Fox could help the overall branding and promotion of BTN.

I agree 100%. It is a privilege to broadcast B1G content, not a right.
B1G will dictate which networks get to show their content.

B1G may very well create a junior varsity team in every sport so that they can be seen on all platforms on every network.

The demand is there.

I do think the B1G will hit the jackpot, even though I don't think they have the balls to abandon ESPN.

But as others have stated...so what? I'm not sure there is a real world impact that will shake ACC or Big 12 schools, or petrify the SEC or PAC into a rash decision.

Schools like Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State are money machines already. And handing schools like Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana an extra $25M a year aren't really going to change what they are or can be.

It's a much different situation than say the Big 12, which has traditionally been poorly paid, and is made up of a majority of schools with frankly terrible historical football. A school like Baylor or Kansas State simply are not the financial dynamo that a Penn State is, and they've historically made peanuts. Going from $7M in TV revenue a year to $20M over the course of a few years...that makes an impact. Same thing with the PAC, jumping up to 20M. That's a big affect on a school like Arizona with middling history and 50k people in the stands.

That's game changing money for the majority of those schools in those two conferences (TX, OU, Stanford, USC excepted). And a lot of those schools are either close to Texas/Louisiana or California talent.

But I just don't see the game changer by the B1G making a lot more money. What are they going to do with that money that will threaten the SEC's stranglehold on CFB? Better facilities? Bigger recruiting budgets? Better coaches? Most of the B1G schools have always had enough money for all of that stuff, had they chose to utilize it.

That B1G money is going to go into womens' field hockey facilities, training table for the diving team, etc. It will go to good use, and the student athletes will benefit. But it's not going to change ANY balance of power from what it is today, so it's not going to send anyone into a panic.

To continue on that thought...so if the B1G money doesn't scare anyone into moving (the stick) can it seduce someone into moving (the carrot). That's what happened with Maryland. But Maryland was in a pretty unique situation of a financial disaster and floundering fan support in the ACC.

Who else could they really entice? Who NEEDS the money? Obviously every school will use more money, but what is the enticement for UNC or UVA or VT to move? Their competition is each other, and NC State, and Duke, and Wake, and maybe GT, and maybe Syracuse, etc. With the exception of Maryland, those schools are not competing for recruits or hearts and minds with anyone except each other, who are all in the same media deal. UNC doesn't really measure themselves against Florida or Georgia or LSU. What are they going to do with another $15M? But along with that $15M comes competing with schools like Michigan, Ohio State, etc. They barely care about football...UVA doesn't need an extra $15M to go 6-6 every year in the B1G instead of the ACC.

As someone else said, it's like someone living in Little Rock making $70k taking a job where they get a raise to $80k, but they have to move to Manhattan. It just doesn't make good sense.

Now the only schools that might be able to be tempted would be further south, where FSU, Clemson, GT and Miami, while competing with the ACC, also compete ferociously for recruits and coaches and mind share with better funded SEC schools. Clemson and FSU are every bit involved in the college football "arms race" in a way that UVA, UNC, etc aren't.

I just don't see the B1G cracking the ACC, barring an ACC school getting itself in a Maryland type bind, or MAYBE if they pick off a fringe northern member like BC or Syracuse. For the most part, the schools that they might want don't need them, and the schools that might need them, they don't want.

A B1G mega jackpot, that allowed them to tell FSU and Clemson "we're going to cut the gap with the SEC by $20M", that could fall on open ears. But the fact is, the B1G isn't interested in those schools, and the extra money might be negatively offset by joining "a boring northern conference" anyway.

Lou you've just made my argument about why the dire predictions of G5 implosion are wrong. 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the schedule are conference opponents eating out of the same trough. The first priority is always to be competitive within conference. As long as you do that, at most schools you are winning enough to sell tickets and get donations.

As a percentage of budget it's not that much money but would a CUSA school change leagues for an added $1.5 million a year? Yeah but part of that is about rebranding the program. I'm not sure Kansas basketball is any more attractive branded SEC than Big XII, and rebranding Kansas hoops Big Ten is more a value generator for BTN than for Kansas hoops.

It comes down to whether the schools in the other four league can stand the movement in the financial gap.

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

It would be a massive blunder by the Big Ten to actually fully cut ties with ESPN. They definitely will use increasing their relationship with FOX during their negotiations with ESPN though.

What that poor rating suggests though is that The Big 12's lower population demographic is a weakness. You take those teams and split them all up into different conferences and they will get better ratings.

(10-10-2014 06:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

It would be a massive blunder by the Big Ten to actually fully cut ties with ESPN. They definitely will use increasing their relationship with FOX during their negotiations with ESPN though.

What that poor rating suggests though is that The Big 12's lower population demographic is a weakness. You take those teams and split them all up into different conferences and they will get better ratings.

H1, how to split them up is the $64,000 question.

(10-10-2014 06:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

It would be a massive blunder by the Big Ten to actually fully cut ties with ESPN.

It wouldn't be a 'massive blunder', but there is value in having both your own network (or half thereof) and also having a position with ESPN. I suspect the B1G will be happy to take a boatload of ESPN money, with hefty escalating clauses to keep the deal from being prematurely undervalued, and be happy with that.

In spite of H1's recent surliness, I agree with him that the Big 10 won't be so stupid as to tick off ESPN and put themselves outside of their image machine. I might also add that the bonus of re-signing with the Mouse is that it might free up some realignment product for them as well. We'll see.

(10-10-2014 06:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 06:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

It would be a massive blunder by the Big Ten to actually fully cut ties with ESPN. They definitely will use increasing their relationship with FOX during their negotiations with ESPN though.

What that poor rating suggests though is that The Big 12's lower population demographic is a weakness. You take those teams and split them all up into different conferences and they will get better ratings.

H1, how to split them up is the $64,000 question.

I happen to have that solution.

(10-10-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 06:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  This does hurt the big 12:

Oklahoma vs. TCU (Fox, 1.3 rating)
Alabama-Ole Miss (CBS, 3.9 rating)
Notre Dame-Stanford (NBC, 2.7 rating)

i could see fox overpay the big 10 to try to get them to move everything over to fox

The B1G will never completely abandon ESPN. The Mouse has a far greater distribution and reach.

It would be a massive blunder by the Big Ten to actually fully cut ties with ESPN.

It wouldn't be a 'massive blunder', but there is value in having both your own network (or half thereof) and also having a position with ESPN. I suspect the B1G will be happy to take a boatload of ESPN money, with hefty escalating clauses to keep the deal from being prematurely undervalued, and be happy with that.

I think the threat levied by The Big Ten is that they might try to do something similar to what the PAC is doing in regards to not just one entity having Tier 1 rights.