Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A Larger and More Organized P4
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,970
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1
A Larger and More Organized P4
Now that John Skipper is out, I'm going to audition to be the new head of ESPN. I'm going to do that by showing off my machiavellian skills.

I'm going to put myself in the captain's seat of Disney/ESPN and try to come up with a way to take over as much college content as I can. Once I've taken it over then I will ensure that the order of things is conducive to my distribution plans.

Since we've recently purchased a good chunk of 21st Century Fox, I've found that I now own the T3 rights to almost every member of the Big 12. That makes things a lot easier for me. While Fox still owns half the T1 and T2 rights of the league, Fox also owns a good chunk of my stock which means they are far more apt to work with me on accomplishing a long term goal. That goal is essentially the reorganization of major college sports into something much more marketable and symmetrical.

Fox also owns half of the PAC 12 and this is where the next move needs to take place. For some reason, the PAC 12 owns their conference network and hasn't bothered to partner with a media company. They're suffering for it and I know that as well as anyone. The PAC 12 is vulnerable and so I'm going to make them an offer they can't refuse...

See, what I've got going for me is this new array of RSNs. I've got a lot of pro sports rights in key markets that will guarantee a decent return, but I want to make sure these new channels perform to their potential. That means I'll be using them to broadcast tons of college content in local markets where they are more likely to be appreciated. The PAC 12 is going to love this because they thought they could create their own system of regional networks and show Olympic sports that few people actually care about. I will succeed where they failed because I understand what viewers want. So I'll offer to purchase the PAC 12's fledgling network at a bargain basement price. They'll go for it because they'll get survival in exchange.

I'm going to integrate their network into my national platforms and I'm going to run it like I have half a brain. The regional networks will be thrown in the trash because it's nonsensical to dedicate resources to content so few people want to watch. I'll streamline this entity into one national channel that will look a lot more like my SEC and ACC Networks than anything else. Second, I'm going to use my vast system of RSNs to show the other PAC 12 sports in reasonable time slots that won't take away from the events people really want to watch. I need filler content on the West Coast and the PAC is obsessed with showing every conceivable sport. Everybody wins. Most importantly though, I'm going to give the PAC the properties they need to ensure success for at least another generation...

That's right, I'm going to cut a new deal with Fox to re-do the T1 and T2 rights for what I'm going to suggest they call the Pacific Western Conference...an amalgamation of PAC 12 and Big 12 schools. The current PAC 12 will be allowed to absorb 6 schools:

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State

The new 18 team league will have a nationally distributed conference network under my roof and I'll split the T1 and T2 rights with Fox. A lot of excess content will fall to my RSNs and the whole deal should work pretty well.

Now that that's out of the way, I've acquired the leverage to really alter the landscape.

My faithful friends, the SEC and ACC will also move to 18 because I SAY SO! While neither of them will get particularly superb brands in their expansion, they will get bribed quite well.

I'll get the SEC to move on TCU and Baylor first. I want to make sure UT gets appeased in all this and since there's no chance I'm renewing the LHN, I need to give them something more than money. UT will get plenty of money in the new PAC and a renewal of the A&M rivalry will help their home crowds as well, but saving TCU and Baylor will curry some favor with those meddling politicians. The politicos stay off the backs of the Longhorns and my plans get furthered. Now, the SEC probably isn't thrilled by these additions...at least not both of them. But, the SEC wants more exposure in TX and most certainly DFW. This move will guarantee they get an equal slice with the new PAC. The new streaming and 'out of market' package for college sports will give the SEC a new revenue stream and so they bite on this deal with one caveat...they get someone from the ACC that they really want.

In order to pull this off, the ACC needs to give up a school they don't really need. Who though? The ACC isn't really in a position of strength when it comes to economic prowess. They surely don't want to give anyone up as their league was raided just a few short years ago and losing quality is not something they can afford right now. But the ACC no longer has to worry too much about security. ESPN owns the strong majority of Power college sports rights at this point. No one is coming in to raid the ACC again without the blessing of ESPN. The B1G is the only one who won't be interested in doing ESPN's bidding, but they're not going to get a fat new contract from Fox either. Fox will not play along and now becomes more of a partner with ESPN than a true competitor. Unless someone else steps up, the B1G is going to have to curry favor once again with ESPN to get any new properties out of the ACC.

The likelihood of that is low, however, as ESPN has invested a great deal in the ACC by this point. No more raiding, it's time for stability. The B1G is stuck in no man's land as far as acquiring key properties out of the ACC.

So if there's greater stability at the ACC's back then who can the league afford to lose? Answer: Miami

Miami gives the SEC another presence in a major media market, a fertile recruiting ground, and a decent brand name program. The ACC doesn't lose anything really because they can backfill with schools in the same market.

The ACC begins their expansion process anew by adding South Florida and Central Florida. The two up and coming programs will give the ACC something they desperately need for the future...state schools that are pumping out alumni in major markets. As far as their slice of FL, it will be about the same. Adding these 2 schools will give the league another rivalry in the Sunshine state and ensure that few prospects from the state of FL will play in any league other than the SEC or ACC.

The SEC finishes out with West Virginia. WVU fits in nicely geographically and can immediately ignite some rivalries with nearby schools. They tap Pittsburgh and DC for the SEC. They can reignite an old rivalry with Miami in conference and can play non-conference match-ups against Pitt and Virginia Tech. The SEC is done at 18.

Now remember that the ACC had to backfill to replace Miami. They've already added USF and UCF to get to 15 full members. Notre Dame comes on board in full because the new paradigm likely rewards the 4 Power conference champions with a playoff berth. Cincinnati and UConn round it out so that the region is locked down.

There are now 3 leagues of 18 under almost total control by my ESPN. That gives me an awful lot of content to utilize the new RSNs and create an 'out of market' package. The Big Ten mostly plays along albeit biding their time and looking for an opportunity to grow. Maybe we can work something out in the future if the BTN comes up for sale.
12-20-2017 03:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #2
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
I think the PAC would rather have ISU than KSU. ISU is another market, draws better, and is AAU. They are in a larger state and control a better portion of Iowa than KSU does Kansas.
12-20-2017 01:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,468
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 251
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #3
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea
12-22-2017 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 631
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #4
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

I don’t hate Baylor. It’s very sad that some individuals thought more about money than people. Baylor University has shed itself of those individuals. Should any conference take them in the next major round of realignment? No one has to and no one will. If Baylor were a big school like Penn St then they would get strong consideration. However, a small private school in Waco, Texas with a weak sports history is not on anyone’s radar when schools like TCU and Houston are available. Excluding the “Rape U” situation, I wouldn’t have put Baylor in the top half of FBS Texas schools a power conference would want. I’d say this: Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, North Texas, UTEP, Texas St. The DFW and Houston schools have a lot more to offer long-term IMO. All that being said, Baylor wouldn’t have been the 12th school in the XII had it not been for some heavy lobbying. I’ve read articles that BYU, TCU, and Houston were all considered. IMO it should’ve been Arkansas. The XII dropped the ball there prior to Arkansas joining the SEC.
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2017 10:55 AM by BePcr07.)
12-22-2017 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,489
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 738
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 10:54 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

I don’t hate Baylor. It’s very sad that some individuals thought more about money than people. Baylor University has shed itself of those individuals. Should any conference take them in the next major round of realignment? No one has to and no one will. If Baylor were a big school like Penn St then they would get strong consideration. However, a small private school in Waco, Texas with a weak sports history is not on anyone’s radar when schools like TCU and Houston are available. Excluding the “Rape U” situation, I wouldn’t have put Baylor in the top half of FBS Texas schools a power conference would want. I’d say this: Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, North Texas, UTEP, Texas St. The DFW and Houston schools have a lot more to offer long-term IMO. All that being said, Baylor wouldn’t have been the 12th school in the XII had it not been for some heavy lobbying. I’ve read articles that BYU, TCU, and Houston were all considered. IMO it should’ve been Arkansas. The XII dropped the ball there prior to Arkansas joining the SEC.

Arkansas was in discussions with the SEC in '91 and joined in '92. The Big 12 was formed in 1994. Broyles wasn't waiting to see if the Big 12 was going to get formed. Texas had had a number of supposed deals already that fell through at the last moment. Arkansas wanted a better home and wanted it in '91. So the Big 12 didn't drop the ball on Arkansas. Arkansas simply didn't trust in '91 that the pipe dream of forming the Big 12 would ever actually happen.
12-22-2017 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 631
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #6
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:54 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

I don’t hate Baylor. It’s very sad that some individuals thought more about money than people. Baylor University has shed itself of those individuals. Should any conference take them in the next major round of realignment? No one has to and no one will. If Baylor were a big school like Penn St then they would get strong consideration. However, a small private school in Waco, Texas with a weak sports history is not on anyone’s radar when schools like TCU and Houston are available. Excluding the “Rape U” situation, I wouldn’t have put Baylor in the top half of FBS Texas schools a power conference would want. I’d say this: Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, North Texas, UTEP, Texas St. The DFW and Houston schools have a lot more to offer long-term IMO. All that being said, Baylor wouldn’t have been the 12th school in the XII had it not been for some heavy lobbying. I’ve read articles that BYU, TCU, and Houston were all considered. IMO it should’ve been Arkansas. The XII dropped the ball there prior to Arkansas joining the SEC.

Arkansas was in discussions with the SEC in '91 and joined in '92. The Big 12 was formed in 1994. Broyles wasn't waiting to see if the Big 12 was going to get formed. Texas had had a number of supposed deals already that fell through at the last moment. Arkansas wanted a better home and wanted it in '91. So the Big 12 didn't drop the ball on Arkansas. Arkansas simply didn't trust in '91 that the pipe dream of forming the Big 12 would ever actually happen.

I understand the timeline. I guess what I meant was that the XII should’ve formed earlier with Arkansas.
12-22-2017 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,489
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 738
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 12:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:54 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

I don’t hate Baylor. It’s very sad that some individuals thought more about money than people. Baylor University has shed itself of those individuals. Should any conference take them in the next major round of realignment? No one has to and no one will. If Baylor were a big school like Penn St then they would get strong consideration. However, a small private school in Waco, Texas with a weak sports history is not on anyone’s radar when schools like TCU and Houston are available. Excluding the “Rape U” situation, I wouldn’t have put Baylor in the top half of FBS Texas schools a power conference would want. I’d say this: Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, North Texas, UTEP, Texas St. The DFW and Houston schools have a lot more to offer long-term IMO. All that being said, Baylor wouldn’t have been the 12th school in the XII had it not been for some heavy lobbying. I’ve read articles that BYU, TCU, and Houston were all considered. IMO it should’ve been Arkansas. The XII dropped the ball there prior to Arkansas joining the SEC.

Arkansas was in discussions with the SEC in '91 and joined in '92. The Big 12 was formed in 1994. Broyles wasn't waiting to see if the Big 12 was going to get formed. Texas had had a number of supposed deals already that fell through at the last moment. Arkansas wanted a better home and wanted it in '91. So the Big 12 didn't drop the ball on Arkansas. Arkansas simply didn't trust in '91 that the pipe dream of forming the Big 12 would ever actually happen.

I understand the timeline. I guess what I meant was that the XII should’ve formed earlier with Arkansas.

Maybe. But it can't be underestimated today just how much Arkansas's leadership didn't trust Texas then. The alienation for Hog fans started in the SWC days when they were the only non Texas school in the conference. Even Hog fans today have conveniently forgotten oodles of homer calls in games against UT. It would similar to how Maryland always felt about getting calls against a North Carolina dominated ACC only in the ACC there were a few more non North Carolina schools.

At the time one of the things Broyles stressed was the opportunity to not only join a solid football conference, but to be in a conference where no state dominated the decisions. Beary Bryant could throw some weight around but he didn't make the decisions. Broyles realized that this was a good as he could hope for.

What hurt the hogs was that A&M couldn't shake loose to come with them in '92.

What most fans didn't realize was the move in '91 was for the SEC to land not only Arkansas, but Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson to move to 16. Oklahoma was a silent interested party and would only come if Texas did. Well the Horns were flirting with the PAC and Broyles was afraid that if Texas screwed up this deal they might not find a home in the PAC. When Roy Kramer stuck by our interest and let Arkansas know we wanted them with or without Texas it cemented the deal. South Carolina apparently found out our interest in Clemson through a Clemson trustee who told a South Carolina buddy of his about the prospect and that the SEC was interested in expansion.

ESPN knew all of our plans because they assisted with the valuations. What the SEC was naive about was ESPN's interest in building the ACC and their fear of losing both top Florida programs to the SEC. So Bowden backed out for more reasons than just what he stated. Clemson helped to usher them into the ACC. And South Carolina came in with the Hogs.

After that expansion ESPN put up the wall on the SEC poaching ACC schools. But ESPN has bent over backwards to help the SEC expand West.

If you look back at the targets in '91 and substitute Missouri for Florida State and South Carolina for Clemson, the rest of the targets remain the same. We've acquired A&M, and while we don't have to have Texas they are valuable enough that we wouldn't turn them down. Oklahoma remains a top target because of their penetration into DFW. They give us a state, and a large market as well as bringing branding and content.

What folks today don't realize is that these plans that were laid back in '91 have not substantively changed at all. The SEC wanted into Texas and we wanted into Texas with the important peripheral states on board. So far so good. We'll have to wait a few more years to see if we get the rest.
12-22-2017 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,121
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #8
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 12:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:54 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

I don’t hate Baylor. It’s very sad that some individuals thought more about money than people. Baylor University has shed itself of those individuals. Should any conference take them in the next major round of realignment? No one has to and no one will. If Baylor were a big school like Penn St then they would get strong consideration. However, a small private school in Waco, Texas with a weak sports history is not on anyone’s radar when schools like TCU and Houston are available. Excluding the “Rape U” situation, I wouldn’t have put Baylor in the top half of FBS Texas schools a power conference would want. I’d say this: Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, North Texas, UTEP, Texas St. The DFW and Houston schools have a lot more to offer long-term IMO. All that being said, Baylor wouldn’t have been the 12th school in the XII had it not been for some heavy lobbying. I’ve read articles that BYU, TCU, and Houston were all considered. IMO it should’ve been Arkansas. The XII dropped the ball there prior to Arkansas joining the SEC.

Arkansas was in discussions with the SEC in '91 and joined in '92. The Big 12 was formed in 1994. Broyles wasn't waiting to see if the Big 12 was going to get formed. Texas had had a number of supposed deals already that fell through at the last moment. Arkansas wanted a better home and wanted it in '91. So the Big 12 didn't drop the ball on Arkansas. Arkansas simply didn't trust in '91 that the pipe dream of forming the Big 12 would ever actually happen.

I understand the timeline. I guess what I meant was that the XII should’ve formed earlier with Arkansas.

Maybe. But it can't be underestimated today just how much Arkansas's leadership didn't trust Texas then. The alienation for Hog fans started in the SWC days when they were the only non Texas school in the conference. Even Hog fans today have conveniently forgotten oodles of homer calls in games against UT. It would similar to how Maryland always felt about getting calls against a North Carolina dominated ACC only in the ACC there were a few more non North Carolina schools.

At the time one of the things Broyles stressed was the opportunity to not only join a solid football conference, but to be in a conference where no state dominated the decisions. Beary Bryant could throw some weight around but he didn't make the decisions. Broyles realized that this was a good as he could hope for.

What hurt the hogs was that A&M couldn't shake loose to come with them in '92.

What most fans didn't realize was the move in '91 was for the SEC to land not only Arkansas, but Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson to move to 16. Oklahoma was a silent interested party and would only come if Texas did. Well the Horns were flirting with the PAC and Broyles was afraid that if Texas screwed up this deal they might not find a home in the PAC. When Roy Kramer stuck by our interest and let Arkansas know we wanted them with or without Texas it cemented the deal. South Carolina apparently found out our interest in Clemson through a Clemson trustee who told a South Carolina buddy of his about the prospect and that the SEC was interested in expansion.

ESPN knew all of our plans because they assisted with the valuations. What the SEC was naive about was ESPN's interest in building the ACC and their fear of losing both top Florida programs to the SEC. So Bowden backed out for more reasons than just what he stated. Clemson helped to usher them into the ACC. And South Carolina came in with the Hogs.

After that expansion ESPN put up the wall on the SEC poaching ACC schools. But ESPN has bent over backwards to help the SEC expand West.

If you look back at the targets in '91 and substitute Missouri for Florida State and South Carolina for Clemson, the rest of the targets remain the same. We've acquired A&M, and while we don't have to have Texas they are valuable enough that we wouldn't turn them down. Oklahoma remains a top target because of their penetration into DFW. They give us a state, and a large market as well as bringing branding and content.

What folks today don't realize is that these plans that were laid back in '91 have not substantively changed at all. The SEC wanted into Texas and we wanted into Texas with the important peripheral states on board. So far so good. We'll have to wait a few more years to see if we get the rest.

IIRC Arkansas flirted with the Big 8 in the 80's.
12-22-2017 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,970
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #9
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

You're most likely correct about that.

I do think, however, that some TX politicians would stick their neck out for Houston especially if it becomes evident that Baylor is about to get relegated. I'm not sure anyone would take UH, but I think they'll try.

My scenario was more about the networks getting the most bang for their buck. Of course, it likely won't work that way in real life. All these new RSNs though should give ESPN enough extra revenue to bribe some leagues into possibly taking some schools they might not otherwise pull the trigger on.
12-22-2017 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,489
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 738
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: A Larger and More Organized P4
(12-22-2017 02:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-22-2017 10:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just gonna point out that thanks to being Rape U, no Texas politician will dare stick their neck out to be associated with Baylor now means that their inclusion in any P4 due to political pressure is probably a DOA idea

You're most likely correct about that.

I do think, however, that some TX politicians would stick their neck out for Houston especially if it becomes evident that Baylor is about to get relegated. I'm not sure anyone would take UH, but I think they'll try.

My scenario was more about the networks getting the most bang for their buck. Of course, it likely won't work that way in real life. All these new RSNs though should give ESPN enough extra revenue to bribe some leagues into possibly taking some schools they might not otherwise pull the trigger on.

This might be true. But, it might work conversely as well. It might make ESPN rethink who they want in the conferences. The SEC has a list of objectives. I'm sure the ACC has one as well, and the Big 10 has one that's been around almost as long as the SEC's.

The RSN's could be the final death of the market model's concept of 1 per state, which was ESPN's big excuse for a conference not to take a 2nd school from a state. The RSN's will require content specific to the region. Therefore ESPN's format may change to allow conferences to take those 2nd state school's that they had desired in the past for rivalries' sake.

With the RSN's Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a foursome now have more merit. What's more is put them in a division with Arkansas and Missouri and you have an every Saturday event for a not so primetime game. It also makes tremendous sense for minor sports and during baseball season.
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2017 03:13 PM by JRsec.)
12-22-2017 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.