(08-10-2022 07:37 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:23 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  ESPN is apparently out and CBS and NBC are possibly in, additionally Apple or Amazon may get in on the streaming. Certainly a lot of cash and exposure for the B1G.
Before I get to the point of this post, I'd like to do a quick pros and cons as I see moving away from ESPN.

Pro: Cord cutting is real. By reverting back to primarily over-the-air broadcasts, households that choose to cut the cord are still contributing to eyeball watching B1G football. This almost looks to me like a Wallstreet guy that sees the fundamentals deteriorating with the ESPN model and going back to old faithful while still keeping a toe in the cable business. There will still be cable exposure with FS1, FS2, & BTN however the Worldwide Leader won't be among them as their business model seems to be crumbling the fastest.

Pro: on a marginal level this puts downward pressure on ESPN carriage fees in B1G states. Why should B1G states pay full freight when no local team is being supported by those rates?

Con: ESPN drives the narrative in College football so I fully expect ABC/ESPN to really crank up the SEC bias and do everything they can to downplay or ignore B1G programs.

Con: Reduces likelihood of B1G expansion into ACC territory because why expand past 20?

Neutral: Bad for Pac 12 but good for Big 12. ESPN now has more slots to fill and some extra money to burn. The Big 12 stands to pick up most of those slots along with a nice payday. The Pac 12 has a beautiful late window that only they can fill, if they can stay together, BUT that late window also makes them more attractive for B1G expansion.

On to the main point. NBC has pitched and apparently sold the B1G on a prime time window. In other news, the B1G doesn't usually play prime time games in November for obvious reason.
Does this portend more West Coast teams being added? I think so, here are my reasons:
1. Keep a good amount of inventory available for the 7:00 EST slot. USC and UCLA will probably dominate late season prime time games but there is room for more potential content in that late slot from other Western teams.
2. Possibly create a super-late slot starting at 10 EST / 7 PST. I say limit this to 2 ish games per year. The east coast is starting to doze of to sleep so overall exposure suffers in the super late window, but it is still live content, and if it an important conference game, it may draw some east/central viewership.
3. Shut out ESPN from super-late start window, or bring them back to the table for that window. ESPN pioneered the After dark programing and is has been a success relative to other content in that window. It would hurt ESPN if the previously rumored combo of Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington were gone from that window.
4. Grow Fox/CBS/NBC viewership in college football out West at the expense of ESPN and their associated properties. The SEC is great, but not everyone likes or watches the SEC...or B1G for that matter. ESPN is focusing on the South East almost to the exclusion of the rest of the country. By contrast the B1G is coast to coast and though mostly regional can still boast of NYC, DC, & LA. If the 4 aforementioned Pac-12 school go to the B1G, that would be the entire Left Coast not really caring what is going on with ESPN.

In the final analysis, I don't think another league could pull this off, the Big Ten/ESPN relationship is a long-standing one and no other league has (to my knowledge) walked away from ESPN. I don't think they are enemies but going West adds opportunities for the B1G and their partners while simultaneously removing them from ESPN and decimating the Pac12.

ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

Altogether, I think adding Cin, WV, and Memphis, would be a good idea at this point.

(08-10-2022 07:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 07:35 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  But 80 million still awake. Which isn’t many, in comparison, but, what else are the networks gonna broadcast in that window?

Basically, I can’t see fox/cbs/nbc stopping with just 2 teams out west (USCLA). But I doubt they go after Pac10 teams for the BigTen…this round of realignment, anyway. But I can see Big12 going west. And I wonder if B1G expansion westward is baked into their tv deal. I doubt it, but wouldn’t be surprised. I doubt it because why would Fox (and all not espn) want to pay more for non-USCLA west teams in the B1G when they can get a bargain for them in the B12? So that’s the PAC-B12-ESPN-Fox war’s maginot line now.

So the war is on…even hotter, now that B1G tv (near) finalization.

MWC, or a few teams from, may get a bump in pay. Not much, tho. And I don’t think Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN or any others will give PAC or Big12 much of a pay raise either. Mainly because the networks will be saving for the ND and (8? 12? 16?)-team playoff negotiations.

Welcome to the P2-M3(or2?)-G5 college football era!

The Big 12 is a big loser here as well. CBS/NBC are out. Viacom is in terminal decline with no notable streaming service. They put their money in the B1G and that's that. NBC will have their lineup set once they extend with ND.

I have to think Fox prefers the Big 12 in the Big Noon slot. The problem is, where is tier one PAC games going to go? That's why the PAC is THE loser here. Oregon is basically forced to go to ESPN for tier one games, H2H vs B1G/SEC in the afternoon/primetime. This is a TERRIBLE place to be.

The PAC4 need to get out. Wine and dine whoever you need to at NBC/CBS. The PAC has no standalone content on network television and ESPN is not going to put them on ABC aside from perhaps the PAC Championship Game on a Friday night.

Sounds like a good assessment, RUScarlets. What realistic (or lucky) possibilities does the Pac4 have? I think they might get lucky but most likely stay as Pac10, maybe 11 with sdsu, get the original lowball espn offer. And, yes, Big12 future doesn’t look as rosey as many think.

And by Pac4, we’re talking about WA, OR, Cal and Stanford or the 4-corners???

(08-10-2022 08:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 12:17 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  MWC also walked away, jury still out on that move.

what i don't understand, lack of intrest in 10:30 window from networks.

ESPN tried to kill them with the potential moves to the AAC by Air Force and others

I don't think ESPN did that. The AAC did try to add them, and I am sure ESPN ran #s for the AAC. I think all the networks pushing and driving these deals is way overstated.

(08-10-2022 07:37 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

Five? Boston, College? The ACC is in two B1G states - PA and IN. That's it. And one of those two schools (ND) is an affiliate member that is just using and abusing the ACC.

Rutgers is in NJ, nobody counts Rutgers as NY. They obviously pull the NYC market since they're right across the street, but Rutgers is NJ all day. Rutgers probably gets more of NY overall bc of the City than SYR, but that's just another example of why the ACC is stupid and the B1G are kings.

(08-10-2022 07:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 06:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I like history as much as the next person.

But you or I are not guilty of actions those before us may have done, unless we continue those actions.

The past is the past.

And does anyone seriously think that such prior attitudes represent the B10's current thinking?

I highly doubt it.

Whether the historical background for the animosity to the Big Ten is still part of the current strong preference among ND donors for independence is a moot point, since that current strong preference does indeed exist. So long as a credible path to a national championship exists for ND playing as an independent, we should expect ND to remain independent.

However, the Big Ten is still a conference with an academic snob block of votes, and both Stanford and Washington are, for example, higher ranked in the ARWU than any current Big Ten member (mind, Stanford at number two in the world is higher ranked than any University not named Harvard). Meanwhile, Oregon is in the 301-400 tier, below Nebraska in the 201-300 tier.

Now, Cal is higher ranked than Washington, but from the network perspective, having two schools for the Greater SF Bay Area of 7.7m is a bit redundant, while Washington State is about 7.5m people.

Also, under the new state quo, at 16 with no divisions and scheduling each school with three schools they play annually, every "non big brand name" school gets to play every brand name school twice in four years, and host them once ... even if they are not an annual game. That would be an appeal of the new status quo to the Western Division schools, that they get to host OSU, Penn State and That School Up North more often, now along with USC. Adding schools past 16 means that some schools will be seeing each other twice in six years in a schedule cycle.

So while the Big Ten has reportedly negotiated an opportunity to expand into the upcoming contract, a next move to 18 is more likely than a move to 20, and a move to 20 more likely than a move to 22 or 24.

Indeed, since there are rising opportunity costs to expansion with declining benefits to the conference, unless ND is on offer, standing pat at 16 is also a real possibility.

Main question, why does a credible path to a national championship still exist for ND playing as Indy?

Also, did you say that Washington is higher ranked academically than NW and Michigan? I think they were typos in that report.

(08-10-2022 08:21 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  And by Pac4, we’re talking about WA, OR, Cal and Stanford or the 4-corners???

PAC4 is easier for me... rather than typing out the abbreviations. I'd refer to the others as Corner 4

(08-10-2022 08:24 AM)Cleanface Wrote:  ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

Good point. However, it's unlikely ESPN/ACC can afford UC/WVU if the Big 12 signs with Fox and the exit fee remains in place.

If the ACC can add an additional ND vs ACC game (six a year), they can easily accommodate 15 teams with a 3+6/5+ND. UC should be the favorite and would probably pay the exit fee.

(08-10-2022 08:38 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 08:24 AM)Cleanface Wrote:  ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

Good point. However, it's unlikely ESPN/ACC can afford UC/WVU if the Big 12 signs with Fox and the exit fee remains in place.

If the ACC can add an additional ND vs ACC game (six a year), they can easily accommodate 15 teams with a 3+6/5+ND. UC should be the favorite and would probably pay the exit fee.

they could just do what TX and OK are doing, and announce it'll be 2024/5.

(08-10-2022 07:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 06:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I like history as much as the next person.

But you or I are not guilty of actions those before us may have done, unless we continue those actions.

The past is the past.

And does anyone seriously think that such prior attitudes represent the B10's current thinking?

I highly doubt it.

Whether the historical background for the animosity to the Big Ten is still part of the current strong preference among ND donors for independence is a moot point, since that current strong preference does indeed exist. So long as a credible path to a national championship exists for ND playing as an independent, we should expect ND to remain independent.

However, the Big Ten is still a conference with an academic snob block of votes, and both Stanford and Washington are, for example, higher ranked in the ARWU than any current Big Ten member (mind, Stanford at number two in the world is higher ranked than any University not named Harvard). Meanwhile, Oregon is in the 301-400 tier, below Nebraska in the 201-300 tier.

Now, Cal is higher ranked than Washington, but from the network perspective, having two schools for the Greater SF Bay Area of 7.7m is a bit redundant, while Washington State is about 7.5m people.

Also, under the new state quo, at 16 with no divisions and scheduling each school with three schools they play annually, every "non big brand name" school gets to play every brand name school twice in four years, and host them once ... even if they are not an annual game. That would be an appeal of the new status quo to the Western Division schools, that they get to host OSU, Penn State and That School Up North more often, now along with USC. Adding schools past 16 means that some schools will be seeing each other twice in six years in a schedule cycle.

So while the Big Ten has reportedly negotiated an opportunity to expand into the upcoming contract, a next move to 18 is more likely than a move to 20, and a move to 20 more likely than a move to 22 or 24.

Indeed, since there are rising opportunity costs to expansion with declining benefits to the conference, unless ND is on offer, standing pat at 16 is also a real possibility.

I think these are the most likely options in my opinion (not in order):
a) Stay at 16

b) Add ND & Stanford (could still play every other year with 10 conference games and 3 protected rivals)

c) Add ND, Stanford, Washington, & Oregon (with 10 conference games, could play 4 protected rivals and everyone else twice every 5 years; at 9 conference games, it's everyone else twice every 6 years)

Essentially if ND ain't coming, I don't think we expand.

(08-10-2022 08:34 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 07:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So long as a credible path to a national championship exists for ND playing as an independent, we should expect ND to remain independent.

Main question, why does a credible path to a national championship still exist for ND playing as Indy?

[/quote]

Because Notre Dame's strategic preferences for the playoff line up pretty much exactly with the SEC's preferences--lots and lots of at-large bids. And the SEC has the power to make sure that their preferences are reflected in the playoff.

The Powers That Be don't share your soul-rotting jealousy of Notre Dame's independent status. they'd like Notre Dame in their conference, but if that's not available, having Notre Dame independent is probably better than having them in a competing conference.

(08-10-2022 07:37 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:23 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  ESPN is apparently out and CBS and NBC are possibly in, additionally Apple or Amazon may get in on the streaming. Certainly a lot of cash and exposure for the B1G.
Before I get to the point of this post, I'd like to do a quick pros and cons as I see moving away from ESPN.

Pro: Cord cutting is real. By reverting back to primarily over-the-air broadcasts, households that choose to cut the cord are still contributing to eyeball watching B1G football. This almost looks to me like a Wallstreet guy that sees the fundamentals deteriorating with the ESPN model and going back to old faithful while still keeping a toe in the cable business. There will still be cable exposure with FS1, FS2, & BTN however the Worldwide Leader won't be among them as their business model seems to be crumbling the fastest.

Pro: on a marginal level this puts downward pressure on ESPN carriage fees in B1G states. Why should B1G states pay full freight when no local team is being supported by those rates?

Con: ESPN drives the narrative in College football so I fully expect ABC/ESPN to really crank up the SEC bias and do everything they can to downplay or ignore B1G programs.

Con: Reduces likelihood of B1G expansion into ACC territory because why expand past 20?

Neutral: Bad for Pac 12 but good for Big 12. ESPN now has more slots to fill and some extra money to burn. The Big 12 stands to pick up most of those slots along with a nice payday. The Pac 12 has a beautiful late window that only they can fill, if they can stay together, BUT that late window also makes them more attractive for B1G expansion.

On to the main point. NBC has pitched and apparently sold the B1G on a prime time window. In other news, the B1G doesn't usually play prime time games in November for obvious reason.
Does this portend more West Coast teams being added? I think so, here are my reasons:
1. Keep a good amount of inventory available for the 7:00 EST slot. USC and UCLA will probably dominate late season prime time games but there is room for more potential content in that late slot from other Western teams.
2. Possibly create a super-late slot starting at 10 EST / 7 PST. I say limit this to 2 ish games per year. The east coast is starting to doze of to sleep so overall exposure suffers in the super late window, but it is still live content, and if it an important conference game, it may draw some east/central viewership.
3. Shut out ESPN from super-late start window, or bring them back to the table for that window. ESPN pioneered the After dark programing and is has been a success relative to other content in that window. It would hurt ESPN if the previously rumored combo of Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington were gone from that window.
4. Grow Fox/CBS/NBC viewership in college football out West at the expense of ESPN and their associated properties. The SEC is great, but not everyone likes or watches the SEC...or B1G for that matter. ESPN is focusing on the South East almost to the exclusion of the rest of the country. By contrast the B1G is coast to coast and though mostly regional can still boast of NYC, DC, & LA. If the 4 aforementioned Pac-12 school go to the B1G, that would be the entire Left Coast not really caring what is going on with ESPN.

In the final analysis, I don't think another league could pull this off, the Big Ten/ESPN relationship is a long-standing one and no other league has (to my knowledge) walked away from ESPN. I don't think they are enemies but going West adds opportunities for the B1G and their partners while simultaneously removing them from ESPN and decimating the Pac12.

ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

I live in the Boston metro. I have cable I do not have the ACC network in my package, although I somehow do have the Big 10 network.

(08-09-2022 11:23 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  ESPN is apparently out and CBS and NBC are possibly in, additionally Apple or Amazon may get in on the streaming. Certainly a lot of cash and exposure for the B1G.
Before I get to the point of this post, I'd like to do a quick pros and cons as I see moving away from ESPN.

Pro: Cord cutting is real. By reverting back to primarily over-the-air broadcasts, households that choose to cut the cord are still contributing to eyeball watching B1G football. This almost looks to me like a Wallstreet guy that sees the fundamentals deteriorating with the ESPN model and going back to old faithful while still keeping a toe in the cable business. There will still be cable exposure with FS1, FS2, & BTN however the Worldwide Leader won't be among them as their business model seems to be crumbling the fastest.

Pro: on a marginal level this puts downward pressure on ESPN carriage fees in B1G states. Why should B1G states pay full freight when no local team is being supported by those rates?

Con: ESPN drives the narrative in College football so I fully expect ABC/ESPN to really crank up the SEC bias and do everything they can to downplay or ignore B1G programs.

Con: Reduces likelihood of B1G expansion into ACC territory because why expand past 20?

Neutral: Bad for Pac 12 but good for Big 12. ESPN now has more slots to fill and some extra money to burn. The Big 12 stands to pick up most of those slots along with a nice payday. The Pac 12 has a beautiful late window that only they can fill, if they can stay together, BUT that late window also makes them more attractive for B1G expansion.

On to the main point. NBC has pitched and apparently sold the B1G on a prime time window. In other news, the B1G doesn't usually play prime time games in November for obvious reason.
Does this portend more West Coast teams being added? I think so, here are my reasons:
1. Keep a good amount of inventory available for the 7:00 EST slot. USC and UCLA will probably dominate late season prime time games but there is room for more potential content in that late slot from other Western teams.
2. Possibly create a super-late slot starting at 10 EST / 7 PST. I say limit this to 2 ish games per year. The east coast is starting to doze of to sleep so overall exposure suffers in the super late window, but it is still live content, and if it an important conference game, it may draw some east/central viewership.
3. Shut out ESPN from super-late start window, or bring them back to the table for that window. ESPN pioneered the After dark programing and is has been a success relative to other content in that window. It would hurt ESPN if the previously rumored combo of Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington were gone from that window.
4. Grow Fox/CBS/NBC viewership in college football out West at the expense of ESPN and their associated properties. The SEC is great, but not everyone likes or watches the SEC...or B1G for that matter. ESPN is focusing on the South East almost to the exclusion of the rest of the country. By contrast the B1G is coast to coast and though mostly regional can still boast of NYC, DC, & LA. If the 4 aforementioned Pac-12 school go to the B1G, that would be the entire Left Coast not really caring what is going on with ESPN.

In the final analysis, I don't think another league could pull this off, the Big Ten/ESPN relationship is a long-standing one and no other league has (to my knowledge) walked away from ESPN. I don't think they are enemies but going West adds opportunities for the B1G and their partners while simultaneously removing them from ESPN and decimating the Pac12.

I say "Yes" to that! While I understand the argument about every new member needing to be additive, the flip side of that, in this case, is the opportunity cost of leaving brands like Oregon and Washington out there. The "new big battle" between the SEC and Big Ten is who can assemble as many brands as possible into a larger organization.

Oregon and Washington may not have the cache of Ohio State, USC and Michigan but they have a brand status that goes a bit beyond their region, which is what should be taken into consideration. The new name of the game is building narrative. Part of my problem with the old Big Ten was their comfort with not doing much about the narrative building that the 4-letter monopsony and CBS were doing for the cultural phenomenon down South. Winning more games is not enough. Otherwise, the Big Ten wouldn't get nearly the money that they're rumored to be getting. But that's the power of alumni and the extent of the fanbases. The issue is going even beyond that. The lack of narrative building is affecting the way recruits see the programs. CBS would help tremendously on that. Fox is helping some of that with Big Noon.

Then, of course, you have the (unhealthy) obsession with the Domers. I think that is blocking Warren from doing what's necessary to secure the conference for the long-term. It should be up to them whether to join or not, not up to us to chase them.

When all of those are taken into consideration, that leads me to conclude that trying to maximize dollars would be the shortsighted move. Taking Oregon, Washington, Stanford with Cal as the +1 would do more to diminish the brand deficit than hoping the Domers, somehow, get over being burned a century ago.

Btw, ESPN hates the Big Ten. FtT may not like hearing that. Chapek may not be a hater but most people over there do. Certainly the board members at Disney do. It's just that, until now, they believed that it wasn't as necessary to cut ties with the conference fully.

(08-10-2022 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 08:38 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 08:24 AM)Cleanface Wrote:  ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

Good point. However, it's unlikely ESPN/ACC can afford UC/WVU if the Big 12 signs with Fox and the exit fee remains in place.

If the ACC can add an additional ND vs ACC game (six a year), they can easily accommodate 15 teams with a 3+6/5+ND. UC should be the favorite and would probably pay the exit fee.

they could just do what TX and OK are doing, and announce it'll be 2024/5.

ESPN would gladly do it with WVU, UCF, Cincinnati ,Baylor, TCU, Houston if They thought Fox would take control of the BigXII

(08-10-2022 09:56 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 07:37 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:23 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  ESPN is apparently out and CBS and NBC are possibly in, additionally Apple or Amazon may get in on the streaming. Certainly a lot of cash and exposure for the B1G.
Before I get to the point of this post, I'd like to do a quick pros and cons as I see moving away from ESPN.

Pro: Cord cutting is real. By reverting back to primarily over-the-air broadcasts, households that choose to cut the cord are still contributing to eyeball watching B1G football. This almost looks to me like a Wallstreet guy that sees the fundamentals deteriorating with the ESPN model and going back to old faithful while still keeping a toe in the cable business. There will still be cable exposure with FS1, FS2, & BTN however the Worldwide Leader won't be among them as their business model seems to be crumbling the fastest.

Pro: on a marginal level this puts downward pressure on ESPN carriage fees in B1G states. Why should B1G states pay full freight when no local team is being supported by those rates?

Con: ESPN drives the narrative in College football so I fully expect ABC/ESPN to really crank up the SEC bias and do everything they can to downplay or ignore B1G programs.

Con: Reduces likelihood of B1G expansion into ACC territory because why expand past 20?

Neutral: Bad for Pac 12 but good for Big 12. ESPN now has more slots to fill and some extra money to burn. The Big 12 stands to pick up most of those slots along with a nice payday. The Pac 12 has a beautiful late window that only they can fill, if they can stay together, BUT that late window also makes them more attractive for B1G expansion.

On to the main point. NBC has pitched and apparently sold the B1G on a prime time window. In other news, the B1G doesn't usually play prime time games in November for obvious reason.
Does this portend more West Coast teams being added? I think so, here are my reasons:
1. Keep a good amount of inventory available for the 7:00 EST slot. USC and UCLA will probably dominate late season prime time games but there is room for more potential content in that late slot from other Western teams.
2. Possibly create a super-late slot starting at 10 EST / 7 PST. I say limit this to 2 ish games per year. The east coast is starting to doze of to sleep so overall exposure suffers in the super late window, but it is still live content, and if it an important conference game, it may draw some east/central viewership.
3. Shut out ESPN from super-late start window, or bring them back to the table for that window. ESPN pioneered the After dark programing and is has been a success relative to other content in that window. It would hurt ESPN if the previously rumored combo of Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington were gone from that window.
4. Grow Fox/CBS/NBC viewership in college football out West at the expense of ESPN and their associated properties. The SEC is great, but not everyone likes or watches the SEC...or B1G for that matter. ESPN is focusing on the South East almost to the exclusion of the rest of the country. By contrast the B1G is coast to coast and though mostly regional can still boast of NYC, DC, & LA. If the 4 aforementioned Pac-12 school go to the B1G, that would be the entire Left Coast not really caring what is going on with ESPN.

In the final analysis, I don't think another league could pull this off, the Big Ten/ESPN relationship is a long-standing one and no other league has (to my knowledge) walked away from ESPN. I don't think they are enemies but going West adds opportunities for the B1G and their partners while simultaneously removing them from ESPN and decimating the Pac12.

ESPN could gain keeping Ohio fees with bringing in Cincinnati to the ACC to go along with Pitt , Syracuse, Boston, College, Notre Dame in their 5 B1G states if They actually count Rutgers as NY

I live in the Boston metro. I have cable I do not have the ACC network in my package, although I somehow do have the Big 10 network.

Some cable companies didn't pick it up for some reason but that hopefully will change

(08-10-2022 12:17 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  MWC also walked away, jury still out on that move.

what i don't understand, lack of intrest in 10:30 window from networks.

Games in the 10pm ET timeslot on ESPN usually come in at like the 10th or 11th best viewership for the day. FS1's 10pm ET viewership is significantly less.

Boise State v. Fresno State can get just as good of viewership as many PAC After Dark Matchups. No reason to overpay for potential small increase in viewership for a poor timeslot.

(08-10-2022 10:03 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Btw, ESPN hates the Big Ten. FtT may not like hearing that. Chapek may not be a hater but most people over there do. Certainly the board members at Disney do. It's just that, until now, they believed that it wasn't as necessary to cut ties with the conference fully.

Well, I dunno about any of that, but I'm still thinking the rumours may be true that Disney is pursuing options to sell/spin-off espn. Possibly drop to lesser partner like the Hearst group.

I think the problem is Disney clearly wants to maximize dollars, and may currently be asking more than buyers are willing or able to accept.

So, not paying top dollar for a piece of the B10, kinda makes some sense, from that possible perspective.

(08-10-2022 10:03 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  ESPN would gladly do it with WVU, UCF, Cincinnati ,Baylor, TCU, Houston if They thought Fox would take control of the BigXII

I would buy the PAC 10, and then work to dissolve the Big 12 if I am ESPN.

Move the Midwest schools (sans BYU) to the PAC-18. Money should be around 50 million per or so. The PAC4 could have a clause to get out for the B1G with a negotiated exit fee that would maintain the same payout for the remaining 16 or 14 schools.

WVU/UC/UCF in a 17 team ACC, 3+6/6/5+ND. Add an additional conference game with ND. All three east coast schools would gladly take a three year rotation playing ND and the rest of the ACC.

Big 12 is dissolved, with BYU going Indy again. ESPN would control P3 vs B1G and could dictate the playoff format.

(08-10-2022 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't think P12 nor B12 are big losers here.

It will be interesting to see if the pro-Big 10 bias goes away on ESPN. Big 10 fans insanely claim they are biased against the Big 10. Yes, they are a little more favorable to the SEC, but call back when you have 12 of the last 15 MNCs. There's a very pro Big 10 tilt. They tend to deliberately ignore the Pac 12 and Big 12 who signed with Fox in the 90s. They never seem to have forgiven them. Maybe they will get forgiven now that the Big 10 is off their network.

Its possible the massive gap in ratings and dollars with the P2 has been partly created (obviously there are some fundamental factors as well) by the ESPN biases towards the Big 10 and SEC.

Not any time soon would be my guess. The question now is where does the B12 and PAC land on TV deals.

Pressure? Probably not. Incentive? Maybe.

USC and UCLA in the big, locks up the best of the W coast games. Pac is going to try and sell the 2nd tier games most weeks. The Pac is done. Late night game USC vs Ohio State, or MICH, or PENN ST. will be the top game on any late night.