(08-31-2022 09:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:57 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:09 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 07:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Fox and ESPN aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They want to play the Pac-12 and Big 12 off of each other to keep them both cheap.

Cheap compared to Big 16 or Big 18

This is another step in leftover consolidation. First was Fox having no interest in PAC. Then ESPN low offer. Now the we’ll see if the revenue gradient provided by the networks is enough to overcome PAC schools delusion and wounded pride

You’re looking at it from a Big 12 point of view.

If I’m a network, there’s no financial incentive for consolidation (or certainly paying a premium for it) as long as Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12. I want those Oregon/Washington games as cheap as I can in particular - it’s them mixed with the Four Corners schools that bring the most game value, which is what the Pac-12 is already.

Wow, you’re really that limited a BIG fan point of view? Do you not understand this era of realignment at all?

Consolidation benefits the networks. And the schools. This is business.

Why pay 22 schools with the barrier of two conferences and in which 10 have suboptimal econometrics stuck in the west? You can have 16 or 18 or 20 of those in one conference with more flexibility to get T1 matchups, export PAC brands to more favorable markets etc. And why would schools want years of rump conferences, and even worse more backfill? The non-P2 schools need consolidation whether the networks give a appreciable boost in revenue or not. Doesn’t matter under what name.

Consolidation will continue. And in this case it always made more sense for west-to-east flow. The only question was when. Nearly everything points to soon, although delusion is a heck of a negotiation barrier

This discussion has absolutely has nothing to do with the Big Ten or me being a fan of that conference (as if I were truly a self-interested Big Ten homer in this analysis, I'd be actively *cheering* for more chaos in the Pac-12 and ACC).

Consolidation with fewer market players does NOT benefit the networks. Will the networks end up paying for leagues that consolidate because there are few other choices for sports programming? Yes, because that's the cost of doing business in a limited marketplace. However, let's not mistake that for the networks *wanting* consolidation.

At least I understand the thought of the increased value of FSU/Clemson vs. Alabama/Texas or Ohio State/Michigan games with respect to schools moving from the ACC to the SEC or Big Ten. While that still runs into a legal brick wall of the GOR and I disagree with the notion that ESPN wants anything to do with touching their current SEC and ACC contracts, I can at least understand the value of those particular marquee matchups because those are marquee brands.

All that we have seen from every reasonable analysis is that the Pac-12 and Big 12 schools outside of Oregon and Washington are pretty much interchangeable replacement value schools from a TV perspective. In econometric terms, they're commodities. Buyers of commodities want lots of market players with lots of options in order to reduce the pricing power of sellers. The absolute worst thing for buyers of commodities is for the marketplace to consolidate where sellers gain pricing power over products that are otherwise interchangeable and common. That's the same calculus whether we're talking about corn, widgets or college football teams.

So ESPN and FOX, no matter what people want to believe about them in terms of conference realignment, aren't in the business of consolidating the market of commodities and paying more money for those commodities due to there being fewer sellers. That makes absolutely no economic sense outside of college football message board world where people have somehow internalized the spin that consolidation for the sake of consolidation (when marquee brands like UT/OU and USC/UCLA are *not* involved) is a good thing for those networks.

(By the way, I'm an executive with a degree in finance and trained in accounting, economics and marketing on top of being a lawyer. Any intimations from anyone that I'm "just a lawyer" that writes deals down as opposed to strategically structuring them from a business perspective clearly doesn't understand my background.)

I can see the networks wanting the big brands to play more. But they have fought consolidation, very hard, in the past. They did what they could to scuttle the Pac 16 deal. I don't know why they would want consolidation now. I see why the schools would want consolidation. I don't think playoff expansion requires any changes in conference composition, just a change in ego composition in the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12.

I recommend following Bob Thompson's tweets on this matter.

https://twitter.com/rltsports/status/156...SBkLgrAAAA

I have a different pet peeve than Frank. Mine is people talking about networks "overpaying." The ONLY times they "overpay" is as a loss leader. Fox did it with the NFL to promote their network back when Fox was new. Someone might do it to promote a streaming service. Nobody has or is going to do it on a mature market like cable or OTA college football.

(08-31-2022 01:27 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  I recommend following Bob Thompson's tweets on this matter.

https://twitter.com/rltsports/status/156...SBkLgrAAAA

From some things he has said, he seems to have accepted that it is highly likely the 4 corners go to the Big 12 and 2 to 4 of the rest join the Big 10.

(08-31-2022 09:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:57 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:09 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 07:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Fox and ESPN aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They want to play the Pac-12 and Big 12 off of each other to keep them both cheap.

Cheap compared to Big 16 or Big 18

This is another step in leftover consolidation. First was Fox having no interest in PAC. Then ESPN low offer. Now the we’ll see if the revenue gradient provided by the networks is enough to overcome PAC schools delusion and wounded pride

You’re looking at it from a Big 12 point of view.

If I’m a network, there’s no financial incentive for consolidation (or certainly paying a premium for it) as long as Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12. I want those Oregon/Washington games as cheap as I can in particular - it’s them mixed with the Four Corners schools that bring the most game value, which is what the Pac-12 is already.

Wow, you’re really that limited a BIG fan point of view? Do you not understand this era of realignment at all?

Consolidation benefits the networks. This is business.

Why pay 22 schools with the barrier of two conferences and in which 10 have suboptimal econometrics stuck in the west? You can have 16 or 18 or 20 of those in one conference with more flexibility to get T1 matchups, export PAC brands to more favorable markets etc.

Consolidation will continue. And in this case it always made more sense for west-to-east flow. The only question was when. Nearly everything points to soon, although delusion is a heck of a negotiation barrier

When the absolute encounters the imperative the imperative usually wins. Why? People want a crisis to end and are willing to sacrifice mores, laws, and conventions to end it. I give you "Too Big to Fail" as one of our more recent examples. This proves the other old saw, "Necessity is the mother of Invention". In business lawyers are merely a tool to accomplish an Imperative. They seldom are allowed to be an absolute.

But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

(08-31-2022 01:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:27 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  I recommend following Bob Thompson's tweets on this matter.

https://twitter.com/rltsports/status/156...SBkLgrAAAA

From some things he has said, he seems to have accepted that it is highly likely the 4 corners go to the Big 12 and 2 to 4 of the rest join the Big 10.

and that the consultants used by the big 12 are fairly accurate in their projection ... suggesting that hard numbers may not have been needed for expansion.
i continue to think this has to do with taking pac teams in 24 , the last year of the current contract, and maybe linked to OUT

(08-31-2022 01:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 09:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:57 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:09 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Cheap compared to Big 16 or Big 18

This is another step in leftover consolidation. First was Fox having no interest in PAC. Then ESPN low offer. Now the we’ll see if the revenue gradient provided by the networks is enough to overcome PAC schools delusion and wounded pride

You’re looking at it from a Big 12 point of view.

If I’m a network, there’s no financial incentive for consolidation (or certainly paying a premium for it) as long as Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12. I want those Oregon/Washington games as cheap as I can in particular - it’s them mixed with the Four Corners schools that bring the most game value, which is what the Pac-12 is already.

Wow, you’re really that limited a BIG fan point of view? Do you not understand this era of realignment at all?

Consolidation benefits the networks. This is business.

Why pay 22 schools with the barrier of two conferences and in which 10 have suboptimal econometrics stuck in the west? You can have 16 or 18 or 20 of those in one conference with more flexibility to get T1 matchups, export PAC brands to more favorable markets etc.

Consolidation will continue. And in this case it always made more sense for west-to-east flow. The only question was when. Nearly everything points to soon, although delusion is a heck of a negotiation barrier

When the absolute encounters the imperative the imperative usually wins. Why? People want a crisis to end and are willing to sacrifice mores, laws, and conventions to end it. I give you "Too Big to Fail" as one of our more recent examples. This proves the other old saw, "Necessity is the mother of Invention". In business lawyers are merely a tool to accomplish an Imperative. They seldom are allowed to be an absolute.

But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 09:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:57 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You’re looking at it from a Big 12 point of view.

If I’m a network, there’s no financial incentive for consolidation (or certainly paying a premium for it) as long as Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12. I want those Oregon/Washington games as cheap as I can in particular - it’s them mixed with the Four Corners schools that bring the most game value, which is what the Pac-12 is already.

Wow, you’re really that limited a BIG fan point of view? Do you not understand this era of realignment at all?

Consolidation benefits the networks. This is business.

Why pay 22 schools with the barrier of two conferences and in which 10 have suboptimal econometrics stuck in the west? You can have 16 or 18 or 20 of those in one conference with more flexibility to get T1 matchups, export PAC brands to more favorable markets etc.

Consolidation will continue. And in this case it always made more sense for west-to-east flow. The only question was when. Nearly everything points to soon, although delusion is a heck of a negotiation barrier

When the absolute encounters the imperative the imperative usually wins. Why? People want a crisis to end and are willing to sacrifice mores, laws, and conventions to end it. I give you "Too Big to Fail" as one of our more recent examples. This proves the other old saw, "Necessity is the mother of Invention". In business lawyers are merely a tool to accomplish an Imperative. They seldom are allowed to be an absolute.

But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

(08-31-2022 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  I have a different pet peeve than Frank. Mine is people talking about networks "overpaying." The ONLY times they "overpay" is as a loss leader. Fox did it with the NFL to promote their network back when Fox was new. Someone might do it to promote a streaming service. Nobody has or is going to do it on a mature market like cable or OTA college football.

The media industry challenge is no one even knows what overpaying or underpaying for anything is right now since we're in this purgatory of a mix of (A) OTA and cable channels that are declining in viewership but still generate a lot of cable retransmission and subscriber fees and (B) streaming services that, at least up until the past few months, have been growing rapidly but incur tons of losses.

Optimally, the media industry wants to "manage the decline" of (A) until it intersects with the point of when (B) is profitable.

The problem is that we don't know if (B) will ever be profitable at all, never mind even approaching the profitability of the best days of (A) in the early-2010s.

Sports in particular have gone from a massive profit driver for the growth of (A) into being used as an expensive hedge against the decline of (A). For instance, Disney sees ESPN as a current cash cow that provides the funding to support its other streaming initiative and it's the single most important tool for Disney to slow down cord cutting (or at least increase subscriber fees high enough that it compensates for the increased cord cutting for the time being). However, ESPN definitely isn't looked at all like a growth product in the way that it was up until the early-2010s. Even in the best of circumstances to grow ESPN+ and/or integrate ESPN content onto the larger Disney+ platform, it can't approach the economics of being able to charge over 100 million households in America over $8 per month whether they watched a single moment of sports or not along with it being a complete PITA to cancel so most households just kept it in perpetuity (unlike clicking on an "unsubscribe" button on streaming services). It's the same thing for other networks that show sports, including the OTA networks (where it's a not-so-open secret that they're just as dependent on cable retransmission fees as cable networks are on subscriber fees).

Ads are important, but the economics of ESPN and all other networks that show sports are still overwhelmingly driven by that top line cable subscriber revenue number. That figure is going to gradually go down, which also has the effect of simultaneously driving down ad revenue.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that ESPN will pay for sports like the NFL, NBA and SEC because it's a matter of survival for them as a sports network, but they're not in the business of unilaterally increasing costs (a la tearing up the ACC contract to move schools to the SEC) in some type of search for increased profitability because those days of searching for increased profitability are over with the top line revenue pressures from cord cutting. I truly don't think the Walt Disney Company gives two craps about the structure of college football. They care about "managing the decline" of ESPN where they can wring out as much cash flow from them while they can before needing to pull the plug on the cable model completely (whether that's 5, 10 or 20 years in the future).

If anyone here could actually predict that media industry future, we wouldn't/shouldn't be sitting here saying our ideas for free on a message board, but instead sign on with Netflix, Disney, Comcast, Warner Discovery, Amazon, etc. and get paid a gazillion dollars for our Nostradamus abilities. Believe me that they are all paying a LOT of money to people that can do little more than make bets on the future without really having any idea how it's going to turn out.

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 09:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:57 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Wow, you’re really that limited a BIG fan point of view? Do you not understand this era of realignment at all?

Consolidation benefits the networks. This is business.

Why pay 22 schools with the barrier of two conferences and in which 10 have suboptimal econometrics stuck in the west? You can have 16 or 18 or 20 of those in one conference with more flexibility to get T1 matchups, export PAC brands to more favorable markets etc.

Consolidation will continue. And in this case it always made more sense for west-to-east flow. The only question was when. Nearly everything points to soon, although delusion is a heck of a negotiation barrier

When the absolute encounters the imperative the imperative usually wins. Why? People want a crisis to end and are willing to sacrifice mores, laws, and conventions to end it. I give you "Too Big to Fail" as one of our more recent examples. This proves the other old saw, "Necessity is the mother of Invention". In business lawyers are merely a tool to accomplish an Imperative. They seldom are allowed to be an absolute.

But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 09:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When the absolute encounters the imperative the imperative usually wins. Why? People want a crisis to end and are willing to sacrifice mores, laws, and conventions to end it. I give you "Too Big to Fail" as one of our more recent examples. This proves the other old saw, "Necessity is the mother of Invention". In business lawyers are merely a tool to accomplish an Imperative. They seldom are allowed to be an absolute.

But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

(08-31-2022 03:41 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

At least for me (and I'm not an ACC fan), whether consolidation will happen at all isn't my issue. Instead, it's the *timing* of that consolidation. I've gone over my reasoning elsewhere many times before, but simply put, the amount of the legal risk for any ACC to buy out its GOR obligations is far too great until at least 2030 and similarly, there's absolutely no financial incentive for ESPN to touch that ACC contract until at least around that time, either.

That's my problem - these Armageddon proposals want to cram in what would be 20-plus years of realignment change into the next couple of years (or even months) even if there wasn't the very real legal issue of the GOR (and people that pretend that such GOR is going to magically go away with some pixie dust truly don't understand that document).

(08-31-2022 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ....
If anyone here could actually predict that media industry future, we wouldn't/shouldn't be sitting here saying our ideas for free on a message board, but instead sign on with Netflix, Disney, Comcast, Warner Discovery, Amazon, etc. and get paid a gazillion dollars for our Nostradamus abilities.
....

Our Notradamus abilities?

If the Big 12 can’t get a good tv deal, it’s a bad sign of things to come for the Middle 3. It likely means slowly withering while the Big 10 and SEC use their economic resources to dominate collegiate athletics.

(08-31-2022 03:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:41 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

At least for me (and I'm not an ACC fan), whether consolidation will happen at all isn't my issue. Instead, it's the *timing* of that consolidation. I've gone over my reasoning elsewhere many times before, but simply put, the amount of the legal risk for any ACC to buy out its GOR obligations is far too great until at least 2030 and similarly, there's absolutely no financial incentive for ESPN to touch that ACC contract until at least around that time, either.

That's my problem - these Armageddon proposals want to cram in what would be 20-plus years of realignment change into the next couple of years (or even months) even if there wasn't the very real legal issue of the GOR (and people that pretend that such GOR is going to magically go away with some pixie dust truly don't understand that document).

So in your view, then, is the timing of the end of the B10 media deal not coincidental?

(08-31-2022 03:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:41 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

At least for me (and I'm not an ACC fan), whether consolidation will happen at all isn't my issue. Instead, it's the *timing* of that consolidation. I've gone over my reasoning elsewhere many times before, but simply put, the amount of the legal risk for any ACC to buy out its GOR obligations is far too great until at least 2030 and similarly, there's absolutely no financial incentive for ESPN to touch that ACC contract until at least around that time, either.

That's my problem - these Armageddon proposals want to cram in what would be 20-plus years of realignment change into the next couple of years (or even months) even if there wasn't the very real legal issue of the GOR (and people that pretend that such GOR is going to magically go away with some pixie dust truly don't understand that document).

There is far, far less actual legal risk to those trying to go to P2. A loss in court means status quo.

It’s very foolish to look at previous realignment tenors. Those did not have the revenue deltas, and hence much different risk/reward

Those that lack business sense and only think like fans won’t understand. The GOR is able to be worked around because the lose-lose and win-win options are asymmetrical enough

It’s very flawed to think if it can resolved early, that it can’t be resolved soon. Much more utility and risk to be exchanged now than in 2030.

(08-31-2022 03:41 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  But that’s a fallacy because there are some people assuming consolidation is the end of a crisis and a final resting period where then their permanent realignment dream scenario is completed in stone, forever.

Well guess what? That’s never going to happen. One day Ohio State and Michigan will be prompted to realize they can get solo football deals for more money and not have to have Rutgers and Northwestern included. Cable and markets literally won’t matter anymore and everyone will have access to everything. So why take a pay cut for your conference dregs? The future will be the past. We’re just on the last hurrah for the power conference dregs to make their max money.

Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

Sorry, you’re slow. You keep insulting people here telling them they have poor reading comprehension when you obviously have zero.

(08-31-2022 09:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:41 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Where's the fallacy? Where did I say there would be gestalt mix? Rules will merely fall back into place until the next crisis, and then the imperative will meet and overcome another absolute.

Don't confuse end game with permanency! Nothing is permanent and each plan has an end game, and each end game will cease to exist with the next crisis. Think of it as Darwinism meets Gordon Gekko. One raids and takes the value and the other destroys that business model and reinvents a new favorable paradigm. The destruction of one entity's wealth and power is the creation of the same for another. And so the world goes until it has no resources left to offer or a galactic cataclysm occurs.

Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

Sorry, you’re slow. You keep insulting people here telling them they have poor reading comprehension when you obviously have zero.

So you finally understand further consolidation will occurr, including ACC schools! Good to hear. What took so long?

(09-01-2022 10:28 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 09:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:41 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:09 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 03:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  Everything is always in flux, change is constant, etc. I agree with your second paragraph and that was my point.

I just find it comical people here (not you) are searching for permanence so desperately they’re coming up with any scenario that gives them that. I say: enjoy the chaos!

when you follow realignment for every conference, you know it will never end, that's why this board exists. It's not like the NFL where, okay we got 32....the end.

Consolidation will continue. Some of these ACC fans are a bit slow to realize that

Sorry, you’re slow. You keep insulting people here telling them they have poor reading comprehension when you obviously have zero.

So you finally understand further consolidation will occurr, including ACC schools! Good to hear. What took so long?

It may occur. Will it? Hard to say what the environment will look like when the Big Ten deal is up.

(08-31-2022 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  I have a different pet peeve than Frank. Mine is people talking about networks "overpaying." The ONLY times they "overpay" is as a loss leader. Fox did it with the NFL to promote their network back when Fox was new. Someone might do it to promote a streaming service. Nobody has or is going to do it on a mature market like cable or OTA college football.

The media industry challenge is no one even knows what overpaying or underpaying for anything is right now since we're in this purgatory of a mix of (A) OTA and cable channels that are declining in viewership but still generate a lot of cable retransmission and subscriber fees and (B) streaming services that, at least up until the past few months, have been growing rapidly but incur tons of losses.

Optimally, the media industry wants to "manage the decline" of (A) until it intersects with the point of when (B) is profitable.

The problem is that we don't know if (B) will ever be profitable at all, never mind even approaching the profitability of the best days of (A) in the early-2010s.

Sports in particular have gone from a massive profit driver for the growth of (A) into being used as an expensive hedge against the decline of (A). For instance, Disney sees ESPN as a current cash cow that provides the funding to support its other streaming initiative and it's the single most important tool for Disney to slow down cord cutting (or at least increase subscriber fees high enough that it compensates for the increased cord cutting for the time being). However, ESPN definitely isn't looked at all like a growth product in the way that it was up until the early-2010s. Even in the best of circumstances to grow ESPN+ and/or integrate ESPN content onto the larger Disney+ platform, it can't approach the economics of being able to charge over 100 million households in America over $8 per month whether they watched a single moment of sports or not along with it being a complete PITA to cancel so most households just kept it in perpetuity (unlike clicking on an "unsubscribe" button on streaming services). It's the same thing for other networks that show sports, including the OTA networks (where it's a not-so-open secret that they're just as dependent on cable retransmission fees as cable networks are on subscriber fees).

Ads are important, but the economics of ESPN and all other networks that show sports are still overwhelmingly driven by that top line cable subscriber revenue number. That figure is going to gradually go down, which also has the effect of simultaneously driving down ad revenue.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that ESPN will pay for sports like the NFL, NBA and SEC because it's a matter of survival for them as a sports network, but they're not in the business of unilaterally increasing costs (a la tearing up the ACC contract to move schools to the SEC) in some type of search for increased profitability because those days of searching for increased profitability are over with the top line revenue pressures from cord cutting. I truly don't think the Walt Disney Company gives two craps about the structure of college football. They care about "managing the decline" of ESPN where they can wring out as much cash flow from them while they can before needing to pull the plug on the cable model completely (whether that's 5, 10 or 20 years in the future).

If anyone here could actually predict that media industry future, we wouldn't/shouldn't be sitting here saying our ideas for free on a message board, but instead sign on with Netflix, Disney, Comcast, Warner Discovery, Amazon, etc. and get paid a gazillion dollars for our Nostradamus abilities. Believe me that they are all paying a LOT of money to people that can do little more than make bets on the future without really having any idea how it's going to turn out.

That's a good comment, but it completely misses the point of mine.
Lots of people are saying that networks are INTENTIONALLY overpaying. That simply isn't happening. Yes, ESPN overpaid, in hindsight, for the LHN, but they thought they would get Texas HS football making it a must throughout Texas. They also didn't see the pushback from the rest of the Big 12 against games being played on the network.