(01-31-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Disney just went through a CEO change (or more accurately, a reinstatement of the old CEO) and is getting attacked by activist investors because Wall Street (a) can't stand the amount that Disney is spending on programming and (b) know that ESPN and other linear TV networks have driven their profits for many years but it's an inevitably declining business where streaming will likely never be able to get those same types of profits again.

Here's the upshot that's different than even 6 months ago when the Big Ten TV deals were being finalized: Wall Street is HAMMERING media companies on programming spending. They're now skeptical of the streaming model while simultaneously pricing in that cable TV is a dying business.

So, that backdrop has to be taken into account any time that a proposal requires ESPN to spend more money on anything right now. ESPN's power in the sports industry is continuously being reduced because they no longer have carte blanche to spend on sports rights that they had up until they signed the latest NFL deal. The ESPN executives couldn't even wring out $20 million extra dollars per year for ESPN to prevent turning NBC into a bigger competitor for college sports for their Big Ten TV package (and this was when Bob Chapek was still CEO with degrees from *two* different Big Ten schools).

Current (and former) Disney CEO Bob Iger is a sports fan, but could care less about conference realignment. His focus is on maximizing the market capitalization of the Walt Disney Company AKA the Disney stock price. Right now, reducing programming expenses is more important to Wall Street than increasing programming revenue.

What's Wall Street 's view of Google?? I remember Disney trying to shop itself to Apple, but apparently no deal. However, I think that Google might be more likely to deal with Disney than Apple would. I know you guys aren't going to want to hear this, but due to political missteps & activist investor failures, American media companies are reeling somewhat right now. However, if I'm not mistaken, Google is not headquartered in the US, and that might be a plus for them. This is why I say that Google might be in a better position to buy Disney/ESPN than Apple would.

(02-01-2023 06:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Disney just went through a CEO change (or more accurately, a reinstatement of the old CEO) and is getting attacked by activist investors because Wall Street (a) can't stand the amount that Disney is spending on programming and (b) know that ESPN and other linear TV networks have driven their profits for many years but it's an inevitably declining business where streaming will likely never be able to get those same types of profits again.

Here's the upshot that's different than even 6 months ago when the Big Ten TV deals were being finalized: Wall Street is HAMMERING media companies on programming spending. They're now skeptical of the streaming model while simultaneously pricing in that cable TV is a dying business.

So, that backdrop has to be taken into account any time that a proposal requires ESPN to spend more money on anything right now. ESPN's power in the sports industry is continuously being reduced because they no longer have carte blanche to spend on sports rights that they had up until they signed the latest NFL deal. The ESPN executives couldn't even wring out $20 million extra dollars per year for ESPN to prevent turning NBC into a bigger competitor for college sports for their Big Ten TV package (and this was when Bob Chapek was still CEO with degrees from *two* different Big Ten schools).

Current (and former) Disney CEO Bob Iger is a sports fan, but could care less about conference realignment. His focus is on maximizing the market capitalization of the Walt Disney Company AKA the Disney stock price. Right now, reducing programming expenses is more important to Wall Street than increasing programming revenue.

What's Wall Street 's view of Google?? I remember Disney trying to shop itself to Apple, but apparently no deal. However, I think that Google might be more likely to deal with Disney than Apple would. I know you guys aren't going to want to hear this, but due to political missteps & activist investor failures, American media companies are reeling somewhat right now. However, if I'm not mistaken, Google is not headquartered in the US, and that might be a plus for them. This is why I say that Google might be in a better position to buy Disney/ESPN than Apple would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

cal-i-for-nigh-ay : )

and even if it wasn't, international things are a bit more complicated than that.

for example, during the Fox merger, disney had to sell off certain things in some countries and not in others.

(02-01-2023 06:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Disney just went through a CEO change (or more accurately, a reinstatement of the old CEO) and is getting attacked by activist investors because Wall Street (a) can't stand the amount that Disney is spending on programming and (b) know that ESPN and other linear TV networks have driven their profits for many years but it's an inevitably declining business where streaming will likely never be able to get those same types of profits again.

Here's the upshot that's different than even 6 months ago when the Big Ten TV deals were being finalized: Wall Street is HAMMERING media companies on programming spending. They're now skeptical of the streaming model while simultaneously pricing in that cable TV is a dying business.

So, that backdrop has to be taken into account any time that a proposal requires ESPN to spend more money on anything right now. ESPN's power in the sports industry is continuously being reduced because they no longer have carte blanche to spend on sports rights that they had up until they signed the latest NFL deal. The ESPN executives couldn't even wring out $20 million extra dollars per year for ESPN to prevent turning NBC into a bigger competitor for college sports for their Big Ten TV package (and this was when Bob Chapek was still CEO with degrees from *two* different Big Ten schools).

Current (and former) Disney CEO Bob Iger is a sports fan, but could care less about conference realignment. His focus is on maximizing the market capitalization of the Walt Disney Company AKA the Disney stock price. Right now, reducing programming expenses is more important to Wall Street than increasing programming revenue.

What's Wall Street 's view of Google?? I remember Disney trying to shop itself to Apple, but apparently no deal. However, I think that Google might be more likely to deal with Disney than Apple would. I know you guys aren't going to want to hear this, but due to political missteps & activist investor failures, American media companies are reeling somewhat right now. However, if I'm not mistaken, Google is not headquartered in the US, and that might be a plus for them. This is why I say that Google might be in a better position to buy Disney/ESPN than Apple would.

?????????
Google Alphabet's headquarters is in Mountain View, CA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc.

(02-01-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Google Alphabet's headquarters is in Mountain View, CA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc.

See! tain't in "real" American, it's in California. A place famous for it's stern non-interventionist stance regarding large corporations.

Heck, I had occasion to raise the Big Rock Candy Mountain just last week ... what Mountain do you think Google's owner's HQ has "view" of, anyway?

(02-01-2023 06:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Google Alphabet's headquarters is in Mountain View, CA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc.

See! tain't in "real" American, it's in California. A place famous for it's stern non-interventionist stance regarding large corporations.

*cough*

you owe me a soda

lol

(02-01-2023 06:52 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 06:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Google Alphabet's headquarters is in Mountain View, CA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc.

See! tain't in "real" American, it's in California. A place famous for it's stern non-interventionist stance regarding large corporations.

*cough*

you owe me a soda

lol

Only if you were not drinking it with a plastic straw, since if you were, I am reliably informed that it would be you who owe me ... errr ... something something.

(02-01-2023 07:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 06:52 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 06:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Google Alphabet's headquarters is in Mountain View, CA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc.

See! tain't in "real" American, it's in California. A place famous for it's stern non-interventionist stance regarding large corporations.

*cough*

you owe me a soda

lol

Only if you were not drinking it with a plastic straw, since if you were, I am reliably informed that it would be you who owe me ... errr ... something something.

I'm not down to my last straw, I think you're thinking of the Cal schools.

Oh wait, didn't they something something about plastic straws?

Oh right...

https://csnbbs.com/thread-963772-post-18...id18735965

Well played sir : )

(01-31-2023 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, basically, the power moves of Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the B10 left the rest of the P5 in a bit of a mess.

And we've been hearing not great news for the PAC.

The PAC turned down the espn/fox deal, and now they're looking at an espn/amazon deal that may be in the same ballpark.

Not surprising since espn is the common denominator there.

So this means that espn has the media deal with ACC, SEC, and apparently the more expensive part of the B12, and the potential PAC, deals.

So they are in the driver's seat for all of this.

And I think that it's in their best interests if this chaos settles down so they can just collect their money from the content they're licensing.

First step: Address the FSU situation.

It's already been telegraphed that FSU should be able to leave the conference in a managed way. It's just a matter of wrangling the votes.

And if they're going to do this, it also needs to be strategic.

So the move is FSU, Clemson, and NC.

No little brothers, and because they want to keep ND stability, not GT or Miami.

FSU and Clemson votes are likely easier and might not cost as much. But to get votes for NC, espn is gonna need to pay more.

But getting NC into SEC now, is the move. Otherwise the B10 could start bidding later once time has made the GoR less of an issue.

Since three schools are leaving and 3 being added, let's presume a bump of about $3M - around $45M to the conference.

The ACC backfills with Cincinnati, WV, UCF. Remember that the more money - $3M - should help assuage any elitist egos.

Adding these three to the ACC will assist with addressing the PAC situation.

Once those are gone, then espn can facilitate the B12 inviting all the PAC schools, plus SDSU and Fresno state.

Ask the question - is going from 25M to 31M per school, and to a more stable situation, worth the move for the schools? In most cases, I think that's a yes.

9+10 = 19. Though it is possible that one or more PAC schools may decide the extra money isn't worth it. So no guarantee on the final number.

Plus the SEC may take one school for an even 20 - Kansas or another Texas school, for example.

Why would this be good for espn?

Well, in doing this, they just went from 4 conferences to 3. They locked Fox (the big10) out of the east. And stopped the Amazon sports expansion (for now).

And they increased the quantity and potential quality of in-conference matchups for all three conferences. Which - per their deals - is a definite benefit.

Oh and they control over half of the new P4...

It's an espn world, and we're all just living in it : )

So are you saying that ESPN would pay $180 million more to move FSU, Clemson and UNC to the SEC ($45 million more each to FSU, CU, UNC and the ACC)?

$180m more PER YEAR for 13 years... so 180x13 = $2.34b. Seems unlikely.

(02-01-2023 08:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, basically, the power moves of Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the B10 left the rest of the P5 in a bit of a mess.

And we've been hearing not great news for the PAC.

The PAC turned down the espn/fox deal, and now they're looking at an espn/amazon deal that may be in the same ballpark.

Not surprising since espn is the common denominator there.

So this means that espn has the media deal with ACC, SEC, and apparently the more expensive part of the B12, and the potential PAC, deals.

So they are in the driver's seat for all of this.

And I think that it's in their best interests if this chaos settles down so they can just collect their money from the content they're licensing.

First step: Address the FSU situation.

It's already been telegraphed that FSU should be able to leave the conference in a managed way. It's just a matter of wrangling the votes.

And if they're going to do this, it also needs to be strategic.

So the move is FSU, Clemson, and NC.

No little brothers, and because they want to keep ND stability, not GT or Miami.

FSU and Clemson votes are likely easier and might not cost as much. But to get votes for NC, espn is gonna need to pay more.

But getting NC into SEC now, is the move. Otherwise the B10 could start bidding later once time has made the GoR less of an issue.

Since three schools are leaving and 3 being added, let's presume a bump of about $3M - around $45M to the conference.

The ACC backfills with Cincinnati, WV, UCF. Remember that the more money - $3M - should help assuage any elitist egos.

Adding these three to the ACC will assist with addressing the PAC situation.

Once those are gone, then espn can facilitate the B12 inviting all the PAC schools, plus SDSU and Fresno state.

Ask the question - is going from 25M to 31M per school, and to a more stable situation, worth the move for the schools? In most cases, I think that's a yes.

9+10 = 19. Though it is possible that one or more PAC schools may decide the extra money isn't worth it. So no guarantee on the final number.

Plus the SEC may take one school for an even 20 - Kansas or another Texas school, for example.

Why would this be good for espn?

Well, in doing this, they just went from 4 conferences to 3. They locked Fox (the big10) out of the east. And stopped the Amazon sports expansion (for now).

And they increased the quantity and potential quality of in-conference matchups for all three conferences. Which - per their deals - is a definite benefit.

Oh and they control over half of the new P4...

It's an espn world, and we're all just living in it : )

So are you saying that ESPN would pay $180 million more to move FSU, Clemson and UNC to the SEC ($45 million more each to FSU, CU, UNC and the ACC)?

$180m more PER YEAR for 13 years... so 180x13 = $2.34b. Seems unlikely.

Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

So we're really only talking about the cost to the adds to the ACC.

And JRsec, could be right that that $45M may not need to happen to get their vote.

But even if it is, that's only an extra $45M a year to the conference. Adding up the successive years is a politician's game to try to cause sticker shock. I'll pass.

(02-01-2023 08:08 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

Who told you that?

(02-01-2023 08:08 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 08:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, basically, the power moves of Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the B10 left the rest of the P5 in a bit of a mess.

And we've been hearing not great news for the PAC.

The PAC turned down the espn/fox deal, and now they're looking at an espn/amazon deal that may be in the same ballpark.

Not surprising since espn is the common denominator there.

So this means that espn has the media deal with ACC, SEC, and apparently the more expensive part of the B12, and the potential PAC, deals.

So they are in the driver's seat for all of this.

And I think that it's in their best interests if this chaos settles down so they can just collect their money from the content they're licensing.

First step: Address the FSU situation.

It's already been telegraphed that FSU should be able to leave the conference in a managed way. It's just a matter of wrangling the votes.

And if they're going to do this, it also needs to be strategic.

So the move is FSU, Clemson, and NC.

No little brothers, and because they want to keep ND stability, not GT or Miami.

FSU and Clemson votes are likely easier and might not cost as much. But to get votes for NC, espn is gonna need to pay more.

But getting NC into SEC now, is the move. Otherwise the B10 could start bidding later once time has made the GoR less of an issue.

Since three schools are leaving and 3 being added, let's presume a bump of about $3M - around $45M to the conference.

The ACC backfills with Cincinnati, WV, UCF. Remember that the more money - $3M - should help assuage any elitist egos.

Adding these three to the ACC will assist with addressing the PAC situation.

Once those are gone, then espn can facilitate the B12 inviting all the PAC schools, plus SDSU and Fresno state.

Ask the question - is going from 25M to 31M per school, and to a more stable situation, worth the move for the schools? In most cases, I think that's a yes.

9+10 = 19. Though it is possible that one or more PAC schools may decide the extra money isn't worth it. So no guarantee on the final number.

Plus the SEC may take one school for an even 20 - Kansas or another Texas school, for example.

Why would this be good for espn?

Well, in doing this, they just went from 4 conferences to 3. They locked Fox (the big10) out of the east. And stopped the Amazon sports expansion (for now).

And they increased the quantity and potential quality of in-conference matchups for all three conferences. Which - per their deals - is a definite benefit.

Oh and they control over half of the new P4...

It's an espn world, and we're all just living in it : )

So are you saying that ESPN would pay $180 million more to move FSU, Clemson and UNC to the SEC ($45 million more each to FSU, CU, UNC and the ACC)?

$180m more PER YEAR for 13 years... so 180x13 = $2.34b. Seems unlikely.

Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

So we're really only talking about the cost to the adds to the ACC.

And JRsec, could be right that that $45M may not need to happen to get their vote.

But even if it is, that's only an extra $45M a year to the conference. Adding up the successive years is a politician's game to try to cause sticker shock. I'll pass.

Huh? The SEC is expanding anyway, probably, once they can get access to ACC schools. That $2.34b would be money that ESPN is paying that they wouldn't otherwise have to pay, just to give a few ACC schools a get out of jail free card 13 years early. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's unlikely that the combination of lower ACC ratings would be overcome by slightly higher SEC ratings over the next 13 years, especially to the tune of $2.34b in value to ESPN. But even then, they'd have to hope the move would be worth significantly more than that, or why bother taking the risk? There'd have to be an upside in the $4-5b range for Magnus to even consider it. And, judging from the 3.4m people who watched UNC and Clemson in the ACC title game this year, I find it hard to believe that this kind of upside is on the table. The good news is that the ACC ratings can't fall that much lower than they already are, even without the big 3.

(01-31-2023 02:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the best idea for FBS is a collective barganing with all the teams for all the Networks. No more one conference getting paid more than the other. This be more of a collective barganing deals. The schools get paid more by on the field product. Lets say Kansas goes 0-12 again? The losing teams no matter if they are in a P5 conference, gets paid less than a 12-0 G5 team.

lol, grow up Polyanna.

(02-01-2023 09:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 08:08 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

Who told you that?

you don't think they are? : )

(01-31-2023 02:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the best idea for FBS is a collective barganing with all the teams for all the Networks. No more one conference getting paid more than the other. This be more of a collective barganing deals.

Let's call the umbrella organisation 'NCAA.'

Quote:The schools get paid more by on the field product. Lets say Kansas goes 0-12 again? The losing teams no matter if they are in a P5 conference, gets paid less than a 12-0 G5 team.

Let's make it like the NFL. 0-12 Kansas rolls over for 1-11 UMass so it will get first pick of all the five-stars.

(02-01-2023 11:20 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 09:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 08:08 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

Who told you that?

you don't think they are? : )

Not in the 10-year window. And the media landscape is pretty unpredictable past that window.

(02-02-2023 07:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 11:20 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 09:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 08:08 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

Who told you that?

you don't think they are? : )

Not in the 10-year window. And the media landscape is pretty unpredictable past that window.

I wouldn't think so either.
It's going to take a long, long time for the SEC to digest Texas and Oklahoma if at all possible and 16 has yet to be proven to be a workable number much less anything higher.

(01-31-2023 01:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So, basically, the power moves of Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the B10 left the rest of the P5 in a bit of a mess.

And we've been hearing not great news for the PAC.

The PAC turned down the espn/fox deal, and now they're looking at an espn/amazon deal that may be in the same ballpark.

Not surprising since espn is the common denominator there.

So this means that espn has the media deal with ACC, SEC, and apparently the more expensive part of the B12, and the potential PAC, deals.

So they are in the driver's seat for all of this.

And I think that it's in their best interests if this chaos settles down so they can just collect their money from the content they're licensing.

First step: Address the FSU situation.
It's already been telegraphed that FSU
should be able to leave the conference in a managed way. It's just a matter of wrangling the votes.

And if they're going to do this, it also needs to be strategic.
It's already been telegraphed that FSU
So the move is FSU, Clemson, and NC.

No little brothers, and because they want to keep ND stability, not GT or Miami.

FSU and Clemson votes are likely easier and might not cost as much. But to get votes for NC, espn is gonna need to pay more.

But getting NC into SEC now, is the move. Otherwise the B10 could start bidding later once time has made the GoR less of an issue.

Since three schools are leaving and 3 being added, let's presume a bump of about $3M - around $45M to the conference.

The ACC backfills with Cincinnati, WV, UCF. Remember that the more money - $3M - should help assuage any elitist egos.

Adding these three to the ACC will assist with addressing the PAC situation.

Once those are gone, then espn can facilitate the B12 inviting all the PAC schools, plus SDSU and Fresno state.

Ask the question - is going from 25M to 31M per school, and to a more stable situation, worth the move for the schools? In most cases, I think that's a yes.

9+10 = 19. Though it is possible that one or more PAC schools may decide the extra money isn't worth it. So no guarantee on the final number.

Plus the SEC may take one school for an even 20 - Kansas or another Texas school, for example.

Why would this be good for espn?

Well, in doing this, they just went from 4 conferences to 3. They locked Fox (the big10) out of the east. And stopped the Amazon sports expansion (for now).

And they increased the quantity and potential quality of in-conference matchups for all three conferences. Which - per their deals - is a definite benefit.

Oh and they control over half of the new P4...

It's an espn world, and we're all just living in it : )

ESPN was the major player in 1 deal and a minor one in the other. 2 totally different roles.

Telegraphed by who?
ESPN has 0 reason to allow any ACC school to go to the Big. Losing 2 big name properties to the Big so they can get 2 to the SEC makes 0 sense money wise.

Honestly I think the 12 team CFP expansion saves the other conferences. Their champions are now all but guaranteed to make the playoff so the need to expand or poach or jump to another league is greatly reduced IMO. Teams like Clemson and FSU now have a much easier and more guaranteed path to the playoff in the ACC than jumping into the SEC shark tank.

Heck if it had happened sooner, I doubt OU/UT and USC/UCLA would have even happened

It’s even possible that it leads in the opposite direction again to smaller more regional leagues again as access to the playoff and making it more often in a smaller league may means more for some than being 8-4 in a mega power league every year

(02-02-2023 11:13 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Honestly I think the 12 team CFP expansion saves the other conferences. Their champions are now all but guaranteed to make the playoff so the need to expand or poach or jump to another league is greatly reduced IMO. Teams like Clemson and FSU now have a much easier and more guaranteed path to the playoff in the ACC than jumping into the SEC shark tank.

Heck if it had happened sooner, I doubt OU/UT and USC/UCLA would have even happened

It’s even possible that it leads in the opposite direction again to smaller more regional leagues again as access to the playoff and making it more often in a smaller league may means more for some than being 8-4 in a mega power league every year

I don't see it moving the needle in overcoming the payout differential between the B1G/SEC and everybody else. Then throw in the gameday revenue disparity every Saturday. And all of the soft and perception benefits in playing in the "big leagues". How much is steamrolling through the ACC and then getting wiped out in the first round or second of the playoff worth (the likely outcome, especially as time wears on)? Even if the ACC champ wins the NC (a likely very rare occurrence) and another team or two gets in, how much will that put in the coffers? Based on recent playoff payouts...during a great year it would maybe be another $1M or so per ACC team once it's divided up. Again, in a very good year. I'm sure there will be a little more in the pot for the expanded playoff...so let's get really optimistic and say during a great ACC year, it's $2-3M more per team. The payout differential is still tremendous and the SEC/B1G are going to be getting playoff payouts on top of that too. Maybe the gorilla math in my head is off a little, but I don't think by enough to make a difference. Easier path to the playoff is nice...but not that nice.

It's an understandable and optimistic point on your part, but the $ gap is too big for just about any high value school that gets an invite to the P2.

(02-02-2023 07:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 07:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 11:20 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 09:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 08:08 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, the SEC is likely expanding regardless. So that's figured into the price of doing business.

Who told you that?

you don't think they are? : )

Not in the 10-year window. And the media landscape is pretty unpredictable past that window.

I wouldn't think so either.
It's going to take a long, long time for the SEC to digest Texas and Oklahoma if at all possible and 16 has yet to be proven to be a workable number much less anything higher.

The NFL has 32 teams. It is workable.