Let's treat this like the corporate takeover game that it is. ESPN holds the ACC and SEC properties. That's half of the college football and basketball property roughly speaking. The better half of the football property and at least an equal half of the basketball property. They also have options on Texas and Kansas through tier three contract deals. For the time being that is good enough. The fight will be for the Big 12 properties that are commercially viable. Those would be in order Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia.
While Fox has the tier 3 deal of the Sooners, the Sooners cover the overhead on that 7 million dollar contract. The overhead is between 2 and 3 million. That's not enough to hold the Sooners to a FOX contract. The net buyout would be between 4 to 5 million per year for the duration of the contract and more likely than not negotiated down from that position in exchange for secondary games that FOX could broadcast from the Southeast area on sublet from ESPN.
So what does the Mouse do? Nothing for now. They will be in negotiations with the Big 10 seeking to keep their Tier 1 rights for Saturday mornings in the Fall and for hoops in the Winter and Spring. If the Big 10 cooperates I think a Kansas deal to the Big 10 might happen. The SEC would be looking for Oklahoma and West Virginia, and perhaps Texas would go to the ACC with an N.D. deal as many have speculated.
If the Big 10 does not play ball with ESPN for tier 1 rights and FOX ups the ante, I look for ESPN to shelter their access to the best products of the Big 12. In that case Kansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to the SEC becomes a possibility. Texas could move to the ACC, or could then be used by ESPN as leverage for a greater percentage of the PAC product, leaving West Virginia to be placed in the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma State/Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas State then become a possible package for the PAC.
If the PAC refuses a higher percentage and the Big 10 gives Tier 1 to FOX then Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to the SEC and ACC would make more sense near the end of the Big 12's GOR.
We've talked about this a lot, but think about the strategy involved from a corporate viewpoint. Since the SEC and ACC are locked down until 2025, ESPN by moving Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the SEC and ACC not only take the three most valuable properties in the Big 12, but they essentially punish the Big 10 by cutting an uncooperative Jim Delany out of the best remaining expansion candidates in entirety. After the Maryland and Rutgers additions that would essentially leave Connecticut and Iowa State as the only viable alternatives for the Big 10 unless they did go the Canadian or Buffalo route. Such a move by ESPN would hamstring the FOX football product in the Big 10 and eliminate the prize pieces from any PAC attempt to move into the Central Time Zone.
We've spoken of how the conferences might have to work together to accomplish this, but if the contracts for the Big 10 and PAC don't fall ESPN's way it will be another matter entirely. Another way of putting this is that the most valuable basketball and football brands for FOX would be reduced to: Basketball PAC (Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, and sometimes Washington) Basketball Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, sometimes Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland). That's 13 properties. Football PAC (Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington, sometimes Arizona, Utah, Oregon State). Big 10 Football (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State and sometimes Northwestern and Iowa) That's 17 properties. So to put it another way, just under 1 conference worth of basketball teams and just over one conference worth of football teams.
That's not much to run a network on.
Add to that the fact that Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas would all be much more valuable content wise in either the SEC or ACC and that ESPN would be free of the other conference properties and you can see the financial incentive for the move. Pay for 3 and multiply their appeal many fold. If Oklahoma State and West Virginia have to be accommodated as well that could be worked out.
That's why I've said all along that what the networks want will likely govern the end game moves involving Big 12 schools. Face it, ESPN doesn't want to lose the basketball teams they have sheltered in the ACC and they don't want to lose that footprint. Therefore they will do what is necessary to develop that region (up to and including a much much more close relationship between the SEC and ACC). They don't want to lose the most watched football product in the nation either and will do what is necessary to insure the SEC's interests moving forward. Adding Paul Finebaum, Matt Stinchcomb, David Pollock, and Jessie Palmer are a huge shift toward trying to appeal to an SEC audience and away from Kirk Herbstreet and Desmond Howard who were Big 10 personalities (although I like them both and expect both of them to stay). Nevertheless it shows a decided shift in focus. Danny Kennel is another such shift with ACC roots.
While I don't read too much into these decisions on personalities at this time it could be an indicator of broader future shifts to come in representation of product. Since most of these kinds of moves happen 5 years out in the corporate world the timing is also about right.
If that is to be the case I look for movement in about 5 years after the GOR has moved closer to expiration. If ESPN wants to lock it down sooner with the playoffs looming in the immediate future then a move of 3 to the ACC and 4 to the SEC might well be possible with either the PAC or Big 10 offered incentive to take another or the rest.
Either way what conferences would like will be taken into consideration, but not necessarily the determining factor. If FOX and ESPN become a bit more polarized over these kinds of property issues I do think it will happen sooner, if they agree to disagree they will wait for the end of the GOR and bid for the prizes. If they cooperate I don't think it will change the outcome to a large degree, but might affect which games are sublet to an opposing network or might determine whether or not a Kansas or even an Oklahoma move North. We'll see. Thoughts? Discussion?
I think we all acknowledge that FOX and ESPN are necessary to get to a P4 or P3. I think were we are all struggling is with how such a consolidation get done without the inevitable intervention of government interests. These busybodies will act 'in the best interests of college sports' to either increase the number of teams in D4 above 80 and/or will prevent the separation altogether. Thus, if we are going to look at a new angle, lets examine how many and what schools will need to be included to appease gov't watchdogs and what the conferences will look like with said teams.
(12-02-2013 08:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we all acknowledge that FOX and ESPN are necessary to get to a P4 or P3. I think were we are all struggling is with how such a consolidation get done without the inevitable intervention of government interests. These busybodies will act 'in the best interests of college sports' to either increase the number of teams in D4 above 80 and/or will prevent the separation altogether. Thus, if we are going to look at a new angle, lets examine how many and what schools will need to be included to appease gov't watchdogs and what the conferences will look like with said teams.
Okay. Which teams would you suggest? I'll think about it from that angle and see what I come up with.
heres what i want: 3 mega conferences
the 3 conferences have a 4 team playoff to determine their champion
the 3 conference champions +1 at large play an additional 14 team playoff
Good job JR.
I'm going to have to read it over two or three more times to really understand it, but it really makes sense at first read.
I will have to stop here and give some props to John Swofford. He was smart enough to realize that his league couldn't stand up on it's own aganst the B1G or the SEC so he gave over the entire ACC to ESPN and waited confidently knowing that ESPN would take care of his league like they owned it (because they did).
(12-02-2013 08:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we all acknowledge that FOX and ESPN are necessary to get to a P4 or P3. I think were we are all struggling is with how such a consolidation get done without the inevitable intervention of government interests. These busybodies will act 'in the best interests of college sports' to either increase the number of teams in D4 above 80 and/or will prevent the separation altogether. Thus, if we are going to look at a new angle, lets examine how many and what schools will need to be included to appease gov't watchdogs and what the conferences will look like with said teams.
Okay I've thought about it.
First, there will be a minimum investment in athletics stipulation which will likely be in the 60 million dollar range. 50 million minimum. That if anything will cause several schools of which Wake Forest might be one, to say no thanks. Remember now we are talking football here. Wake would still compete at the top level in hoops but not as a member of the upper tier football conference should they decide to say no thanks.
Second, schools like Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Boise State, Montana, and Hawaii will be given a chance to make it. I'm sure Fresno and San Diego State will fit this dynamic as well. You could add Houston, S.M.U., Rice, East Carolina, and Tulane etc.. They will be given the minimum investment criteria and the minimum number of sports criteria, and the stadium capacity criteria and the minimum academic entrance requirement and when they comply they will gain entry either as a separate conference with equal access or as additional members of an existing conference. U.S.F., UConn, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, and others will be able to make such a choice as well.
Thirdly, once said criteria is established states that desire their schools inclusion will have to budget to make the necessary funds to update and meet minimums available. I believe at this point the antitrust type suits disappear. Nobody is excluding anyone. The schools and the states supporting them will make the decisions. I bet quite of few of them opt not to be a part of the upper tier. Those who do will be welcomed.
I look for about 72 schools. I think Connecticut, Cincinnati, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, San Diego State, and Fresno State all stand a good chance. New Mexico, Nevada, Hawaii, Boise, and Wyoming will likely be decided by their state legislatures.
But exclusion will solely be based upon the choice of the applicants to meet the requirements.
72 is a good number
theres really 4 classes of FBS schools
1. the power programs
2. the top g5 programs
3. the historical schools
4. the schools that really have no business being d1
personally i think it should be in the 90s
thats right in the range where all the good historical schools & g5 schools that can show promise get in while cutting all the useless schools like UAB troy georgia southern fiu etc.
from a moral standpoint. tulsa & utah state have been d1 since the very beginning. have been in the same division as oklahoma, utah, & byu since the very beginning and i dont see why we should kick them out
(12-03-2013 10:27 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]72 is a good number
theres really 4 classes of FBS schools
1. the power programs
2. the top g5 programs
3. the historical schools
4. the schools that really have no business being d1
personally i think it should be in the 90s
thats right in the range where all the good historical schools & g5 schools that can show promise get in while cutting all the useless schools like UAB troy georgia southern fiu etc.
from a moral standpoint. tulsa & utah state have been d1 since the very beginning. have been in the same division as oklahoma, utah, & byu since the very beginning and i dont see why we should kick them out
John you need to reconsider calling UAB useless. They are an extremely well thought of research institution. The medical research done there is quite impressive. Is there a reason you only picked on smaller programs from the Southeast?
The upper tier will be a new and intentionally exclusive grouping when it comes about. Historical status will not matter. If they don't meet the standards they won't get in. It will be about football and about those programs willing to put forth the same effort at excellence in that sport. Those with historical connections that don't want to make the investment will no longer be able to freeload on the investment of others simply because of historical associations.
That's the wonderful thing about life and social Darwinism, change happens and the strongest survive. Economically there are too many schools for where technology, the economy, and globalization are taking us. Those that don't adapt will pass into history.
(12-03-2013 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2013 10:27 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]72 is a good number
theres really 4 classes of FBS schools
1. the power programs
2. the top g5 programs
3. the historical schools
4. the schools that really have no business being d1
personally i think it should be in the 90s
thats right in the range where all the good historical schools & g5 schools that can show promise get in while cutting all the useless schools like UAB troy georgia southern fiu etc.
from a moral standpoint. tulsa & utah state have been d1 since the very beginning. have been in the same division as oklahoma, utah, & byu since the very beginning and i dont see why we should kick them out
John you need to reconsider calling UAB useless. They are an extremely well thought of research institution. The medical research done there is quite impressive. Is there a reason you only picked on smaller programs from the Southeast?
The upper tier will be a new and intentionally exclusive grouping when it comes about. Historical status will not matter. If they don't meet the standards they won't get in. It will be about football and about those programs willing to put forth the same effort at excellence in that sport. Those with historical connections that don't want to make the investment will no longer be able to freeload on the investment of others simply because of historical associations.
That's the wonderful thing about life and social Darwinism, change happens and the strongest survive. Economically there are too many schools for where technology, the economy, and globalization are taking us. Those that don't adapt will pass into history.
i just shouted out a random program. insert southern miss or LA tech etc.
im not carrying out some personal vendetta against UAB.
(12-03-2013 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2013 08:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we all acknowledge that FOX and ESPN are necessary to get to a P4 or P3. I think were we are all struggling is with how such a consolidation get done without the inevitable intervention of government interests. These busybodies will act 'in the best interests of college sports' to either increase the number of teams in D4 above 80 and/or will prevent the separation altogether. Thus, if we are going to look at a new angle, lets examine how many and what schools will need to be included to appease gov't watchdogs and what the conferences will look like with said teams.
Okay I've thought about it.
First, there will be a minimum investment in athletics stipulation which will likely be in the 60 million dollar range. 50 million minimum. That if anything will cause several schools of which Wake Forest might be one, to say no thanks. Remember now we are talking football here. Wake would still compete at the top level in hoops but not as a member of the upper tier football conference should they decide to say no thanks.
Second, schools like Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Boise State, Montana, and Hawaii will be given a chance to make it. I'm sure Fresno and San Diego State will fit this dynamic as well. You could add Houston, S.M.U., Rice, East Carolina, and Tulane etc.. They will be given the minimum investment criteria and the minimum number of sports criteria, and the stadium capacity criteria and the minimum academic entrance requirement and when they comply they will gain entry either as a separate conference with equal access or as additional members of an existing conference. U.S.F., UConn, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, and others will be able to make such a choice as well.
Thirdly, once said criteria is established states that desire their schools inclusion will have to budget to make the necessary funds to update and meet minimums available. I believe at this point the antitrust type suits disappear. Nobody is excluding anyone. The schools and the states supporting them will make the decisions. I bet quite of few of them opt not to be a part of the upper tier. Those who do will be welcomed.
I look for about 72 schools. I think Connecticut, Cincinnati, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, San Diego State, and Fresno State all stand a good chance. New Mexico, Nevada, Hawaii, Boise, and Wyoming will likely be decided by their state legislatures.
But exclusion will solely be based upon the choice of the applicants to meet the requirements.
JR, an interesting side effect of such a minimum requirement approach is the small states with two programs that could/should consolidate. The state of New Mexico may not be able to have one school that meets all the minimum requirements, but if they demoted NMSU to an FCS level and allocated the funding to UNM? They are in. Same for the other states who have two or more programs that, if added together, could get to $50 million annual budgets. Off the top of my head, the following states could make it work by consolidation:
Nevada
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
Massachusetts (borderline apathy involved here, though)
New York (based on my understanding of the politics, this would be a hard sell among Buffalo, Stony Brook, and Albany)
The following states would have a hard time making it work financially and/or logistically:
Hawaii
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
These northeastern states could probably make it work if they wanted, but I don't think they have enough of a college athletics culture that cares enough to justify the spending:
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Delaware
(12-04-2013 10:51 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2013 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2013 08:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we all acknowledge that FOX and ESPN are necessary to get to a P4 or P3. I think were we are all struggling is with how such a consolidation get done without the inevitable intervention of government interests. These busybodies will act 'in the best interests of college sports' to either increase the number of teams in D4 above 80 and/or will prevent the separation altogether. Thus, if we are going to look at a new angle, lets examine how many and what schools will need to be included to appease gov't watchdogs and what the conferences will look like with said teams.
Okay I've thought about it.
First, there will be a minimum investment in athletics stipulation which will likely be in the 60 million dollar range. 50 million minimum. That if anything will cause several schools of which Wake Forest might be one, to say no thanks. Remember now we are talking football here. Wake would still compete at the top level in hoops but not as a member of the upper tier football conference should they decide to say no thanks.
Second, schools like Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Boise State, Montana, and Hawaii will be given a chance to make it. I'm sure Fresno and San Diego State will fit this dynamic as well. You could add Houston, S.M.U., Rice, East Carolina, and Tulane etc.. They will be given the minimum investment criteria and the minimum number of sports criteria, and the stadium capacity criteria and the minimum academic entrance requirement and when they comply they will gain entry either as a separate conference with equal access or as additional members of an existing conference. U.S.F., UConn, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, and others will be able to make such a choice as well.
Thirdly, once said criteria is established states that desire their schools inclusion will have to budget to make the necessary funds to update and meet minimums available. I believe at this point the antitrust type suits disappear. Nobody is excluding anyone. The schools and the states supporting them will make the decisions. I bet quite of few of them opt not to be a part of the upper tier. Those who do will be welcomed.
I look for about 72 schools. I think Connecticut, Cincinnati, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, San Diego State, and Fresno State all stand a good chance. New Mexico, Nevada, Hawaii, Boise, and Wyoming will likely be decided by their state legislatures.
But exclusion will solely be based upon the choice of the applicants to meet the requirements.
JR, an interesting side effect of such a minimum requirement approach is the small states with two programs that could/should consolidate. The state of New Mexico may not be able to have one school that meets all the minimum requirements, but if they demoted NMSU to an FCS level and allocated the funding to UNM? They are in. Same for the other states who have two or more programs that, if added together, could get to $50 million annual budgets. Off the top of my head, the following states could make it work by consolidation:
Nevada
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
Massachusetts (borderline apathy involved here, though)
New York (based on my understanding of the politics, this would be a hard sell among Buffalo, Stony Brook, and Albany)
The following states would have a hard time making it work financially and/or logistically:
Hawaii
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
These northeastern states could probably make it work if they wanted, but I don't think they have enough of a college athletics culture that cares enough to justify the spending:
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Delaware
new england doesnt lack a college athletics culture. they lack a college football culture & population.
if buffalo wants to be d4 the rest of the SUNY system won't block them. in buffalo tries to be come "new york state university" 1) they legally can't. 2) the SUNY system would throw a sh.it fit if that happened
(12-01-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Let's treat this like the corporate takeover game that it is. ESPN holds the ACC and SEC properties. That's half of the college football and basketball property roughly speaking. The better half of the football property and at least an equal half of the basketball property. They also have options on Texas and Kansas through tier three contract deals. For the time being that is good enough. The fight will be for the Big 12 properties that are commercially viable. Those would be in order Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia.
While Fox has the tier 3 deal of the Sooners, the Sooners cover the overhead on that 7 million dollar contract. The overhead is between 2 and 3 million. That's not enough to hold the Sooners to a FOX contract. The net buyout would be between 4 to 5 million per year for the duration of the contract and more likely than not negotiated down from that position in exchange for secondary games that FOX could broadcast from the Southeast area on sublet from ESPN.
So what does the Mouse do? Nothing for now. They will be in negotiations with the Big 10 seeking to keep their Tier 1 rights for Saturday mornings in the Fall and for hoops in the Winter and Spring. If the Big 10 cooperates I think a Kansas deal to the Big 10 might happen. The SEC would be looking for Oklahoma and West Virginia, and perhaps Texas would go to the ACC with an N.D. deal as many have speculated.
If the Big 10 does not play ball with ESPN for tier 1 rights and FOX ups the ante, I look for ESPN to shelter their access to the best products of the Big 12. In that case Kansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to the SEC becomes a possibility. Texas could move to the ACC, or could then be used by ESPN as leverage for a greater percentage of the PAC product, leaving West Virginia to be placed in the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma State/Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas State then become a possible package for the PAC.
If the PAC refuses a higher percentage and the Big 10 gives Tier 1 to FOX then Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to the SEC and ACC would make more sense near the end of the Big 12's GOR.
We've talked about this a lot, but think about the strategy involved from a corporate viewpoint. Since the SEC and ACC are locked down until 2025, ESPN by moving Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the SEC and ACC not only take the three most valuable properties in the Big 12, but they essentially punish the Big 10 by cutting an uncooperative Jim Delany out of the best remaining expansion candidates in entirety. After the Maryland and Rutgers additions that would essentially leave Connecticut and Iowa State as the only viable alternatives for the Big 10 unless they did go the Canadian or Buffalo route. Such a move by ESPN would hamstring the FOX football product in the Big 10 and eliminate the prize pieces from any PAC attempt to move into the Central Time Zone.
We've spoken of how the conferences might have to work together to accomplish this, but if the contracts for the Big 10 and PAC don't fall ESPN's way it will be another matter entirely. Another way of putting this is that the most valuable basketball and football brands for FOX would be reduced to: Basketball PAC (Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, and sometimes Washington) Basketball Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, sometimes Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland). That's 13 properties. Football PAC (Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington, sometimes Arizona, Utah, Oregon State). Big 10 Football (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State and sometimes Northwestern and Iowa) That's 17 properties. So to put it another way, just under 1 conference worth of basketball teams and just over one conference worth of football teams.
That's not much to run a network on.
Add to that the fact that Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas would all be much more valuable content wise in either the SEC or ACC and that ESPN would be free of the other conference properties and you can see the financial incentive for the move. Pay for 3 and multiply their appeal many fold. If Oklahoma State and West Virginia have to be accommodated as well that could be worked out.
That's why I've said all along that what the networks want will likely govern the end game moves involving Big 12 schools. Face it, ESPN doesn't want to lose the basketball teams they have sheltered in the ACC and they don't want to lose that footprint. Therefore they will do what is necessary to develop that region (up to and including a much much more close relationship between the SEC and ACC). They don't want to lose the most watched football product in the nation either and will do what is necessary to insure the SEC's interests moving forward. Adding Paul Finebaum, Matt Stinchcomb, David Pollock, and Jessie Palmer are a huge shift toward trying to appeal to an SEC audience and away from Kirk Herbstreet and Desmond Howard who were Big 10 personalities (although I like them both and expect both of them to stay). Nevertheless it shows a decided shift in focus. Danny Kennel is another such shift with ACC roots.
While I don't read too much into these decisions on personalities at this time it could be an indicator of broader future shifts to come in representation of product. Since most of these kinds of moves happen 5 years out in the corporate world the timing is also about right.
If that is to be the case I look for movement in about 5 years after the GOR has moved closer to expiration. If ESPN wants to lock it down sooner with the playoffs looming in the immediate future then a move of 3 to the ACC and 4 to the SEC might well be possible with either the PAC or Big 10 offered incentive to take another or the rest.
Either way what conferences would like will be taken into consideration, but not necessarily the determining factor. If FOX and ESPN become a bit more polarized over these kinds of property issues I do think it will happen sooner, if they agree to disagree they will wait for the end of the GOR and bid for the prizes. If they cooperate I don't think it will change the outcome to a large degree, but might affect which games are sublet to an opposing network or might determine whether or not a Kansas or even an Oklahoma move North. We'll see. Thoughts? Discussion?
As long as we are talking dead horses here:
ESPN should move Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. The SEC should then shift South Carolina to the ACC which would also pick up West Virginia from the Big 12. Then ESPN would have added there 4 most valuable properties to their two conferences. Those two conferences would be contiguous and their fans could share long time rivalries.
It leaves the B1G with little choices and the PAC with scraps.
RE: some earlier posts. The end game must not involve more than 65 teams, tops. 64, if you can force Notre Dame, but I really don't think that is necessary, 65 might help keep the government off of our backs, too!
(12-04-2013 01:07 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Let's treat this like the corporate takeover game that it is. ESPN holds the ACC and SEC properties. That's half of the college football and basketball property roughly speaking. The better half of the football property and at least an equal half of the basketball property. They also have options on Texas and Kansas through tier three contract deals. For the time being that is good enough. The fight will be for the Big 12 properties that are commercially viable. Those would be in order Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia.
While Fox has the tier 3 deal of the Sooners, the Sooners cover the overhead on that 7 million dollar contract. The overhead is between 2 and 3 million. That's not enough to hold the Sooners to a FOX contract. The net buyout would be between 4 to 5 million per year for the duration of the contract and more likely than not negotiated down from that position in exchange for secondary games that FOX could broadcast from the Southeast area on sublet from ESPN.
So what does the Mouse do? Nothing for now. They will be in negotiations with the Big 10 seeking to keep their Tier 1 rights for Saturday mornings in the Fall and for hoops in the Winter and Spring. If the Big 10 cooperates I think a Kansas deal to the Big 10 might happen. The SEC would be looking for Oklahoma and West Virginia, and perhaps Texas would go to the ACC with an N.D. deal as many have speculated.
If the Big 10 does not play ball with ESPN for tier 1 rights and FOX ups the ante, I look for ESPN to shelter their access to the best products of the Big 12. In that case Kansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to the SEC becomes a possibility. Texas could move to the ACC, or could then be used by ESPN as leverage for a greater percentage of the PAC product, leaving West Virginia to be placed in the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma State/Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas State then become a possible package for the PAC.
If the PAC refuses a higher percentage and the Big 10 gives Tier 1 to FOX then Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to the SEC and ACC would make more sense near the end of the Big 12's GOR.
We've talked about this a lot, but think about the strategy involved from a corporate viewpoint. Since the SEC and ACC are locked down until 2025, ESPN by moving Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the SEC and ACC not only take the three most valuable properties in the Big 12, but they essentially punish the Big 10 by cutting an uncooperative Jim Delany out of the best remaining expansion candidates in entirety. After the Maryland and Rutgers additions that would essentially leave Connecticut and Iowa State as the only viable alternatives for the Big 10 unless they did go the Canadian or Buffalo route. Such a move by ESPN would hamstring the FOX football product in the Big 10 and eliminate the prize pieces from any PAC attempt to move into the Central Time Zone.
We've spoken of how the conferences might have to work together to accomplish this, but if the contracts for the Big 10 and PAC don't fall ESPN's way it will be another matter entirely. Another way of putting this is that the most valuable basketball and football brands for FOX would be reduced to: Basketball PAC (Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, and sometimes Washington) Basketball Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, sometimes Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland). That's 13 properties. Football PAC (Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington, sometimes Arizona, Utah, Oregon State). Big 10 Football (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State and sometimes Northwestern and Iowa) That's 17 properties. So to put it another way, just under 1 conference worth of basketball teams and just over one conference worth of football teams.
That's not much to run a network on.
Add to that the fact that Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas would all be much more valuable content wise in either the SEC or ACC and that ESPN would be free of the other conference properties and you can see the financial incentive for the move. Pay for 3 and multiply their appeal many fold. If Oklahoma State and West Virginia have to be accommodated as well that could be worked out.
That's why I've said all along that what the networks want will likely govern the end game moves involving Big 12 schools. Face it, ESPN doesn't want to lose the basketball teams they have sheltered in the ACC and they don't want to lose that footprint. Therefore they will do what is necessary to develop that region (up to and including a much much more close relationship between the SEC and ACC). They don't want to lose the most watched football product in the nation either and will do what is necessary to insure the SEC's interests moving forward. Adding Paul Finebaum, Matt Stinchcomb, David Pollock, and Jessie Palmer are a huge shift toward trying to appeal to an SEC audience and away from Kirk Herbstreet and Desmond Howard who were Big 10 personalities (although I like them both and expect both of them to stay). Nevertheless it shows a decided shift in focus. Danny Kennel is another such shift with ACC roots.
While I don't read too much into these decisions on personalities at this time it could be an indicator of broader future shifts to come in representation of product. Since most of these kinds of moves happen 5 years out in the corporate world the timing is also about right.
If that is to be the case I look for movement in about 5 years after the GOR has moved closer to expiration. If ESPN wants to lock it down sooner with the playoffs looming in the immediate future then a move of 3 to the ACC and 4 to the SEC might well be possible with either the PAC or Big 10 offered incentive to take another or the rest.
Either way what conferences would like will be taken into consideration, but not necessarily the determining factor. If FOX and ESPN become a bit more polarized over these kinds of property issues I do think it will happen sooner, if they agree to disagree they will wait for the end of the GOR and bid for the prizes. If they cooperate I don't think it will change the outcome to a large degree, but might affect which games are sublet to an opposing network or might determine whether or not a Kansas or even an Oklahoma move North. We'll see. Thoughts? Discussion?
As long as we are talking dead horses here:
ESPN should move Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. The SEC should then shift South Carolina to the ACC which would also pick up West Virginia from the Big 12. Then ESPN would have added there 4 most valuable properties to their two conferences. Those two conferences would be contiguous and their fans could share long time rivalries.
It leaves the B1G with little choices and the PAC with scraps.
RE: some earlier posts. The end game must not involve more than 65 teams, tops. 64, if you can force Notre Dame, but I really don't think that is necessary, 65 might help keep the government off of our backs, too!
If ESPN wanted to cut overhead and monopolize quality of product something like this would be the way to do it. But the quest to keep a national audience I think is the biggest obstacle to this kind of bold move. If however the SEC football audience continues to draw numbers as well as it does nationally it may become a moot issue at some point.
(12-04-2013 10:51 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2013 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2013 08:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we all acknowledge that FOX and ESPN are necessary to get to a P4 or P3. I think were we are all struggling is with how such a consolidation get done without the inevitable intervention of government interests. These busybodies will act 'in the best interests of college sports' to either increase the number of teams in D4 above 80 and/or will prevent the separation altogether. Thus, if we are going to look at a new angle, lets examine how many and what schools will need to be included to appease gov't watchdogs and what the conferences will look like with said teams.
Okay I've thought about it.
First, there will be a minimum investment in athletics stipulation which will likely be in the 60 million dollar range. 50 million minimum. That if anything will cause several schools of which Wake Forest might be one, to say no thanks. Remember now we are talking football here. Wake would still compete at the top level in hoops but not as a member of the upper tier football conference should they decide to say no thanks.
Second, schools like Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Boise State, Montana, and Hawaii will be given a chance to make it. I'm sure Fresno and San Diego State will fit this dynamic as well. You could add Houston, S.M.U., Rice, East Carolina, and Tulane etc.. They will be given the minimum investment criteria and the minimum number of sports criteria, and the stadium capacity criteria and the minimum academic entrance requirement and when they comply they will gain entry either as a separate conference with equal access or as additional members of an existing conference. U.S.F., UConn, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, and others will be able to make such a choice as well.
Thirdly, once said criteria is established states that desire their schools inclusion will have to budget to make the necessary funds to update and meet minimums available. I believe at this point the antitrust type suits disappear. Nobody is excluding anyone. The schools and the states supporting them will make the decisions. I bet quite of few of them opt not to be a part of the upper tier. Those who do will be welcomed.
I look for about 72 schools. I think Connecticut, Cincinnati, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, San Diego State, and Fresno State all stand a good chance. New Mexico, Nevada, Hawaii, Boise, and Wyoming will likely be decided by their state legislatures.
But exclusion will solely be based upon the choice of the applicants to meet the requirements.
JR, an interesting side effect of such a minimum requirement approach is the small states with two programs that could/should consolidate. The state of New Mexico may not be able to have one school that meets all the minimum requirements, but if they demoted NMSU to an FCS level and allocated the funding to UNM? They are in. Same for the other states who have two or more programs that, if added together, could get to $50 million annual budgets. Off the top of my head, the following states could make it work by consolidation:
Nevada
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
Massachusetts (borderline apathy involved here, though)
New York (based on my understanding of the politics, this would be a hard sell among Buffalo, Stony Brook, and Albany)
The following states would have a hard time making it work financially and/or logistically:
Hawaii
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
These northeastern states could probably make it work if they wanted, but I don't think they have enough of a college athletics culture that cares enough to justify the spending:
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Delaware
I think that's right Vandiver. Realignment is less about football than it is a consolidation of top research and public universities. Since the economy is going to lead higher education to consolidation anyway a state maximizing potential sports media revenue through consolidation would be wise. You left out Nevada where UNLV and Nevada could be handled the same way.
As to South & North Dakota and Wyoming and Hawaii the political fallout is not enough that even if a political push was made that there would be enough to swing major votes elsewhere. And, I doubt those states would push it anyway because of the extra burden on state budgets that would impose on small population bases.
So I buy this concept as being plausible and effective.
(12-04-2013 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2013 01:07 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Let's treat this like the corporate takeover game that it is. ESPN holds the ACC and SEC properties. That's half of the college football and basketball property roughly speaking. The better half of the football property and at least an equal half of the basketball property. They also have options on Texas and Kansas through tier three contract deals. For the time being that is good enough. The fight will be for the Big 12 properties that are commercially viable. Those would be in order Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia.
While Fox has the tier 3 deal of the Sooners, the Sooners cover the overhead on that 7 million dollar contract. The overhead is between 2 and 3 million. That's not enough to hold the Sooners to a FOX contract. The net buyout would be between 4 to 5 million per year for the duration of the contract and more likely than not negotiated down from that position in exchange for secondary games that FOX could broadcast from the Southeast area on sublet from ESPN.
So what does the Mouse do? Nothing for now. They will be in negotiations with the Big 10 seeking to keep their Tier 1 rights for Saturday mornings in the Fall and for hoops in the Winter and Spring. If the Big 10 cooperates I think a Kansas deal to the Big 10 might happen. The SEC would be looking for Oklahoma and West Virginia, and perhaps Texas would go to the ACC with an N.D. deal as many have speculated.
If the Big 10 does not play ball with ESPN for tier 1 rights and FOX ups the ante, I look for ESPN to shelter their access to the best products of the Big 12. In that case Kansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to the SEC becomes a possibility. Texas could move to the ACC, or could then be used by ESPN as leverage for a greater percentage of the PAC product, leaving West Virginia to be placed in the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma State/Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas State then become a possible package for the PAC.
If the PAC refuses a higher percentage and the Big 10 gives Tier 1 to FOX then Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to the SEC and ACC would make more sense near the end of the Big 12's GOR.
We've talked about this a lot, but think about the strategy involved from a corporate viewpoint. Since the SEC and ACC are locked down until 2025, ESPN by moving Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the SEC and ACC not only take the three most valuable properties in the Big 12, but they essentially punish the Big 10 by cutting an uncooperative Jim Delany out of the best remaining expansion candidates in entirety. After the Maryland and Rutgers additions that would essentially leave Connecticut and Iowa State as the only viable alternatives for the Big 10 unless they did go the Canadian or Buffalo route. Such a move by ESPN would hamstring the FOX football product in the Big 10 and eliminate the prize pieces from any PAC attempt to move into the Central Time Zone.
We've spoken of how the conferences might have to work together to accomplish this, but if the contracts for the Big 10 and PAC don't fall ESPN's way it will be another matter entirely. Another way of putting this is that the most valuable basketball and football brands for FOX would be reduced to: Basketball PAC (Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, and sometimes Washington) Basketball Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, sometimes Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland). That's 13 properties. Football PAC (Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington, sometimes Arizona, Utah, Oregon State). Big 10 Football (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State and sometimes Northwestern and Iowa) That's 17 properties. So to put it another way, just under 1 conference worth of basketball teams and just over one conference worth of football teams.
That's not much to run a network on.
Add to that the fact that Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas would all be much more valuable content wise in either the SEC or ACC and that ESPN would be free of the other conference properties and you can see the financial incentive for the move. Pay for 3 and multiply their appeal many fold. If Oklahoma State and West Virginia have to be accommodated as well that could be worked out.
That's why I've said all along that what the networks want will likely govern the end game moves involving Big 12 schools. Face it, ESPN doesn't want to lose the basketball teams they have sheltered in the ACC and they don't want to lose that footprint. Therefore they will do what is necessary to develop that region (up to and including a much much more close relationship between the SEC and ACC). They don't want to lose the most watched football product in the nation either and will do what is necessary to insure the SEC's interests moving forward. Adding Paul Finebaum, Matt Stinchcomb, David Pollock, and Jessie Palmer are a huge shift toward trying to appeal to an SEC audience and away from Kirk Herbstreet and Desmond Howard who were Big 10 personalities (although I like them both and expect both of them to stay). Nevertheless it shows a decided shift in focus. Danny Kennel is another such shift with ACC roots.
While I don't read too much into these decisions on personalities at this time it could be an indicator of broader future shifts to come in representation of product. Since most of these kinds of moves happen 5 years out in the corporate world the timing is also about right.
If that is to be the case I look for movement in about 5 years after the GOR has moved closer to expiration. If ESPN wants to lock it down sooner with the playoffs looming in the immediate future then a move of 3 to the ACC and 4 to the SEC might well be possible with either the PAC or Big 10 offered incentive to take another or the rest.
Either way what conferences would like will be taken into consideration, but not necessarily the determining factor. If FOX and ESPN become a bit more polarized over these kinds of property issues I do think it will happen sooner, if they agree to disagree they will wait for the end of the GOR and bid for the prizes. If they cooperate I don't think it will change the outcome to a large degree, but might affect which games are sublet to an opposing network or might determine whether or not a Kansas or even an Oklahoma move North. We'll see. Thoughts? Discussion?
As long as we are talking dead horses here:
ESPN should move Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. The SEC should then shift South Carolina to the ACC which would also pick up West Virginia from the Big 12. Then ESPN would have added there 4 most valuable properties to their two conferences. Those two conferences would be contiguous and their fans could share long time rivalries.
It leaves the B1G with little choices and the PAC with scraps.
RE: some earlier posts. The end game must not involve more than 65 teams, tops. 64, if you can force Notre Dame, but I really don't think that is necessary, 65 might help keep the government off of our backs, too!
If ESPN wanted to cut overhead and monopolize quality of product something like this would be the way to do it. But the quest to keep a national audience I think is the biggest obstacle to this kind of bold move. If however the SEC football audience continues to draw numbers as well as it does nationally it may become a moot issue at some point.
ESPN is interested in continuing to dominate college sports. The moves it makes will have to enhance not only football, but to fill the entire collegiate sports calendar.
(12-05-2013 09:19 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2013 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2013 01:07 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Let's treat this like the corporate takeover game that it is. ESPN holds the ACC and SEC properties. That's half of the college football and basketball property roughly speaking. The better half of the football property and at least an equal half of the basketball property. They also have options on Texas and Kansas through tier three contract deals. For the time being that is good enough. The fight will be for the Big 12 properties that are commercially viable. Those would be in order Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia.
While Fox has the tier 3 deal of the Sooners, the Sooners cover the overhead on that 7 million dollar contract. The overhead is between 2 and 3 million. That's not enough to hold the Sooners to a FOX contract. The net buyout would be between 4 to 5 million per year for the duration of the contract and more likely than not negotiated down from that position in exchange for secondary games that FOX could broadcast from the Southeast area on sublet from ESPN.
So what does the Mouse do? Nothing for now. They will be in negotiations with the Big 10 seeking to keep their Tier 1 rights for Saturday mornings in the Fall and for hoops in the Winter and Spring. If the Big 10 cooperates I think a Kansas deal to the Big 10 might happen. The SEC would be looking for Oklahoma and West Virginia, and perhaps Texas would go to the ACC with an N.D. deal as many have speculated.
If the Big 10 does not play ball with ESPN for tier 1 rights and FOX ups the ante, I look for ESPN to shelter their access to the best products of the Big 12. In that case Kansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to the SEC becomes a possibility. Texas could move to the ACC, or could then be used by ESPN as leverage for a greater percentage of the PAC product, leaving West Virginia to be placed in the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma State/Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas State then become a possible package for the PAC.
If the PAC refuses a higher percentage and the Big 10 gives Tier 1 to FOX then Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to the SEC and ACC would make more sense near the end of the Big 12's GOR.
We've talked about this a lot, but think about the strategy involved from a corporate viewpoint. Since the SEC and ACC are locked down until 2025, ESPN by moving Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the SEC and ACC not only take the three most valuable properties in the Big 12, but they essentially punish the Big 10 by cutting an uncooperative Jim Delany out of the best remaining expansion candidates in entirety. After the Maryland and Rutgers additions that would essentially leave Connecticut and Iowa State as the only viable alternatives for the Big 10 unless they did go the Canadian or Buffalo route. Such a move by ESPN would hamstring the FOX football product in the Big 10 and eliminate the prize pieces from any PAC attempt to move into the Central Time Zone.
We've spoken of how the conferences might have to work together to accomplish this, but if the contracts for the Big 10 and PAC don't fall ESPN's way it will be another matter entirely. Another way of putting this is that the most valuable basketball and football brands for FOX would be reduced to: Basketball PAC (Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, and sometimes Washington) Basketball Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, sometimes Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland). That's 13 properties. Football PAC (Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington, sometimes Arizona, Utah, Oregon State). Big 10 Football (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State and sometimes Northwestern and Iowa) That's 17 properties. So to put it another way, just under 1 conference worth of basketball teams and just over one conference worth of football teams.
That's not much to run a network on.
Add to that the fact that Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas would all be much more valuable content wise in either the SEC or ACC and that ESPN would be free of the other conference properties and you can see the financial incentive for the move. Pay for 3 and multiply their appeal many fold. If Oklahoma State and West Virginia have to be accommodated as well that could be worked out.
That's why I've said all along that what the networks want will likely govern the end game moves involving Big 12 schools. Face it, ESPN doesn't want to lose the basketball teams they have sheltered in the ACC and they don't want to lose that footprint. Therefore they will do what is necessary to develop that region (up to and including a much much more close relationship between the SEC and ACC). They don't want to lose the most watched football product in the nation either and will do what is necessary to insure the SEC's interests moving forward. Adding Paul Finebaum, Matt Stinchcomb, David Pollock, and Jessie Palmer are a huge shift toward trying to appeal to an SEC audience and away from Kirk Herbstreet and Desmond Howard who were Big 10 personalities (although I like them both and expect both of them to stay). Nevertheless it shows a decided shift in focus. Danny Kennel is another such shift with ACC roots.
While I don't read too much into these decisions on personalities at this time it could be an indicator of broader future shifts to come in representation of product. Since most of these kinds of moves happen 5 years out in the corporate world the timing is also about right.
If that is to be the case I look for movement in about 5 years after the GOR has moved closer to expiration. If ESPN wants to lock it down sooner with the playoffs looming in the immediate future then a move of 3 to the ACC and 4 to the SEC might well be possible with either the PAC or Big 10 offered incentive to take another or the rest.
Either way what conferences would like will be taken into consideration, but not necessarily the determining factor. If FOX and ESPN become a bit more polarized over these kinds of property issues I do think it will happen sooner, if they agree to disagree they will wait for the end of the GOR and bid for the prizes. If they cooperate I don't think it will change the outcome to a large degree, but might affect which games are sublet to an opposing network or might determine whether or not a Kansas or even an Oklahoma move North. We'll see. Thoughts? Discussion?
As long as we are talking dead horses here:
ESPN should move Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. The SEC should then shift South Carolina to the ACC which would also pick up West Virginia from the Big 12. Then ESPN would have added there 4 most valuable properties to their two conferences. Those two conferences would be contiguous and their fans could share long time rivalries.
It leaves the B1G with little choices and the PAC with scraps.
RE: some earlier posts. The end game must not involve more than 65 teams, tops. 64, if you can force Notre Dame, but I really don't think that is necessary, 65 might help keep the government off of our backs, too!
If ESPN wanted to cut overhead and monopolize quality of product something like this would be the way to do it. But the quest to keep a national audience I think is the biggest obstacle to this kind of bold move. If however the SEC football audience continues to draw numbers as well as it does nationally it may become a moot issue at some point.
ESPN is interested in continuing to dominate college sports. The moves it makes will have to enhance not only football, but to fill the entire collegiate sports calendar.
This whole issue is needlessly complicated and mostly by posters who are tying to spin the situation to suit themselves. Texas and Oklahoma are fine academically in a conference that is weaker than the SEC now in that regard. If that conference faces a demise or decides to break up so that earning potentials can be better realized in other conferences the closest climbs for them will be the most desirable destination. No matter what in the end it is about fans since they pay the athletic bills. Fans want games closer to home. Fans want games that they care about. Fans want the most competitive conferences, and the athletes and their families do to. All the yammering about academics, cultural fit, little brother syndrome, and the rest of the crap isn't going to trump logistics and competitiveness. Kansas will feel more at home in the Big 10. Iowa State would too if they could land an invite. While Oklahoma isn't typically Southern they have a heckuva lot more in common with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri than with Utah, California, Arizona and the like and they aren't going to want to suffer the Nebraska fate and send their fans North in the Fall.
ESPN can accomplish what they want by trading their option on Kansas to FOX for their option on Oklahoma. If that requires homes in the SEC for Texas Tech and Oklahoma State so be it. But it won't. ESPN can have the best of everything and probably market it all on one combined network simply by taking Oklahoma and Texas along with West Virginia and letting the rest of the Big 12 go.
Besides, what fan of Texas and Oklahoma would be terribly unhappy with a division made up of: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas in one pod of 4 and L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M in the other, or one combined division of all 8.