CSNbbs

instead of losing them all together?

Clearly any conference would take Texas as a full member. The ACC might offer a ND type deal to Texas. Rather than be an outlier in a conference far to the East as a partial member wouldn't Texas prefer to be in a central region conference with many former conference mates as a partial member if it wanted to go the independent route?



I'm thinking that the B1G takes OU an KU when the B12 GoR expires. Then Texas shops themselves around for the best deal and the remaining 7 B12 schools agree to offer Texas's other sports a home if they give 5 football games a year to the conference. Without Texas folding up into a P4, the other P5 schools won't go champions only on the CFP, which means ND will not join the ACC. Without that, the ACC will not expand. Maybe the SEC takes OSU and WVU but I doubt it. So you're looking at a B12 conference like :

Baylor
TCU
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Iowa State
WVU
Cincinnati
BYU
UCF

Texas with an agreement to play 5 football games against the conference.

I bring this up because I hear a lot of talk about Texas getting a ND type deal from the ACC. And one guy mentioned could Texas get one from the P12 but I never hear anyone mentioning the the remaining B12 could do the same.

Interesting concept! I don't know the odds, but I could see this happening (maybe).

If KU, OU and Texas all left, the contracts for the Big 12 wouldn't be worth what they are now. That would impact the conference's ability to negotiate.

Texas would get a Boise style deal with unequal revenue sharing.

I don't think the nB12 could afford to offer Texas a Boise or even a ND type deal. The nB12 media contract is going to drop like a rock (see AAC media contract). To keep Texas 100% in they would have to give up a huge percentage of the new media contract. Maybe half??

A ND deal is worse. Texas share of Olympic revenue could be as low as $1-2 million. They aren't going to give up 5 football games for that. Not when they have more lucrative options.

If KU/OU were to leave, and Texas would then somehow get an ND-type deal from the nBig12, you would be at seven members. At that point, I would add the following six schools:

BYU
Cincinnati
Colorado State
Houston
Navy (football-only)
Wichita State (non-football)

Wichita State would not be able to replace Kansas, but at least it is a very strong basketball program with many resources that could be an appropriate replacement. Navy would definitely be interested due to the exposure in Texas. Cincinnati would be a partner/rival for West Virginia. Colorado State was added to regain exposure and footing in Colorado/Denver.

I know it's far flung but a rebuilding Big 12 would have to add UConn. Add Cincinnati, Memphis, Central Florida, Houston and UConn to go along with WVU to create a competitive eastern division to marry with a western division of KState, Iowa State, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State with the addition of Colorado State.
CJ

To answer the OPs question I think if the Big Ten is the move OU and KU make I think that Texas most certainly looks for a ND type relationship with the remaining B12 schools if they can make the money work and I think the rest of the B12 pleads for them to do just that to stay relevant.

If the dollars make sense Texas insists on a 5 game deal where they get the 3 Texas schools annually and cycle through the rest.

Their other option, if they can't make it profitable, is bring a bunch of their friends to the Pac 12 or move to to the SEC and reunite with A&M.

Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

(07-23-2017 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

Because the product isn't placed where their presence maximizes the value of not only their brand but every other conference member's brand. Almost any other conference would have enough major brands to make the investment in Texas worthwhile.

What ESPN and FOX didn't want to happen is for more minor brands to surround Texas and Oklahoma. Where they are placed right now their conference games only have 39 million viewers to draw from as opposed to say 94 million in the SEC or 89 million in the Big 10. The number of brands they play are much fewer as well. It is why Texas and Oklahoma stand to have the greatest upside of any of the present college product and why the two networks were willing to pay them more last time not to expand.

(07-23-2017 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

Because the product isn't placed where their presence maximizes the value of not only their brand but every other conference member's brand. Almost any other conference would have enough major brands to make the investment in Texas worthwhile.

What ESPN and FOX didn't want to happen is for more minor brands to surround Texas and Oklahoma. Where they are placed right now their conference games only have 39 million viewers to draw from as opposed to say 94 million in the SEC or 89 million in the Big 10. The number of brands they play are much fewer as well. It is why Texas and Oklahoma stand to have the greatest upside of any of the present college product and why the two networks were willing to pay them more last time not to expand.

So what I hear you saying is that, even if the current Big 12 members wanted to do this, the networks would not allow it. If that message has been conveyed to those members, officially or otherwise, would that not be saying it's every man for himself? Would they be trying to break up the Big 12 now rather than later?

(07-23-2017 03:04 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

Because the product isn't placed where their presence maximizes the value of not only their brand but every other conference member's brand. Almost any other conference would have enough major brands to make the investment in Texas worthwhile.

What ESPN and FOX didn't want to happen is for more minor brands to surround Texas and Oklahoma. Where they are placed right now their conference games only have 39 million viewers to draw from as opposed to say 94 million in the SEC or 89 million in the Big 10. The number of brands they play are much fewer as well. It is why Texas and Oklahoma stand to have the greatest upside of any of the present college product and why the two networks were willing to pay them more last time not to expand.

So what I hear you saying is that, even if the current Big 12 members wanted to do this, the networks would not allow it. If that message has been conveyed to those members, officially or otherwise, would that not be saying it's every man for himself? Would they be trying to break up the Big 12 now rather than later?

Well that is exactly where I think they are. Oklahoma and Kansas are apparently ready to go, but then there are the 7 years remaining on the GOR (2024-5) so they can't scat on their own. Texas is probably still be trying to leverage a bunch of perks that probably won't be to popular with the other conferences or the networks. The rest have either figured out their options, or have realized that a demotion of sorts is in the offing. Either way those without options know there are enough with them to dissolve the GOR, and those without want to milk every dime they can out of the situation before their demotion. And Texas is using that for leverage of their demands which may or may not include other Texas schools.

Personally I think they can place 5 of those schools fairly easily, maybe even six. But it will take some network promises to give the remaining 4 the impetus to move early.

I'm thinking scheduling promises with their old Big 12 rivals that are important to their alumni, access to P class bowls, or the possible elevation of the conference they move into (I'm thinking AAC) will keep them from losing o very much. Since ESPN has rights to the AAC then I think ESPN has the greater leverage to make something happen. FOX doesn't really offer a home for those left behind. So if ESPN really wants to place Texas in a position where they can more fully take advantage for their cachet then the ball is in ESPN's court to do so. The only other incentive I see there is that ESPN could elevate the value of their rights in the AAC if they helped to elevate their status. The downside is they have to pay them more.

But since all of these obstacles will be overcome by the next 7 years we may all be waiting as that is the cheapest strategy for accomplishing the objectives.

(07-23-2017 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 03:04 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

Because the product isn't placed where their presence maximizes the value of not only their brand but every other conference member's brand. Almost any other conference would have enough major brands to make the investment in Texas worthwhile.

What ESPN and FOX didn't want to happen is for more minor brands to surround Texas and Oklahoma. Where they are placed right now their conference games only have 39 million viewers to draw from as opposed to say 94 million in the SEC or 89 million in the Big 10. The number of brands they play are much fewer as well. It is why Texas and Oklahoma stand to have the greatest upside of any of the present college product and why the two networks were willing to pay them more last time not to expand.

So what I hear you saying is that, even if the current Big 12 members wanted to do this, the networks would not allow it. If that message has been conveyed to those members, officially or otherwise, would that not be saying it's every man for himself? Would they be trying to break up the Big 12 now rather than later?

Well that is exactly where I think they are. Oklahoma and Kansas are apparently ready to go, but then there are the 7 years remaining on the GOR (2024-5) so they can't scat on their own. Texas is probably still be trying to leverage a bunch of perks that probably won't be to popular with the other conferences or the networks. The rest have either figured out their options, or have realized that a demotion of sorts is in the offing. Either way those without options know there are enough with them to dissolve the GOR, and those without want to milk every dime they can out of the situation before their demotion. And Texas is using that for leverage of their demands which may or may not include other Texas schools.

Personally I think they can place 5 of those schools fairly easily, maybe even six. But it will take some network promises to give the remaining 4 the impetus to move early.

I'm thinking scheduling promises with their old Big 12 rivals that are important to their alumni, access to P class bowls, or the possible elevation of the conference they move into (I'm thinking AAC) will keep them from losing o very much. Since ESPN has rights to the AAC then I think ESPN has the greater leverage to make something happen. FOX doesn't really offer a home for those left behind. So if ESPN really wants to place Texas in a position where they can more fully take advantage for their cachet then the ball is in ESPN's court to do so. The only other incentive I see there is that ESPN could elevate the value of their rights in the AAC if they helped to elevate their status. The downside is they have to pay them more.

But since all of these obstacles will be overcome by the next 7 years we may all be waiting as that is the cheapest strategy for accomplishing the objectives.

If ESPN were thinking of elevating the AAC to "P" status, it would seem to me they would want to keep as much value in the B12 remnants as possible, to justify them retaining their Sugar Bowl deal with the SEC. Might they consider, instead of having the B12 remnants go to the AAC, having selected assets from the AAC backfilling the B12?

In that case, they could place, say, UT, OU, OK State and Texas Tech in the SEC and still have a respectable B12 with some decent markets and competitive teams. And IMO that would be a league that wouldn't be very ripe for further poaching, and any that might still occur wouldn't be catastrophic.

Expansion of AQ teams from 65 to 71 couldn't hurt politically, either.

(07-23-2017 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 03:04 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

Because the product isn't placed where their presence maximizes the value of not only their brand but every other conference member's brand. Almost any other conference would have enough major brands to make the investment in Texas worthwhile.

What ESPN and FOX didn't want to happen is for more minor brands to surround Texas and Oklahoma. Where they are placed right now their conference games only have 39 million viewers to draw from as opposed to say 94 million in the SEC or 89 million in the Big 10. The number of brands they play are much fewer as well. It is why Texas and Oklahoma stand to have the greatest upside of any of the present college product and why the two networks were willing to pay them more last time not to expand.

So what I hear you saying is that, even if the current Big 12 members wanted to do this, the networks would not allow it. If that message has been conveyed to those members, officially or otherwise, would that not be saying it's every man for himself? Would they be trying to break up the Big 12 now rather than later?

Well that is exactly where I think they are. Oklahoma and Kansas are apparently ready to go, but then there are the 7 years remaining on the GOR (2024-5) so they can't scat on their own. Texas is probably still be trying to leverage a bunch of perks that probably won't be to popular with the other conferences or the networks. The rest have either figured out their options, or have realized that a demotion of sorts is in the offing. Either way those without options know there are enough with them to dissolve the GOR, and those without want to milk every dime they can out of the situation before their demotion. And Texas is using that for leverage of their demands which may or may not include other Texas schools.

Personally I think they can place 5 of those schools fairly easily, maybe even six. But it will take some network promises to give the remaining 4 the impetus to move early.

I'm thinking scheduling promises with their old Big 12 rivals that are important to their alumni, access to P class bowls, or the possible elevation of the conference they move into (I'm thinking AAC) will keep them from losing o very much. Since ESPN has rights to the AAC then I think ESPN has the greater leverage to make something happen. FOX doesn't really offer a home for those left behind. So if ESPN really wants to place Texas in a position where they can more fully take advantage for their cachet then the ball is in ESPN's court to do so. The only other incentive I see there is that ESPN could elevate the value of their rights in the AAC if they helped to elevate their status. The downside is they have to pay them more.

But since all of these obstacles will be overcome by the next 7 years we may all be waiting as that is the cheapest strategy for accomplishing the objectives.

If ESPN were thinking of elevating the AAC to "P" status, it would seem to me they would want to keep as much value in the B12 remnants as possible, to justify them retaining their Sugar Bowl deal with the SEC. Might they consider, instead of having the B12 remnants go to the AAC, having selected assets from the AAC backfilling the B12?

In that case, they could place, say, UT, OU, OK State and Texas Tech in the SEC and still have a respectable B12 with some decent markets and competitive teams. And IMO that would be a league that wouldn't be very ripe for further poaching, and any that might still occur wouldn't be catastrophic.

Expansion of AQ teams from 65 to 71 couldn't hurt politically, either.

I understand the rationale of that, but the problem is the ability to move unilaterally. ESPN has all of, or controlling interest in, the rights of the AAC, MAC, ACC, and SEC. The Big 12 is a 50/50 split with FOX with T3 rights being retained by the schools. It is much simpler to move the product from the Big 12 into the several ESPN held conferences, than it would be to get cooperation from FOX to move AAC properties into the Big 12.

Also, if ESPN placed from 8 to all of the current Big 12 members elsewhere then the Big 12 ceases to exist, nullifying the GOR and existing TV contract. So that move has the least liability. To understand the usefulness of the AAC go and plot all of ESPN's majority, or better, and look at the state by state domination that ESPN gains by adding that collection to its properties in the SEC and ACC and in none of them does FOX have any rights. Moving forward into a world of streaming ESPN is better situated to be a broker of product that they produce than is FOX. I don't see them wanting to share rights at all, but rather become the go to producer for those who wish to stream product at a profit. They will remain a broadcaster via ESPN & ESPN2, and they will remain the broker of conference network material, where their overhead has been reduced by conference participation, but both their content menu and advertising rate leverage will remain key factors to be profitable in a new paradigm.

Therefore I don't see them wanting share rights with FOX. They may well have kept the AAC at a vastly reduced payout while waiting for the opportunity to count on their cooperation in the absorption of Big 12 schools for the sake of making a larger move. A move that might also include seeking to regain the majority of the Big 10's rights in 6 years. If so I'm not sure they will want FOX to be privy to much if any of the rearranging. But that's my best guess at the time.

(07-23-2017 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN has all of, or controlling interest in, the rights of the AAC, MAC, ACC, and SEC. The Big 12 is a 50/50 split with FOX with T3 rights being retained by the schools...

If JR is correct, ESPN's next move (logically) would be to pull some of the Fox teams in Texas and Oklahoma over to the ESPN red, thus shutting Fox out of the South altogether. Combine that with most of the East coast and you have a nice portfolio for ESPN.

(07-23-2017 10:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN has all of, or controlling interest in, the rights of the AAC, MAC, ACC, and SEC. The Big 12 is a 50/50 split with FOX with T3 rights being retained by the schools...

If JR is correct, ESPN's next move (logically) would be to pull some of the Fox teams in Texas and Oklahoma over to the ESPN red, thus shutting Fox out of the South altogether. Combine that with most of the East coast and you have a nice portfolio for ESPN.

That's exactly what I have been saying. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that ESPN could wind up with all of the P5 and top G5 product in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. If they wanted to they could land all of the Big 12 and split them between the AAC, ACC, and SEC easily enough.

The question in my mind however is whether or not ESPN might still make a play for the Big 10? If they helped the Big 10 land Texas and Kansas (two AAU schools giving the Big 10 the Southern Exposure they want could they possibly land the majority of Big 10 rights? If the Big 12 is dissolved, and the Big 10 and SEC under majority ESPN control what does N.D. do? That will be a mighty narrow corner they'd be painted into.

With those Big 10 states and the MAC already in hand ESPN would own it all except the PAC and the West in general and they lease 50% of the PAC content already.

Face it. FOX has major internal issues. FOX Sports is undergoing leadership changes, and the Big 10 can't be very happy with FOX numbers. And FOX is the poorest positioned network for providing inventory to streamers. And that doesn't even touch the fact that they are essentially shut out of the Southeast and Atlantic Coast already.

But either way ESPN is the only network that can place all 10 Big 12 schools, dissolve the conference, and gain the advertising leverage they want, and place the brands where they can do their conferences the most good.

I think that puts a lot of pressure on the Big 10. They need Southern recruiting presence. They need brands for football. And they have to do it within academic parameters. Add the fact that they may be divesting the BTN and it gives ESPN a golden opportunity once the FOX contract expires in 6 years.

Think of the multitude of options for finishing the realignment for the ACC, SEC, and Big 10 that could be put into play should ESPN be the arbiter.

And with the AAC they are the only network with a way to clean up those not making the other three conferences.

So if the Big 10 stays the course with FOX ESPN will likely land Texas in either the SEC or ACC. If the Big 10 wants to play ball then Texas and Kansas isn't out of the question.

Why would ESPN want to do this? Can you imagine the number of viewers there would be for the RRR in Dallas if everyone in the Big 10 and SEC were tuned in for the game? Texas and Texas A&M ditto. Oklahoma and Nebraska ditto. Kansas and Missouri not as big but a lot bigger than it was in the Big 12. The audience numbers would rival some big bowl games easily. And more importantly it would remain relatively balanced between the SEC and Big 10 and would eliminate any threat to the ACC to have both the SEC and Big 10 in the family.

In order for Texas and Oklahoma to have two annual Big 10 / SEC match ups then the SEC would have to take one for the Mouse. I would think that Bedlam would be the deal for OU. So we take the Oklahoma pair. With 9 conference games and two dedicated to other P5 OOC games, that leaves the one game that provides the 6th or 7th game on the home schedule that pleases the A.D..

So ESPN gets 11 P5 games out of each school in those 3 conferences. They get huge rivalry games to tie in the two most rabid fan bases in the nation, they quite probably land the Irish for the ACC and pick up more football props for them with WVU. Then they raise the pay level for the AAC and elevate them so that games against the AAC count as P games and the AAC is also elevated in consideration for the CFP. Beyond the GOR none of the schools in Big 12 have reason to sue, and the best candidates for promotion into a P5 conference get elevated as a unit.

Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. But at least there is a reason now to consider it possible.

And if it doesn't happen then ESPN makes a push to control Texas and Oklahoma anyway.

And BTW Mark, ESPN and FOX split the T1 and T2 of the Big 12 50/50 so those logos in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are already half ESPN with T3 rights of Texas and Kansas with the Mouse. And all of the PAC is a 50/50 split. So your map, while a nice visual, gives FOX way too much credit for split properties.

(07-23-2017 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-23-2017 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]Why not just give UT such a deal now, and extend the GoR and media deals to keep the entire conference intact?

Because the product isn't placed where their presence maximizes the value of not only their brand but every other conference member's brand. Almost any other conference would have enough major brands to make the investment in Texas worthwhile.

What ESPN and FOX didn't want to happen is for more minor brands to surround Texas and Oklahoma. Where they are placed right now their conference games only have 39 million viewers to draw from as opposed to say 94 million in the SEC or 89 million in the Big 10. The number of brands they play are much fewer as well. It is why Texas and Oklahoma stand to have the greatest upside of any of the present college product and why the two networks were willing to pay them more last time not to expand.

This is the Big 12 dilemma in a nutshell. Well stated.

If either OU or Texas leaves, and it really doesn't matter which decides first, the other must go and others will go as well. The networks wont pay for the B12 product watered down anymore.

As for the concept of the post, I don't see Texas remaining even in this capacity. They are most likely to take a ACC or P12 deal like Notre Dame before they would take it with a rump B12. Without KU and OU, B12 Basketball will nose dive, and Texas wont want it's Olympics in such a diminished conference.

OU will be under a lot of political pressure to take the SEC offer (assuming there is one) in order to take OSU with them and assure their future as well. That would very likely force the B1G to take another school besides KU; I figure that would likely come down to ISU or UConn, or just waiting for a better option (Independent Texas for example) and going with an odd 15 for a decade like they did with Penn State.

As for the back fill, if a rump of 6 or 7 schools remain, most likely they would just get back to 10. The money will be much less and there will be a negative financial impact of expanding beyond the minimum 10. No way will FOX or ESPN or whomever picks up the B12 will give them a scaled contract based on the number of schools. It'll be a fixed rate. The remaining B12 schools will be hurting from a good $10-15M drop in per school media revenue. There is no way they will spread what they get thinner.

The idea of BYU as a Football only makes little sense, especially if the league decides to go for Colorado State as well. Air Force could only be a Football member, as it's Basketball and other sports cannot even begin to compete with conference at the present B12 level. But I doubt they would join. The objections to BYU would largely be muted with Texas and OU gone. The focus would be on getting the biggest brand possible, not secondary issues -- it'll be about money this time. I have no real clue what they would do for the other schools to get back to 10. It could be as simple as "who is hot in 2022 and will help us get a better TV/Media contract." As we have no clue today who will be that hot school, who knows?

Just a general note: I consider myself a reasonably cynical person, but even I'm skeptical that ESPN and Fox have total control over realignment, as some here seem to be assuming. Certainly they will have substantial influence, but they won't have the power to, for example, force the Big Ten to take on ISU or UConn. The conferences are still largely independent in that regard, even though they will undoubtedly be accounting for media value when deciding which schools, if any, to add (hence UMD and Rutgers). Online streaming and cord-cutting are already undermining the TV networks, and this will only get worse going forward. Their position of power is eroding.

(07-24-2017 11:04 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]Just a general note: I consider myself a reasonably cynical person, but even I'm skeptical that ESPN and Fox have total control over realignment, as some here seem to be assuming. Certainly they will have substantial influence, but they won't have the power to, for example, force the Big Ten to take on ISU or UConn. The conferences are still largely independent in that regard, even though they will undoubtedly be accounting for media value when deciding which schools, if any, to add (hence UMD and Rutgers). Online streaming and cord-cutting are already undermining the TV networks, and this will only get worse going forward. Their position of power is eroding.

Popppycock! The networks aren't going to pay the Big 10 to take UConn or ISU because they (the networks) would lose money on the payouts. The networks provide valuations on schools being considered. If there isn't enough value there is no addition. If there is and the school falls within the loose parameters of the conference then they are added.

As to the Networks being eroded by cord cutting that news is old and overplayed, really overplayed. Amazon is not in the production game. ESPN and FOX are. Right now the streaming companies aren't in the rights holding game either. ESPN and FOX are. (Rights equals Raw Materials). The layoffs are part of transition from manufacturing a product (production) and distributing a product (FS1 & FS2 / ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.), and fee collection (Retail), to soliciting the raw materials, and producing, to wholesaling (leasing the content to other providers) while keeping some retail outlets (FS1 & FS2 / ESPN & ESPN2, etc.).

ESPN and FOX will adjust by controlling the fees they charge the Amazons of the world for a finished product that Amazon can sell at a profitable rate.

Amazon may one day get into production from another angle, a more direct one. But right now they won't. The sports market may have peaked. It's one thing to take a product you have little to nothing in and sell it for a profit. It's quite another to spend the overhead required to get that product raw, produce it, and retail it.

ESPN and FOX will pass into history, but it won't be necessary for another 20 or 30 years, although we may have already peaked in the sports market. It will remain profitable enough for them for that long. I doubt it will be technology, or competition that puts ESPN out of business. Instead it will be the coming of age of a generation that never played the games and would rather play Angry Birds for Senior Citizens or Candy Crush than watch a baseball, football or basketball game.

My generation's memories were built on big plays, long runs, grand slams, and buzzer beaters. This one's memories are being built on perks for having the high score online, or reaching the gozillinth level of (pick your game title) on an ass numbing, mind blanking sunny afternoon when their yards needed mowing, their pets needed a walk, and their children needed some family time. I know this because I have 30 something year old nephews with families who are combat veterans but would rather escape into the video world than enjoy any other form of down time. They don't watch many sports, don't spend much real time with their families and probably won't miss ESPN when it's gone. And because of that they would never pay Amazon to stream anything. This is why Amazon (and companies like it) are probably never going to get into the expensive end of the sports game, but will sell the product to the retail customer as long as it is profitable.

And I don't just base this analysis on my nephews. I have witnessed it everywhere. It is a cultural trend that they are chin deep into, but it's a very crowded cultural trend. If we were under nuclear attack they wouldn't notice until their hair fell off onto the control panel. So I think ESPN is fairly safe for a while yet. And when it dies it will be for lack of demand for sports.

I don't understand why people think the UConn is even an option for Big Ten selection. Here is the list of non-AAU schools the Big Ten would even entertain adding:

Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Boston College (only if it was necessary to secure Notre Dame)

The pair of Kansas and UConn would not move the needle or bring enough additional revenue to the Big Ten war chest to justify their additions.

UConn is exactly the same type of add as Maryland and Rutgers, other than the AAU part which is irrelevant if you're throwing around low research schools in low population states like Nebraska and Oklahoma.