CSNbbs

If ESPN gets the PAC-10 contract, as well as some more B10 games, I’m not sure they are going to be interested in bidding on the B12 due simply to the lack of slots. If that’s the case, it might drive down Fox and other bidders.

(08-05-2022 09:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote: [ -> ]If ESPN gets the PAC-10 contract, as well as some more B10 games, I’m not sure they are going to be interested in bidding on the B12 due simply to the lack of slots. If that’s the case, it might drive down Fox and other bidders.

Yep, I think this going to hurt both conferences. It appears Fox is not bidding on the PAC so that hurts the PAC final #s. And even if ESPN misses out on B1G but gets PAC, they will have SEC, ACC, & PAC already so I think they don’t go hard after B12. In addition to those 3 ESPN has contracts with AAC, SBC, & MAC, so a limited # of time slots will go there too.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay.

They may be "okay" in some sense, but let's not kid ourselves - - the PAC isn't going to be the same without its two premier universities - - one of which (UCLA) is a top 5 all-time men's basketball blue-blood.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million.

So you're predicting a loss of 20% to 40% of their annual broadcasting revenue. Such a loss could have an adverse impact. It surely won't help.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16.

The Big 12 wasn't viewed as being "okay" after the UT/OU announcement, and a "PAC-10" might not be "okay" if the 12-team MWC moves ahead of them in the FB and MBB rankings, as well they might.

One could imagine the MWC competing very successful for viewership eyeballs with a "PAC-10," and this would be an absolute revenue bonanza for the MWC's broadcasting partners.

Most observers gave the Big 12 commissioner credit for reloading to help keep that conference from becoming irrelevant. The PAC's commissioner may come under pressure to do the same.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

.

(08-05-2022 09:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote: [ -> ]If ESPN gets the PAC-10 contract, as well as some more B10 games, I’m not sure they are going to be interested in bidding on the B12 due simply to the lack of slots. If that’s the case, it might drive down Fox and other bidders.

Q: What do you mean by "the lack of slots?"

(08-06-2022 08:55 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 09:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote: [ -> ]If ESPN gets the PAC-10 contract, as well as some more B10 games, I’m not sure they are going to be interested in bidding on the B12 due simply to the lack of slots. If that’s the case, it might drive down Fox and other bidders.

Q: What do you mean by "the lack of slots?"

there are only so many Saturday game windows on ABC, Fox, ESPN, 2, U, FS1, SECn, ACCn. and with 8 SEC games, 5-6 ACC games, an American game (was in the contract, who knows if it still is), there are 1-2-3 spots left.

if ESPN signs for a Big Ten game, or Notre Dame or the PAC, it gets very easy to lowball the Big 12.

(also why they're able to liwball the PAC-10 right now)

(08-05-2022 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ].

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Well my answer would be that I expect both the nB12 and nPAC to see very substantial reductions compared to what they would have gotten had the four schools not left the respective conferences.

I think thats what many people fail to understand when they start with the calculating. They take the present value of a over a decade old contract---subtract half the value---and then divide by 12 to generate a current Big12 per team value estimate. In 2011, the Big East was an AQ conference (BCS system) and had probably the best basketball leagues in the nation. The full members were making about 4 million each from TV. In late 2011 and 2012 the Big East lost almost all of its former P5 members, almost all of the old basketball league including Notre Dame and the C7----and had to replace those football/basketball loses with Navy and a bunch of CUSA schools. Just 9 years later---the rebuilt and renamed Big East successor conference (The American) landed a 7 million dollar per team deal---almost twice what the "AQ/P5" level Big East was paid in 2011 with its outstanding basketball league fully intact. The lesson here is those decade+ old TV deal values mean little today.

Yeah, the Big12 lost its brightest two brand names....but it still has 8 well known P5 names. It brought in 4 of the best from the non-P5 world---all 4 with very attractive football programs---and 3 of the 4 with very high level basketball programs. The current Big12's football will be better than the old Big East and its basketball league may be the best in the nation. The Big12 is going to end up with some very nice media offers because, despite the loses---it still represents a very attractive college sports property---it just wont be as attractive as it would have been with UT and OU. Still---wait and see----nobody in the Big12 is going to be taking a pay cut.

I agree about rising rights fees and that this has to be taken in to account. How it will play out with the nB12 and nPAC, though, is IMO not really known.

For example, you mention the Big East/AAC situation between 2012 and 2020, and how even though the Big East was decimated with losses in 2011-2012, the AAC that emerged signed for $7m in 2020, almost double the $4m the Big East was making in 2011. Fair enough.

But, we can also look at what happened before then. That $4m deal you mention was signed in 2006. In 2011, ESPN came in with an offer of around $12m per school ($9m per school if we parse out the $3m that was going to go to the C7 hoops only schools), a large increase by comparison. But, the loss of Big East schools to the ACC, B1G and B12 and backfill with a pile of "best of the non-AQ" CUSA schools resulted in that value plummeting to $2m a year. It wasn't the case that the rising value of TV rights between 2006 and 2012 (the "first wave" of rising rights) meant that the Big East/AAC was going to make at least as much or more as it had been making before the losses. To the contrary, it took a 50% haircut from what it was making from 2006-2012, from $4m to $2m. Yes, that $4m included about $1.5m for basketball, but that's still a 20% cut from $2.5m to $2m, really more because the basketball in the new AAC was worth something too.

Now, I agree that the situation isn't entirely the same with the nPAC and nB12. As you say the Big East lost most of its AQ schools, the new conference was mostly G-level backfill whereas the nPAC and nB12 will, at least as of now, have a large majority of teams that are established "P" schools.

But, on the other hand, IMO none of the Big East school losses were anywhere like losing Texas and Oklahoma. Texas arguably has more brand value than West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers combined. There is IMO a far larger value-gap between TX and OU and the four G-level callups the nB12 added than there was between Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Rutgers, Louisville and Houston, UCF, and Memphis during the 2012 BE/AAC transition. There was certainly a gap, but IMO not as large. That was the problem the post-2004 Big East had all along - it didn't have brand tentpoles, it was a collection of schools that were quasi-brands. In contrast, TX and OU are the definition of Big Tentpoles.

So I just don't know how it will play out. Do I expect the nB12 and nPAC to actually make 50% less money going forward (in their new 2024/2025 deals) compared to what they are making now? No. But I am also skeptical of claims that they will be making as much, or more than they are now too. IIRC, I've seen posts by some nB12 enthusiasts quoting tweets saying they will sign for $50m to $60m per school. I find that as hard to believe as some saying they will sign for $20m per school.

I really just do not know.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:21 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Its only coming from message board posters who have absolutely nothing to base it on, but they "feel" the Big 12 should get less than now. If they say that, they are someone who should probably be ignored on the topic. And are pretty ignorant about TV ratings and the relative strength of the conferences on the field (which has some influence on TV ratings).

That may be so. What's mystifying to me is why there was so much of a hubbub about the huge revenue cuts the Big XII would receive, yet complete silence about revenue cuts for the PAC.

It's especially baffling when one notes the fact that the Big XII is reloading (adding Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, and BYU), while there are no signs that the PAC will replace USC or UCLA. One would think that the conference that has announced it's reloading would be viewed as protecting its revenue stream to some extent, and that the conference that doesn't reload would be expected to take a greater revenue hit.

When OU and UT announced they were leaving, Bob Bowlsby estimated that would cost the Big 12 50% of their TV revenue:
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...oma-exits/

"Bowlsby estimates that the remaining eight Big 12 schools could lose $14 million per year in TV revenue upon Oklahoma and Texas’ departure. Bowlsby added that Big 12 distributes roughly $28 million in TV money per school, and OU/Texas account for about 50 percent of that, Sam Khan, Jr. of The Athletic reported."

Adding four G5 schools gets some additional income, but not $140 million annually. The fact that the TV contract is a decade old will help, but not much without Oklahoma and Texas. Twenty million per school or $240 milion seems low, but what school is carrying the flag for the Big 12 in football? Who would the networks trust in football?

The PAC still has Oregon and Washington, and even Stanford and Cal. At least for now. There are few programs in college football that are doing as well as Oregon. They are a top ten football brand. Since 2010, there have been nine schools that have played in a college football national championship game. Oregon is one of those nine schools and they have done it twice. Oregon was the only Pac-12 team ranked in the top ten in TV ratings in 2021, with 4 games on ABC , 2 on FOX, and 3 games on ESPN in the 10:30PM hour that ESPN likes. They have had three consecutive drafts with a top ten pick, joining Alabama and LSU as the only schools that have done that the past three years.

They are a top 15 recruiting school and already have two 5-star recruits for 2023:
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footba...tRankings/
2. Dante Moore Martin Luther King (Detroit, MI) QB
14. Jurrion Dickey Valley Christian (East Palo Alto, CA) WR
They also have 3 four-star recruits from Texas, and one four star recruit from Mississippi. Washington and Stanford also each have one four-star recruit from Texas. In 2022, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona finished in the top 25 in football recruiting. No new Big 12 school finished in the top 25.

I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay. No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million. But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16. For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

You are combining two numbers that don't go together. Yes, the Big 12 was getting $28 million a year. Yes, UT and OU provide 50% of the value. But that $28 million was not current value. That was a contract from 10 years ago. In his testimony, Bowlsby estimated the Big 12 would get $25 million a year in its new contract without UT and OU. They were projecting very big numbers when they got the new contract before the departures.

(08-06-2022 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ].

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Well my answer would be that I expect both the nB12 and nPAC to see very substantial reductions compared to what they would have gotten had the four schools not left the respective conferences.

I think thats what many people fail to understand when they start with the calculating. They take the present value of a over a decade old contract---subtract half the value---and then divide by 12 to generate a current Big12 per team value estimate. In 2011, the Big East was an AQ conference (BCS system) and had probably the best basketball leagues in the nation. The full members were making about 4 million each from TV. In late 2011 and 2012 the Big East lost almost all of its former P5 members, almost all of the old basketball league including Notre Dame and the C7----and had to replace those football/basketball loses with Navy and a bunch of CUSA schools. Just 9 years later---the rebuilt and renamed Big East successor conference (The American) landed a 7 million dollar per team deal---almost twice what the "AQ/P5" level Big East was paid in 2011 with its outstanding basketball league fully intact. The lesson here is those decade+ old TV deal values mean little today.

Yeah, the Big12 lost its brightest two brand names....but it still has 8 well known P5 names. It brought in 4 of the best from the non-P5 world---all 4 with very attractive football programs---and 3 of the 4 with very high level basketball programs. The current Big12's football will be better than the old Big East and its basketball league may be the best in the nation. The Big12 is going to end up with some very nice media offers because, despite the loses---it still represents a very attractive college sports property---it just wont be as attractive as it would have been with UT and OU. Still---wait and see----nobody in the Big12 is going to be taking a pay cut.

I agree about rising rights fees and that this has to be taken in to account. How it will play out with the nB12 and nPAC, though, is IMO not really known.

For example, you mention the Big East/AAC situation between 2012 and 2020, and how even though the Big East was decimated with losses in 2011-2012, the AAC that emerged signed for $7m in 2020, almost double the $4m the Big East was making in 2011. Fair enough.

But, we can also look at what happened before then. That $4m deal you mention was signed in 2006. In 2011, ESPN came in with an offer of around $12m per school ($9m per school if we parse out the $3m that was going to go to the C7 hoops only schools), a large increase by comparison. But, the loss of Big East schools to the ACC, B1G and B12 and backfill with a pile of "best of the non-AQ" CUSA schools resulted in that value plummeting to $2m a year. It wasn't the case that the rising value of TV rights between 2006 and 2012 (the "first wave" of rising rights) meant that the Big East/AAC was going to make at least as much or more as it had been making before the losses. To the contrary, it took a 50% haircut from what it was making from 2006-2012, from $4m to $2m. Yes, that $4m included about $1.5m for basketball, but that's still a 20% cut from $2.5m to $2m, really more because the basketball in the new AAC was worth something too.

Now, I agree that the situation isn't entirely the same with the nPAC and nB12. As you say the Big East lost most of its AQ schools, the new conference was mostly G-level backfill whereas the nPAC and nB12 will, at least as of now, have a large majority of teams that are established "P" schools.

But, on the other hand, IMO none of the Big East school losses were anywhere like losing Texas and Oklahoma. Texas arguably has more brand value than West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers combined. There is IMO a far larger value-gap between TX and OU and the four G-level callups the nB12 added than there was between Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Rutgers, Louisville and Houston, UCF, and Memphis during the 2012 BE/AAC transition. There was certainly a gap, but IMO not as large. That was the problem the post-2004 Big East had all along - it didn't have brand tentpoles, it was a collection of schools that were quasi-brands. In contrast, TX and OU are the definition of Big Tentpoles.

So I just don't know how it will play out. Do I expect the nB12 and nPAC to actually make 50% less money going forward (in their new 2024/2025 deals) compared to what they are making now? No. But I am also skeptical of claims that they will be making as much, or more than they are now too. IIRC, I've seen posts by some nB12 enthusiasts quoting tweets saying they will sign for $50m to $60m per school. I find that as hard to believe as some saying they will sign for $20m per school.

I really just do not know.

Frankly, I didn’t follow the Big East finances closely when they lost Miami and VTech—-but that would have been a pretty good corollary to both the current Big 12 and Pac12 situations. I was able to find out that the 4 million a team deal the Big East had up until 2013 actually began in 2007---so it would have only been a 6 year deal (not a 10 year deal). I also found an article that indicated the deal they inked with ESPN in 2006 after the loss of their most successful teams (Miami and VTech) was for 250 million and is stated to be "more lucrative" than their previous deal (though the article does not detail by how much). I think thats a pretty good situation to use as a comparable for the current Big12 and Pac12 situations. I would expect neither to see a pay cut from their current old decade+ aged TV deals.

https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/othe...0612040231

Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

(08-06-2022 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:21 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Its only coming from message board posters who have absolutely nothing to base it on, but they "feel" the Big 12 should get less than now. If they say that, they are someone who should probably be ignored on the topic. And are pretty ignorant about TV ratings and the relative strength of the conferences on the field (which has some influence on TV ratings).

That may be so. What's mystifying to me is why there was so much of a hubbub about the huge revenue cuts the Big XII would receive, yet complete silence about revenue cuts for the PAC.

It's especially baffling when one notes the fact that the Big XII is reloading (adding Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, and BYU), while there are no signs that the PAC will replace USC or UCLA. One would think that the conference that has announced it's reloading would be viewed as protecting its revenue stream to some extent, and that the conference that doesn't reload would be expected to take a greater revenue hit.

When OU and UT announced they were leaving, Bob Bowlsby estimated that would cost the Big 12 50% of their TV revenue:
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...oma-exits/

"Bowlsby estimates that the remaining eight Big 12 schools could lose $14 million per year in TV revenue upon Oklahoma and Texas’ departure. Bowlsby added that Big 12 distributes roughly $28 million in TV money per school, and OU/Texas account for about 50 percent of that, Sam Khan, Jr. of The Athletic reported."

Adding four G5 schools gets some additional income, but not $140 million annually. The fact that the TV contract is a decade old will help, but not much without Oklahoma and Texas. Twenty million per school or $240 milion seems low, but what school is carrying the flag for the Big 12 in football? Who would the networks trust in football?

The PAC still has Oregon and Washington, and even Stanford and Cal. At least for now. There are few programs in college football that are doing as well as Oregon. They are a top ten football brand. Since 2010, there have been nine schools that have played in a college football national championship game. Oregon is one of those nine schools and they have done it twice. Oregon was the only Pac-12 team ranked in the top ten in TV ratings in 2021, with 4 games on ABC , 2 on FOX, and 3 games on ESPN in the 10:30PM hour that ESPN likes. They have had three consecutive drafts with a top ten pick, joining Alabama and LSU as the only schools that have done that the past three years.

They are a top 15 recruiting school and already have two 5-star recruits for 2023:
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footba...tRankings/
2. Dante Moore Martin Luther King (Detroit, MI) QB
14. Jurrion Dickey Valley Christian (East Palo Alto, CA) WR
They also have 3 four-star recruits from Texas, and one four star recruit from Mississippi. Washington and Stanford also each have one four-star recruit from Texas. In 2022, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona finished in the top 25 in football recruiting. No new Big 12 school finished in the top 25.

I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay. No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million. But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16. For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

You are combining two numbers that don't go together. Yes, the Big 12 was getting $28 million a year. Yes, UT and OU provide 50% of the value. But that $28 million was not current value. That was a contract from 10 years ago. In his testimony, Bowlsby estimated the Big 12 would get $25 million a year in its new contract without UT and OU. They were projecting very big numbers when they got the new contract before the departures.

Not to mention basing the idea of the value of ou and UT on statements Bowlsby was making last year while poor mouthing about the damage ESPN had done his conference.

(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

(08-05-2022 07:54 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]I would agree with that. USC and UCLA (and Oregon and Stanford, probably) are viewership magnets even when they're not great. Washington...not so much. ...

There are several dimensions to "viewership". I'll go ahead and say where I expect the schools stand on those dimensions, but I don't have any local knowledge or experience of any of these schools, so my own particular view of where the schools stand with respect to those dimensions of viewership should not be given any particular weight.

There is viewership in the area. Washington is going to get a certain base level of attention in the State of Washington even when it is mediocre or bad, even if it gets more when it is good. Cal and Stanford are going to get certain base levels of attention in Greater SF / Bay area when they are mediocre or bad, even if they get more when they are good. On the one hand, Washington is likely to have a larger base share of attention in Washington, because there are more competing claims for the attention of a Bay area sports fan in the Bay area, and because there is a larger share of the key demo that has moved into the Bay area rather than having grown up there. But those are differences on the margin, and the Bay Area market is a marginally larger market ... 7.75m in the Greater SF Area vs 7.5m in the State of Washington, so share*market might still end up basically equal.

I'll note as an economist that the higher median income in the Greater SF Area probably doesn't matter all that much here, since higher cost of housing and the higher overheads on lots of goods & services that have to pay Bay Area rents likely soaks most of that up, so that median disposable income is going to be closer than the media household incomes.

But also, there is alumni viewership. Schools at the level of Stanford, Cal, & Washington, 2021 AWRU #2, #5 and #19 in the WORLD, #2, #4 and #15 in the US (where the highest in the Big Ten is That School Up North, #26 World / #18 US) ... they send a LOT of their graduates out of the region. Just from an casual outside impression, I would expect Washington to have an edge there, from having a campus culture that cares more about its Football / Basketball teams.

And then there is "event" viewership, where people who would normally not pay much or any attention to a school when it is having an "ordinary" year will pay attention on that particular game day. The Apple Bowl is an event, the Washington / USC game is an event, the Cal / Stanford game (does it have a name?) is an event, the Cal / UCLA game is an event, the Cal / USC game is an event, the Stanford / ND game is an event, the Stanford / USC game is a event ... and the conference of a school has the home leg of any school's "event" games. To my mind, Stanford has the edge there.

There’s no reason to believe any of these projections or rumors. There’s some viewership data available that shows that viewership is pretty similar. Any argument that the TV revenue between the two conferences will be dissimilar needs to have some pretty good reasoning to back it up. But the only people who promote the idea that there revenue disparate pretty challenged in the logic/reason arena.

(08-06-2022 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:21 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Its only coming from message board posters who have absolutely nothing to base it on, but they "feel" the Big 12 should get less than now. If they say that, they are someone who should probably be ignored on the topic. And are pretty ignorant about TV ratings and the relative strength of the conferences on the field (which has some influence on TV ratings).

That may be so. What's mystifying to me is why there was so much of a hubbub about the huge revenue cuts the Big XII would receive, yet complete silence about revenue cuts for the PAC.

It's especially baffling when one notes the fact that the Big XII is reloading (adding Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, and BYU), while there are no signs that the PAC will replace USC or UCLA. One would think that the conference that has announced it's reloading would be viewed as protecting its revenue stream to some extent, and that the conference that doesn't reload would be expected to take a greater revenue hit.

When OU and UT announced they were leaving, Bob Bowlsby estimated that would cost the Big 12 50% of their TV revenue:
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...oma-exits/

"Bowlsby estimates that the remaining eight Big 12 schools could lose $14 million per year in TV revenue upon Oklahoma and Texas’ departure. Bowlsby added that Big 12 distributes roughly $28 million in TV money per school, and OU/Texas account for about 50 percent of that, Sam Khan, Jr. of The Athletic reported."

Adding four G5 schools gets some additional income, but not $140 million annually. The fact that the TV contract is a decade old will help, but not much without Oklahoma and Texas. Twenty million per school or $240 milion seems low, but what school is carrying the flag for the Big 12 in football? Who would the networks trust in football?

The PAC still has Oregon and Washington, and even Stanford and Cal. At least for now. There are few programs in college football that are doing as well as Oregon. They are a top ten football brand. Since 2010, there have been nine schools that have played in a college football national championship game. Oregon is one of those nine schools and they have done it twice. Oregon was the only Pac-12 team ranked in the top ten in TV ratings in 2021, with 4 games on ABC , 2 on FOX, and 3 games on ESPN in the 10:30PM hour that ESPN likes. They have had three consecutive drafts with a top ten pick, joining Alabama and LSU as the only schools that have done that the past three years.

They are a top 15 recruiting school and already have two 5-star recruits for 2023:
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footba...tRankings/
2. Dante Moore Martin Luther King (Detroit, MI) QB
14. Jurrion Dickey Valley Christian (East Palo Alto, CA) WR
They also have 3 four-star recruits from Texas, and one four star recruit from Mississippi. Washington and Stanford also each have one four-star recruit from Texas. In 2022, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona finished in the top 25 in football recruiting. No new Big 12 school finished in the top 25.

I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay. No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million. But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16. For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

You are combining two numbers that don't go together. Yes, the Big 12 was getting $28 million a year. Yes, UT and OU provide 50% of the value. But that $28 million was not current value. That was a contract from 10 years ago. In his testimony, Bowlsby estimated the Big 12 would get $25 million a year in its new contract without UT and OU. They were projecting very big numbers when they got the new contract before the departures.

I said that the fact that the TV contract is a decade old will help. Same with the PAC, which is an older contract than the Big 12. I also heard Bowlsby say that they would get $25 per school with a new contract. That makes sense. I said I thought $20 million per school was too low. Yes, the Big 12 would have larger numbers with OU & UT. So would the Pac-12 with UCLA & USC. I did not predict any numbers for either conference.

(08-06-2022 08:54 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay.

They may be "okay" in some sense, but let's not kid ourselves - - the PAC isn't going to be the same without its two premier universities - - one of which (UCLA) is a top 5 all-time men's basketball blue-blood.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million.

So you're predicting a loss of 20% to 40% of their annual broadcasting revenue. Such a loss could have an adverse impact. It surely won't help.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16.

The Big 12 wasn't viewed as being "okay" after the UT/OU announcement, and a "PAC-10" might not be "okay" if the 12-team MWC moves ahead of them in the FB and MBB rankings, as well they might.

One could imagine the MWC competing very successful for viewership eyeballs with a "PAC-10," and this would be an absolute revenue bonanza for the MWC's broadcasting partners.

Most observers gave the Big 12 commissioner credit for reloading to help keep that conference from becoming irrelevant. The PAC's commissioner may come under pressure to do the same.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

2. One could imagine a lot of things, but then there is reality. The MWC is not close to the PAC in terms of history, talent or TV ratings. The Big 12 commissioner did what he had to do by adding four schools. They had to add at least two teams after losing Texas and Oklahoma. The four teams they added would not have made the cut when Oklahoma and Texas were in the conference. Same with the PAC. No expansion when UCLA and USC are in the conference. With them leaving, expansion is likely to happen, and happen with schools that would not have been invited with UCLA and USC in the conference.

3. UCLA and USC are great unversities in a premier market. I think there are other schools in the conference that feel that they are special, starting with Stanford and Cal. The PAC is going to lose revenue that they could have had with USC and UCLA leaving. Their departure will have an adverse effect on revenue. Same with Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12.

When looking at the Big 12 and PAC 10 and what their potential tv values are I think they both have different attributes whose values vary depending on the needs of the bidder:

The PAC 10 has less content to offer but with Washington and Oregon as quasi-anchor schools they have a bit more pizazz than the Big 12s flyover country programs. Losing the LA programs is certainly a big hit to their value, but not nearly as brutal as the hit the Big 12 took. The PAC 10 offers the opportunity to utilize the late night slot but not the noon eastern slot.

The Big 12 lost most of its big brand power but they, on average, can offer media partners an additional game per week as a 12 team league. The Big 12’s territory isn’t exactly flush with lots of big exciting media markets but I think a greater percentage of their population follows or casually consumes college football. With 3 eastern and 8 central time zone schools the noon eastern slot is totally in play and they can even sneak in a few late night games hosted by BYU into their tv package (please don’t put Cincinnati @ BYU in that slot though).

I really think the PAC 10 would best be partnered with ESPN. Most of their T1 games would be on ESPN or ESPN2 with maybe a half dozen ABC appearances for their very best games and the CCG. T2 can live on ESPN2 and ESPNU. They can move some games to Friday and should have the late night ESPN slot locked down the entire season. T3’s new home becomes ESPN+. ESPN already owns a ton of prime content with their SEC and ACC deals. What they need is west coast exposure and something for late nights.

The Big 12 fits better with one of the other 3/4 letter networks or split between a pair of them. They could build around FOX’s Big 10 content and have a prominent presence on FS1. I could also see them in the noon slot for NBC or CBS with T3 rights on one of their streaming platforms (Peacock or Paramount+). I’m kind of a fan of NBC or CBS getting T1 and T3 and Fox taking T2.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon



.

(08-06-2022 02:07 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Maybe they're not on the same level.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon

.

Oregon is Oregon because they have done well. If they are NOT doing well---there is every reason to believe Oregon ceases to be a significant brand when it comes to driving excess viewership. The Big12 has a lot of good programs---but no huge brand. Thus, whoever is doing well will be their Oregon for that season. The new Big12 will feature a lot of pretty solid quality programs----so I suspect the overall top-to-bottom quality of football in that league will be very attractive. The teams that sit near the top of the B12 standings will probably be able to drive excess ratings. Over time--perhaps someone will become a consistent presence near the top of the Big12 and become a Oregon style "brand".

And for the record---Houston finished at #17 last season---also ahead of Oregon---though Id obviously still consider Oregon a better brand---it shows you how yet another future B12 team has the potential to rise up to command excess viewer interest in any given year.

(08-06-2022 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]...for the record---Houston finished at #17 last season---also ahead of Oregon---though Id obviously still consider Oregon a better brand---it shows you how yet another future B12 team has the potential to rise up to command excess viewer interest in any given year.

True, but Houston has clearly had a better basketball brand than Oregon has over the past five years, and overall:

.........Houston.....Oregon

2018....#21............NR
2019....#11............NR
2020....#22...........#13
2021....#6..............NR
2022....#15............NR


NCAA "Final Four" teams:

Houston: 1967, 1968, 1982, 1983, 1984, & 2021

Oregon: 1939 & 2017 (one Final Four team in the past 82 years)

NCAA "Sweet Sixteen" teams:

Houston: 1956, 1961, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1982, 1983, 1984, 2019, 2021, & 2022

Oregon: 1960, 2002, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, & 2021

(08-06-2022 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

They are valuations from media consultants.

So while very approximate, they are more than guesses.