(04-30-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fox will acquire a piece of the PACN to help with carriage and provide a war chest for expansion. They encourage the PAC to expand their product sales by moving into the CTZone.

FOX takes the former Big 8 schools of the Big 12 to assist expansion in both the Big 10 and PAC and ESPN takes the 4 former SWC schools and WVU to do the same for their holdings.

Being in the central time zone doesn't add TV value to the Pac-12 unless the Longhorns are part of the deal, thus I don't see ESPN or Fox paying very much for a no-UT expansion. ESPN wants Pac-12 football and basketball primarily for west coast afternoon and prime time, with some big games in east coast prime time. ESPN doesn't "need" Pac-12 FB or BB games to be played in the central time zone because ESPN is already well-stocked with inventory for those time slots, but ESPN (or Fox) would pay more for a Pac-xx (or any conference) that added UT.

(04-30-2017 11:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I agree with your assessment that this will be pushed by the networks but I worry about TCU and Baylor.

Don't worry about TCU. They are spending enough to be competitive for a very long time. They have more value to TV than Texas Tech or Baylor. For that matter they have more TV value for football than any Big 12 program other than UT and OU. Even their men's basketball team, which sucked for a very long time, has improved and won the NIT this year. (KU still edges TCU out for third-most total TV value in the Big 12, because of KU basketball.)

(05-01-2017 11:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fox will acquire a piece of the PACN to help with carriage and provide a war chest for expansion. They encourage the PAC to expand their product sales by moving into the CTZone.

FOX takes the former Big 8 schools of the Big 12 to assist expansion in both the Big 10 and PAC and ESPN takes the 4 former SWC schools and WVU to do the same for their holdings.

Being in the central time zone doesn't add TV value to the Pac-12 unless the Longhorns are part of the deal, thus I don't see ESPN or Fox paying very much for a no-UT expansion. ESPN wants Pac-12 football and basketball primarily for west coast afternoon and prime time, with some big games in east coast prime time. ESPN doesn't "need" Pac-12 FB or BB games to be played in the central time zone because ESPN is already well-stocked with inventory for those time slots, but ESPN (or Fox) would pay more for a Pac-xx (or any conference) that added UT.

(04-30-2017 11:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I agree with your assessment that this will be pushed by the networks but I worry about TCU and Baylor.

Don't worry about TCU. They are spending enough to be competitive for a very long time. They have more value to TV than Texas Tech or Baylor. For that matter they have more TV value for football than any Big 12 program other than UT and OU. Even their men's basketball team, which sucked for a very long time, has improved and won the NIT this year. (KU still edges TCU out for third-most total TV value in the Big 12, because of KU basketball.)

TCU basketball? They used to play in a tiny 7,000 seat arena, struggled for attendance, and were usually the worst team in CUSA AND the MWC...crazy..

(05-01-2017 10:56 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 09:03 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Why anybody would think the Big 12 leftovers would join the AAC is beyond my comprehension. It will play out opposite of that.

AAC markets are far more attractive... If this maneuvering is done right after UT and OU bolt the American could be the biggest winner.

If Tulsa, Temple and Tulane weren't in the the AAC. Ok St, Tech and Baylor won't play in a conference with Tulsa and Tulane, let alone Temple a million miles away. You know how those schools think. That would be very for embarrassing them.

Could ESPN make it possible for both Oklahoma and Texas to go indy for football? Is there any chance that the SEC would give them a conference home for their other sports? I doubt the Big 12 would let them stay, unless both of them agreed to a Notre Dame type arrangement where they each play a limited number of games against their former mates. Even then, the remaining 8 schools would take such a big hit to their future media value there would probably be too much resentment to allow an arrangement like that.

(05-01-2017 09:02 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 06:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 07:56 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I think the Big XII will have the fate of the Big East. They are the low man on the totem pole for the power conference like the Big East was during the BCS. They all have the fewest members and no conference championship like the Big East. With the PAC-12 having money issues as well I think they offer a deal with Texas that Texas can not turndown.

This is how it happens Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Houston go to the PAC-12 to become the PAC-16.

The Big Ten takes Kansas and Missouri. While the SEC adds West Virginia, Oklahoma, and TCU.

The ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati.

Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State keep the Big 12 alive and merge with the American plus BYU, Air Force, Army, Colorado State, and Rice to form the Big 18.

WEST
BYU
Air Force
Colorado State
Kansas State
Iowa State
Tulsa
SMU
Baylor
Rice


EAST
Tulane
Memphis
UConn
Temple
Army
Navy
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida

At which point I think the playoff expands to 8 with the P4 + Big 18 champs all making the playoffs and 3 at large teams.

Well, for starters, ND is a full member of the ACC right now, playing 24 sports in the conference (except for football and hockey). It has full voting rights and will have an equal share of the ACC Network money.

It gets a full share of basketball money and has full access to all minor ACC bowls. It contractually does not have to join for football and that contract runs through 2036.

Why would ND football join the ACC now if your second bolded statement comes true?

Terry - I agree with you that I don't see why Notre Dame would feel compelled at the moment. I do, however, believe it would behoove Notre Dame to join in football for CFP purposes. We are only 3 seasons in which is not a large enough sample nor have we seen how Notre Dame is treated at 12-0 or 11-1. If they are 12-0 or 11-1 and don't make the CFP, then I could see them considering it.

If they do join, then traditionalists would be concerned about OOC rivalries with USC, Stanford, Navy, Purdue, and Michigan St. I also believe, probably like others, if Notre Dame were a football-member, they would choose their division mates.

ND's administration is just fine being an independent under the current CFP.

Besides, practically speaking, I doubt ND will be at 12-0, 11-1 or even 10-2 that often to make a real difference when considering jettisoning ND's brand, unique status and a 128 year tradition.

The "traditionalists" just don't want ND to join a football conference, ever, period, for any reason.

They don't really care so much about "rivalries" with Purdue or Michigan State as much as they think that football independence suits ND better than having its football program forced into a conference against its will.

The very fact of football conference membership is what is sought to be avoided, not so much the details such as hypothetical division mates or games against Purdue.

Texas won't drive what happens next.
Pac-12 and Big 10, own a piece of their networks (1005 and 49% respectively) and SEC isn't going to give anyone favored nation in regards to the TV.

None of them are letting Texas in without LHN being folded in as a product of the conference.

Beyond the money Texas has strong incentive to keep LHN. It is a great brand booster and it provides academic opportunities for their students. All things financial being equal or just close, keeping LHN is in the best interest of Texas.

ACC doesn't have a network yet, but they would want LHN folded in because it gives them a headstart on carriage agreements.

That leaves Texas with no option they WANT to pursue.

The only way Texas is choosing to fold LHN into another network is if the Big XII no longer meets their needs and as long as OU is hanging around, Texas is content in Big XII.

Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration. Texas is hamstrung with another 5 or 6 years remaining on the LHN contract unless ESPN is ready to just write it off. More likely ESPN is looking around and saying join Pac-12 or B1G and we will trade equity in their networks for the equity we hold and try to make some money off the deal.

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

(05-01-2017 10:56 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 09:03 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Why anybody would think the Big 12 leftovers would join the AAC is beyond my comprehension. It will play out opposite of that.

AAC markets are far more attractive... If this maneuvering is done right after UT and OU bolt the American could be the biggest winner.

The remaining B12 brands are far more attractive. They could invite the biggest markets from the AAC and achieve exactly what you're talking about.

(05-01-2017 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

Here is the issue I have with most of these scenarios. If Texas has to give up the LHN, why would UT ever go west to the Pac12? Every conference wants UT. If they decide the Big12 isn't working, UT will leave, but it wont be for the Pac12. They are not going to put their athletic teams at a disadvantage due to time zone differences. They aren't going to go to the conference who's games end while everyone else is asleep. Texas isn't going to a conference that markets itself to 20% of the population when they could address 80% of the nation in an central/east leaning conference. Big10, ACC, and SEC are all far more likely and make far more sense than the Pac12. The only reason people mention the Pac12 is because they have been the most aggressive suitor for Texas---but they aren't the best match.

Because of that, I think any Pac12 move into the central time zone is extremely unlikely to include UT.

(05-01-2017 12:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 10:56 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 09:03 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Why anybody would think the Big 12 leftovers would join the AAC is beyond my comprehension. It will play out opposite of that.

AAC markets are far more attractive... If this maneuvering is done right after UT and OU bolt the American could be the biggest winner.

The remaining B12 brands are far more attractive. They could invite the biggest markets from the AAC and achieve exactly what you're talking about.

So far, markets have made a difference in one P5 expansion -- Rutgers to the Big 10. If that trend was going to continue, Temple (4th largest market in the US) would be the next in. But it's not.

(05-01-2017 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

Here is the issue I have with most of these scenarios. If Texas has to give up the LHN, why would UT ever go west to the Pac12? Every conference wants UT. If they decide the Big12 isn't working, UT will leave, but it wont be for the Pac12. They are not going to put their athletic teams at a disadvantage due to time zone differences. They aren't going to go to the conference who's games end while everyone else is asleep. Texas isn't going to a conference that markets itself to 20% of the population when they could address 80% of the nation in an central/east leaning conference. Big10, ACC, and SEC are all far more likely and make far more sense than the Pac12. The only reason people mention the Pac12 is because they have been the most aggressive suitor for Texas---but they aren't the best match.

Because of that, I think any Pac12 move into the central time zone is extremely unlikely to include UT.

The TV networks are not going to give the Pac-12 significant money for any central time zone additions unless UT is one of the schools joining. And big money is the only reason the Pac-12 presidents would green-light expansion. So you might well be right that UT isn't joining, but that also means the Pac-12 isn't expanding into the central time zone.

(05-01-2017 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

Here is the issue I have with most of these scenarios. If Texas has to give up the LHN, why would UT ever go west to the Pac12? Every conference wants UT. If they decide the Big12 isn't working, UT will leave, but it wont be for the Pac12. They are not going to put their athletic teams at a disadvantage due to time zone differences. They aren't going to go to the conference who's games end while everyone else is asleep. Texas isn't going to a conference that markets itself to 20% of the population when they could address 80% of the nation in an central/east leaning conference. Big10, ACC, and SEC are all far more likely and make far more sense than the Pac12. The only reason people mention the Pac12 is because they have been the most aggressive suitor for Texas---but they aren't the best match.

Because of that, I think any Pac12 move into the central time zone is extremely unlikely to include UT.

Let me pose an alternate thought.

The time zone issue is quite real but Colorado is only one hour off and Arizona and Arizona State are also one hour off from the first Sunday in November to the second Sunday in March.

A 16 team Pac that places Texas, three other Central schools, Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado (presumably with Utah) in the same division means very minimal time zone issues (getting Arizona and Arizona State to move away from USC and UCLA is its own challenge).

But Pac-xx is quite possibly the easier sale for Texas because of the Pac-Network sub channels.

(05-01-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

Here is the issue I have with most of these scenarios. If Texas has to give up the LHN, why would UT ever go west to the Pac12? Every conference wants UT. If they decide the Big12 isn't working, UT will leave, but it wont be for the Pac12. They are not going to put their athletic teams at a disadvantage due to time zone differences. They aren't going to go to the conference who's games end while everyone else is asleep. Texas isn't going to a conference that markets itself to 20% of the population when they could address 80% of the nation in an central/east leaning conference. Big10, ACC, and SEC are all far more likely and make far more sense than the Pac12. The only reason people mention the Pac12 is because they have been the most aggressive suitor for Texas---but they aren't the best match.

Because of that, I think any Pac12 move into the central time zone is extremely unlikely to include UT.

Let me pose an alternate thought.

The time zone issue is quite real but Colorado is only one hour off and Arizona and Arizona State are also one hour off from the first Sunday in November to the second Sunday in March.

A 16 team Pac that places Texas, three other Central schools, Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado (presumably with Utah) in the same division means very minimal time zone issues (getting Arizona and Arizona State to move away from USC and UCLA is its own challenge).

But Pac-xx is quite possibly the easier sale for Texas because of the Pac-Network sub channels.

I think Arizona and Arizona State would be happy with games in Texas for recruiting purposes as well. Plus they will almost always have a game against a California team each year since there would be four in the opposite division. Plus with games in Texas now, the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado can schedule non-conference games against SDSU or Fresno State for California games OR play games in the new LA Stadium for a neutral site game every few years.

PAC-16
WEST
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC

EAST
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Texas
Houston

(05-01-2017 02:58 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

Here is the issue I have with most of these scenarios. If Texas has to give up the LHN, why would UT ever go west to the Pac12? Every conference wants UT. If they decide the Big12 isn't working, UT will leave, but it wont be for the Pac12. They are not going to put their athletic teams at a disadvantage due to time zone differences. They aren't going to go to the conference who's games end while everyone else is asleep. Texas isn't going to a conference that markets itself to 20% of the population when they could address 80% of the nation in an central/east leaning conference. Big10, ACC, and SEC are all far more likely and make far more sense than the Pac12. The only reason people mention the Pac12 is because they have been the most aggressive suitor for Texas---but they aren't the best match.

Because of that, I think any Pac12 move into the central time zone is extremely unlikely to include UT.

Let me pose an alternate thought.

The time zone issue is quite real but Colorado is only one hour off and Arizona and Arizona State are also one hour off from the first Sunday in November to the second Sunday in March.

A 16 team Pac that places Texas, three other Central schools, Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado (presumably with Utah) in the same division means very minimal time zone issues (getting Arizona and Arizona State to move away from USC and UCLA is its own challenge).

But Pac-xx is quite possibly the easier sale for Texas because of the Pac-Network sub channels.

I think Arizona and Arizona State would be happy with games in Texas for recruiting purposes as well. Plus they will almost always have a game against a California team each year since there would be four in the opposite division. Plus with games in Texas now, the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado can schedule non-conference games against SDSU or Fresno State for California games OR play games in the new LA Stadium for a neutral site game every few years.

PAC-16
WEST
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC

EAST
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Texas
Houston

Houston and Ok St don't make the cut academically. When OU and OSU approached the PAC 12 on their own a year after the proposed PAC 16 fell apart, the PAC embarrassed OU by turning them down. The PAC is dead to OU, and OSU to the PAC without OU is outright ridiculous. PAC wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole. ECU gets into the ACC before that. (Never) I won't say anything about Houston to the PAC 12 as I've commented on that a million times.

UT is in the BigXII because ESPN thought it would be cheaper to pay $15M/yr for the LHN and $30M/yr for the BigXII than to have consolidation to a P4 INCLUDING one conference (PAC) that had completely gone around ESPN/FOX to start a network. ESPN couldn't have the SEC and ACC doing the same.

It worked, and ESPN has now locked in ownership of the ACC and SEC networks and made it clear that a partner is needed to launch a conference network. Now, the incentive for overpayment is gone, and it's inherently cheaper NOT to pay the entire BigXII $30M/yr apiece to deliver the kind of market penetration they would achieve 90% of with KU/OU/UT alone. FOX has to be seeing the same thing.

So we enter a situation where neither FOX nor ESPN want the BigXII to survive, but neither want to drive UT to the other. So either FOX wins and UT goes to the B1G, or ESPN wins with UT in the SEC or ACC (full or Indy-aligned), OR they use the PAC to push UT into neutral territory that both can access for cheaper than what they pay the BigXII. Placing 4 BigXII members in the PAC at 35M/yr would save ESPN/FOX about $115M/year minus whatever they pay the remaining 6 BigXII members.

(04-30-2017 08:35 PM)Chappy Wrote:  They're not going to get even more money to expand now, especially if wall street is forecasting falling profits at ESPN.

I see this flawed hypothesis bandied about here too often: "ESPN's profit growth is negative, therefore it will be paying less for broadcasting rights for college sports".

*BZZZZZZZT*

If ESPN wants to grow profits, then it focuses more on college sports and cuts other crap (NASCAR, Golf, MMA, whatever).

(05-01-2017 11:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN wants Pac-12 football and basketball primarily for west coast afternoon and prime time

Right, but of course the problem with that is west coast people don't support their college teams with P level TV viewership.

(05-01-2017 11:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN doesn't "need" Pac-12 FB or BB games to be played in the central time zone because ESPN is already well-stocked with inventory for those time slots

Correct, there are plenty of P conf teams in the Central Timezone that get P level TV viewership, already.

(05-01-2017 03:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  UT is in the BigXII because ESPN thought it would be cheaper to pay $15M/yr for the LHN and $30M/yr for the BigXII

...

Placing 4 BigXII members in the PAC at 35M/yr would save ESPN/FOX about $115M/year minus whatever they pay the remaining 6 BigXII members.

So by your own figures, Texas is voluntarily taking a $10M/yr paycut to go from a P conf that aligns with is mid-continent geography, to another P conf whose members are mostly hundreds if not thousands of miles away?

That is why Texas is, and wants to remain, in the Big 12.

Not some conspiracy theory about TV networks pulling the strings.

Hous & Haw to pac-12, Unervsity of Vancouver & New Mex makes 16

MWC backfills with NMST & Finally gets into Tex, [UTEP,RICE,SMU,UTSA]
pick 1 [Tulsa, Ark St, LT,Lous-laf] for 16

B-10 will wait out NC & Va
ACC not doing nothing with ND

(05-01-2017 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 08:35 PM)Chappy Wrote:  They're not going to get even more money to expand now, especially if wall street is forecasting falling profits at ESPN.

I see this flawed hypothesis bandied about here too often: "ESPN's profit growth is negative, therefore it will be paying less for broadcasting rights for college sports".

*BZZZZZZZT*

If ESPN wants to grow profits, then it focuses more on college sports and cuts other crap (NASCAR, Golf, MMA, whatever).

I think that is spot on.
ESPN's future depends on locking up the most valuable content.

Right now we don't know what the market will bear for subscription content. The NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB all have packages for subscription but those packages do not include games on ESPN, Fox, TBS, TNT, NBSCN and they do not include the local team(s).

ESPN isn't offering a standalone subscription yet.

The more high value content they can lock up the more they can demand for annual, monthly, and day subscriptions and they can chop those up into league and sport-specific packages as well.

(05-01-2017 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 08:35 PM)Chappy Wrote:  They're not going to get even more money to expand now, especially if wall street is forecasting falling profits at ESPN.

I see this flawed hypothesis bandied about here too often: "ESPN's profit growth is negative, therefore it will be paying less for broadcasting rights for college sports".

*BZZZZZZZT*

If ESPN wants to grow profits, then it focuses more on college sports and cuts other crap (NASCAR, Golf, MMA, whatever).

Never said they would pay less. I just said they aren't going to pay MORE for something they already own.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...esperately

Oklahoma desire for greener pastures not going away.