(01-05-2019 10:39 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (01-05-2019 04:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-05-2019 03:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (01-05-2019 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote: (01-04-2019 02:30 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.
I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.
Most of the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 are "baggage" as well. Half the SEC is "baggage."
You're right if we are talking about the quality of the athletic programs. My thoughts about the Big 12 breaking up are based on the value of the media content. ESPN dreams of a day when they can sell ads in North Carolina without paying four P5 schools in the bargain. Same is probably true in Indiana (3 P5's). I think they can drive a financial wedge between TX/OK and their bretheren. They still want to sell ads in Kansas, West Virginia, etc. but they would rather buy the content at G5 prices.
I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion. Chatting about it is so much simpler than arriving at agreements among muliple parties with different interests and motives. But who can say that these moves aren't already in the works? ...or not.
Correct. Especially now that we are moving toward a content driven pay model and the cable footprint subscription fee model will only be operative for T3 conference networks.
ESPN needs 3 schools to control the ad rates for a region (Texas and Oklahoma) of 32 bumping 33 million. They are currently paying 7 P5 salaries for what they control by owning the rights to A&M, Oklahoma, and Texas. Ideally they would be crazy not to try for that trio. Realistically they might be willing to accomodate 4 instead of 7, and would probably be more resistant to 5.
Not only do they efficiently land the region with those three but all 3 are all content multipliers as well. It's the equivalent of cutting 42% of your overhead and tripling your profit.
And at a time when recruits are becoming less available nationally it elevates the brands of those three schools in their region, and places them even more in the national eye.
It might not be popular, but it would be a synergistic move for all involved and for the network that lands them. Should Oklahoma ever commit to the SEC it may be the only move Texas could make to preserve their scheduling model and to keep from suffering a brand disadvantage.
On a side note which two do you think that ESPN or another conference would prefer from North Carolina? Would it be the two state schools which conferences might prefer, or would it be UNC & Duke as Cunningham once sought to protect?
As for the Carolina Quartet, maybe only UNC survives as an ACC member and the others, especially Duke, will have to earn their keep as Big East basketball teams.
Just for context since I have no idea how you feel about all of your conference brethren:
2018 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 1.108 million viewers
2017 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 2.468 million viewers
2016 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - SECN, not metered
2015 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 0.930 million viewers
2014 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 5.160 million viewers (finally an SEC flavor)
2013 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 1.640 million viewers
2017-18 - Duke vs UNC - 3.37 million viewers
2017-18 - Duke vs UNC - 2.43 million viewers
2016-17 - Duke vs UNC - 4.06 million viewers
2016-17 - Duke vs UNC - 3.08 million viewers
2015-16 - Duke vs UNC - 3.2 million viewers
2015-16 - Duke vs UNC - 2.9 million viewers
2014-15 - Duke vs UNC - 4.24 million viewers
2014-15 - Duke vs UNC - 4.14 million viewers
2013-14 - Duke vs UNC - 3.50 million viewers
2013-14 - Duke vs UNC - 2.29 million viewers (game had to be rescheduled due to weather)
2012-13 - Duke vs UNC - 2.79 million viewers
2012-13 - Duke vs UNC - 2.35 million viewers
2011-12 - Duke vs UNC - 4.25 million viewers
2011-12 - Duke vs UNC - 3.12 million viewers
2010-11 - Duke vs UNC - 4.61 million viewers
2010-11 - Duke vs UNC - 2.37 million viewers
2009-10 - Duke vs UNC - 2.50 million viewers
2009-10 - Duke vs UNC - 2.27 million viewers
2008-09 - Duke vs UNC - 4.63 million viewers
2008-09 - Duke vs UNC - 2.27 million viewers
Darn, still no 5.160 million viewers like the best Ole Miss/Bulldogs game listed above. OH WAIT!!!
2007-08 - Duke vs UNC - 5.61 million viewers
2007-08 - Duke vs UNC - 2.63 million viewers
Well, I suppose I should be fair. It's not as though I have that much data on the Egg Bowl rivalry. I am sure some of their fans will though.
Eleven seasons, 22 regular season games, an average of 3.345 million viewers per game. And those are just the regular season numbers, not including any ACC tourney game match-ups.
Also I realize that Duke-UNC is the zenith of college basketball and that sport basically only accounts for 20% of the TV contract. But still that zenith is probably worth to TV and advertisers more than 45% of the SEC's total 192 conference games from 2013-2017. Still data mining 2018.
Anyhow, my main point is that any commissioner that thinks it is in their conference's best interest to get one of them and not both is not thinking clearly, imho.
Cheers,
Neil