(06-14-2022 11:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 11:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 10:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 10:29 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 09:26 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  The Rams coming back to LA hurts USC football so much. LA a pro sports town and the NFL is 10 time more popular than college. The LA Coliseum is not a great fan experience compared to the Rose Bowl. It's downwright spartan compared to SoFi Stadium. Lincoln Riley will have to win BIG to recapture the market share USC used to have in LA. The celebirties that used to grace the sidelines are hanging out at SoFi now. It's hard to fly coach once you're used to first class.

On paper USC should dominate the Pac 12 and west coast football. For whatever reason, they've really struggled to put together complete seasons regardless who is coaching. LA is basically Las Vegas and NIL is turning some of these top recuits into rock stars. I'm not sure even Lincoln Riley will be able to solve the issues that have been plaguing the school. It makes the job Pete Carroll did even more impressive in retrospect.

No doubt it does hurt USC, but the Rams owner is definitely in the hole when it comes to $$'s. The amount of money he put out on that was obscene!!! Is there a way that USC can get the city of Los Angeles to upgrade the LA Coliseum?? I know that it is ancient, but it definitely has some charm to it, IMO. Regardless, sounds like it could use some upgrades. Maybe do like what Stanford did with their stadium, and bury some of it.

I think Stan Kroenke is going to be more than fine even after building that Rams stadium. The guy is worth nearly $11 billion and his wife is worth almost as much as part of the Walton (Walmart founder) family.

Not only did Kroenke fork out a little over $3 billion (estimated) for the stadium, but the city of St. Louis sued him in federal court as well, and Kroenke was forced to pay. It will be awhile before he recoups that money, IMO. As for his wife, yes, she is a Walton, but a lot of Walmart's policies have me wondering just how solvent they really are. (Let's just say that I might have inside info on Walmart).

IIRC, the NFL paid the settlement for the St. Louis lawsuit, and SoFi Stadium was financed, not paid for in cash. And the company that owns his sports franchises has a ginormous amount of equity because his NFL, NBA, NHL, and Premier League teams are each worth far more than he paid for them. He may not be a great guy, but he isn't hurting for money.

Okay , I no longer feel sorry for him!!! I was just thinking that if I had the same amount of $$'s Kroenke has, I would at least want to save some of it to pass on to my child when I pass on. Starting to think more like a parent, lol!!!

(06-15-2022 12:40 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 11:44 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 10:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 07:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here's the thing---whats going to pay the participating schools more---the present Pac12 with some Big-12 schools----or adding the top members of the Pac-12 to the Big-10. If its the latter---then the Pac12 left-overs wont be in a position to raid the Big12. It would more likely be the Big12 mulling the addition of couple of the more eastern members of the Pac12---like Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St, or Utah.

It's quite possible that IF there's going to be a partial merger between the Big Ten and Pac-12 that Nebraska might insist on bringing Colorado along. Colorado and Arizona would be a good bridge to the Pacific. In any case, there would still be value among the remnants there that the Big 12 could rebuild around.

(06-13-2022 10:29 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 09:26 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  The Rams coming back to LA hurts USC football so much. LA a pro sports town and the NFL is 10 time more popular than college. The LA Coliseum is not a great fan experience compared to the Rose Bowl. It's downwright spartan compared to SoFi Stadium. Lincoln Riley will have to win BIG to recapture the market share USC used to have in LA. The celebirties that used to grace the sidelines are hanging out at SoFi now. It's hard to fly coach once you're used to first class.

On paper USC should dominate the Pac 12 and west coast football. For whatever reason, they've really struggled to put together complete seasons regardless who is coaching. LA is basically Las Vegas and NIL is turning some of these top recuits into rock stars. I'm not sure even Lincoln Riley will be able to solve the issues that have been plaguing the school. It makes the job Pete Carroll did even more impressive in retrospect.

No doubt it does hurt USC, but the Rams owner is definitely in the hole when it comes to $$'s. The amount of money he put out on that was obscene!!! Is there a way that USC can get the city of Los Angeles to upgrade the LA Coliseum?? I know that it is ancient, but it definitely has some charm to it, IMO. Regardless, sounds like it could use some upgrades. Maybe do like what Stanford did with their stadium, and bury some of it.

USC has spent considerable money to renovate it. Also, remember that it's going to be used in the 2028 Summer Olympics.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technol...enovation/

That was an awesome article, Transic!!!! After reading it, I can safely say that the LA Coliseum is not the problem. Maybe the issue for USC is a need for more donors to step up and find a coach who coach USC like Pete Carroll did???

Also for Transic or stpnum4, what are the chances that the city of Los Angeles would ever build light rail or a subway that could service areas like USC and the LA Coliseum, so that fans and celebrities would want to go there just like they go to Rams games, or at least remove the excuse that USC and the LA Coliseum are on the bad side of town from the list.

The EXPO Line, a light rail line, will take you to the Coliseum. The Subway line is going to extend to Westwood (UCLA) by 2027 in time for the Olympics.

The problem at USC has been leadership and they have finally solved it. They brought in a new Chairmen of the Board, who hired a new President, who hired a new Athletic Director, who in turn hired Lincoln Riley. In 2013, USC took over the management of the LA Coliseum, with a lease that runs through 2111. The inept LA Coliseum Commission had run the Coliseum for years and managed to lost two NFL teams and UCLA. USC spent $315 million on the LA Coliseum renovation, tore down the Sports Arena and replaced it with the Galen Center for basketball, right across the street from the campus. The Sports Arena property was replaced with the Banc of California Stadium, a 22,000 seat state-of-the-art soccer stadium for LAFC. They sub-lease the site from the university. Really smart moves.

For years, USC hired ex-players with no previous athletic administration experience to run the department. That changed with the hiring of Mike Bohn as the USC AD. USC is loaded with money and they just needed a real AD to clean up the department. USC football is currently ranked 4th in the nation in the ESPN way-too-early polls. They are going to be tough to beat in the future. Fans and celebrities will be there.

Very good to hear!!! While I am not a fan of USC, I have always regarded them as an SEC team in the PAC-12. Good to hear that UCLA will have subway access in future, so the future of college football bodes well for LA. IMO, both UCLA and USC should have no problems outdrawing the Chargers. The other team that they have to contend with besides the Rams is Raiders, again IMHO.

USC will be fine. When they are winning in college Football, people will pay attention. Pete Carroll made that happen plus the media push the living crap out of them too.

(06-15-2022 12:38 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 04:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 02:39 PM)bluesox Wrote:  2 from ND, Kansas and USC could work for the big 10 to get to 16

I do not think the B1G would ever try to attract PAC schools. Not only are there the longstanding institutional ties between the conferences, but this would be a radical leap in geography for the B1G.

IIRC, the B1G has never added schools that were not contiguous to states that already had B1G schools. Maryland and Rutgers may have seemed like a big leap to some, but Pennsylvania borders both of those states.

Adding an Oregon or USC would be a massive leap I don't see happening.

Especially not when the present B1G is already valuable in spades. It's not like they are being told by TV that they need to beef up their brand appeal.

I agree.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 are true partners.

If the GOR wasn’t an issue, I think the Big Ten would be openly going after ACC schools. I don’t think that’s the case about Pac-12 schools, though.

Do you think NIL will make Illinois a power school? Do you care? I suspect your a big 10 fan more than an Illinois fan and I just don’t get it. It’s ok to be at the bottom of the big 10 as long as your conference is #1

I don’t know how much NIL will help Illinois in football. However, it has definitely helped us out so far in basketball - we got another year of Kofi Cockburn last season because of the money, we have a top 10 recruiting class, and our incoming transfer ranking is #2. We’ve reloaded to be a Final Four contender again even with Cockburn leaving for the NBA Draft. The NIL money is there for us on the hoops side.

As to your other point, I’m actually a complete meatball Illinois fan that wants our program to steamroll everyone in the Big Ten and elsewhere in the country. Make no mistake that the views that I express here about conference realignment or the college sports business have no impact on how I actually watch games. It’s just that, for better or worse, I’m a person that compartmentalizes a lot. That’s likely why I became a lawyer - whatever personal emotions that I might feel about a subject have no bearing on how I analyze that subject (and if I can’t do that, then I’m not doing my job well). It’s not that I’m unbiased (as that’s impossible for anyone), but I do my best to be aware of that bias at all times.

On the subject of conference realignment and the college sports business, the wants and needs of Illinois specifically aren’t very relevant, but the wants and needs of the Big Ten are *very* relevant. Hence, that’s the perspective that’s appropriate for this particular forum or when I was blogging about realignment. That’s not how I approach an Illini forum or when I’m Tweeting about the Illinois game I’m watching, where I’m an unabashed insufferable homer. Frankly, it’s probably why I watch sports so much - watching Illinois and the Chicago sports teams is my *release* from the compartmentalization I have during the rest of my day and I can just be an emotional irrational fan.

Remember when this was going to be worked out by memorial day?

(06-15-2022 07:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 12:38 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 04:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 02:39 PM)bluesox Wrote:  2 from ND, Kansas and USC could work for the big 10 to get to 16

I do not think the B1G would ever try to attract PAC schools. Not only are there the longstanding institutional ties between the conferences, but this would be a radical leap in geography for the B1G.

IIRC, the B1G has never added schools that were not contiguous to states that already had B1G schools. Maryland and Rutgers may have seemed like a big leap to some, but Pennsylvania borders both of those states.

Adding an Oregon or USC would be a massive leap I don't see happening.

Especially not when the present B1G is already valuable in spades. It's not like they are being told by TV that they need to beef up their brand appeal.

I agree.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 are true partners.

If the GOR wasn’t an issue, I think the Big Ten would be openly going after ACC schools. I don’t think that’s the case about Pac-12 schools, though.

Do you think NIL will make Illinois a power school? Do you care? I suspect your a big 10 fan more than an Illinois fan and I just don’t get it. It’s ok to be at the bottom of the big 10 as long as your conference is #1

I don’t know how much NIL will help Illinois in football. However, it has definitely helped us out so far in basketball - we got another year of Kofi Cockburn last season because of the money, we have a top 10 recruiting class, and our incoming transfer ranking is #2. We’ve reloaded to be a Final Four contender again even with Cockburn leaving for the NBA Draft. The NIL money is there for us on the hoops side.

As to your other point, I’m actually a complete meatball Illinois fan that wants our program to steamroll everyone in the Big Ten and elsewhere in the country. Make no mistake that the views that I express here about conference realignment or the college sports business have no impact on how I actually watch games. It’s just that, for better or worse, I’m a person that compartmentalizes a lot. That’s likely why I became a lawyer - whatever personal emotions that I might feel about a subject have no bearing on how I analyze that subject (and if I can’t do that, then I’m not doing my job well). It’s not that I’m unbiased (as that’s impossible for anyone), but I do my best to be aware of that bias at all times.

On the subject of conference realignment and the college sports business, the wants and needs of Illinois specifically aren’t very relevant, but the wants and needs of the Big Ten are *very* relevant. Hence, that’s the perspective that’s appropriate for this particular forum or when I was blogging about realignment. That’s not how I approach an Illini forum or when I’m Tweeting about the Illinois game I’m watching, where I’m an unabashed insufferable homer. Frankly, it’s probably why I watch sports so much - watching Illinois and the Chicago sports teams is my *release* from the compartmentalization I have during the rest of my day and I can just be an emotional irrational fan.

Good post. BTW Do you think Cockburn got paid last year? If so did Iowa pay guys like the Murray brothers or Luke Garza from the year before. I would think Garza would be a poster boy for that. His likeness and name and image were huge while at Iowa. Cockburn not as much I wouldn’t think.

(06-17-2022 10:56 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 07:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 12:38 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 04:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2022 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do not think the B1G would ever try to attract PAC schools. Not only are there the longstanding institutional ties between the conferences, but this would be a radical leap in geography for the B1G.

IIRC, the B1G has never added schools that were not contiguous to states that already had B1G schools. Maryland and Rutgers may have seemed like a big leap to some, but Pennsylvania borders both of those states.

Adding an Oregon or USC would be a massive leap I don't see happening.

Especially not when the present B1G is already valuable in spades. It's not like they are being told by TV that they need to beef up their brand appeal.

I agree.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 are true partners.

If the GOR wasn’t an issue, I think the Big Ten would be openly going after ACC schools. I don’t think that’s the case about Pac-12 schools, though.

Do you think NIL will make Illinois a power school? Do you care? I suspect your a big 10 fan more than an Illinois fan and I just don’t get it. It’s ok to be at the bottom of the big 10 as long as your conference is #1

I don’t know how much NIL will help Illinois in football. However, it has definitely helped us out so far in basketball - we got another year of Kofi Cockburn last season because of the money, we have a top 10 recruiting class, and our incoming transfer ranking is #2. We’ve reloaded to be a Final Four contender again even with Cockburn leaving for the NBA Draft. The NIL money is there for us on the hoops side.

As to your other point, I’m actually a complete meatball Illinois fan that wants our program to steamroll everyone in the Big Ten and elsewhere in the country. Make no mistake that the views that I express here about conference realignment or the college sports business have no impact on how I actually watch games. It’s just that, for better or worse, I’m a person that compartmentalizes a lot. That’s likely why I became a lawyer - whatever personal emotions that I might feel about a subject have no bearing on how I analyze that subject (and if I can’t do that, then I’m not doing my job well). It’s not that I’m unbiased (as that’s impossible for anyone), but I do my best to be aware of that bias at all times.

On the subject of conference realignment and the college sports business, the wants and needs of Illinois specifically aren’t very relevant, but the wants and needs of the Big Ten are *very* relevant. Hence, that’s the perspective that’s appropriate for this particular forum or when I was blogging about realignment. That’s not how I approach an Illini forum or when I’m Tweeting about the Illinois game I’m watching, where I’m an unabashed insufferable homer. Frankly, it’s probably why I watch sports so much - watching Illinois and the Chicago sports teams is my *release* from the compartmentalization I have during the rest of my day and I can just be an emotional irrational fan.

Good post. BTW Do you think Cockburn got paid last year? If so did Iowa pay guys like the Murray brothers or Luke Garza from the year before. I would think Garza would be a poster boy for that. His likeness and name and image were huge while at Iowa. Cockburn not as much I wouldn’t think.

Yes, Kofi definitely made a fair amount of NIL money. It was clearly in the six figures and multiples more than if he had gone to the G-League (which was where he would have ended up if he hadn't returned to school). Illinois is no USC or Miami in terms of boosters hanging out on campus, but remember that our school is strongly tied to Chicago and the businesses there. That's where the NIL money is coming from.

(06-14-2022 11:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 10:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 10:29 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 09:26 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 03:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I could not agree more, especially with the statement that, "I personally can't stand the school." USC is a football powerhouse and they will force the rest of the Pac-12 to raise their games now that Lincoln Riley has arrived.

The Rams coming back to LA hurts USC football so much. LA a pro sports town and the NFL is 10 time more popular than college. The LA Coliseum is not a great fan experience compared to the Rose Bowl. It's downwright spartan compared to SoFi Stadium. Lincoln Riley will have to win BIG to recapture the market share USC used to have in LA. The celebirties that used to grace the sidelines are hanging out at SoFi now. It's hard to fly coach once you're used to first class.

On paper USC should dominate the Pac 12 and west coast football. For whatever reason, they've really struggled to put together complete seasons regardless who is coaching. LA is basically Las Vegas and NIL is turning some of these top recuits into rock stars. I'm not sure even Lincoln Riley will be able to solve the issues that have been plaguing the school. It makes the job Pete Carroll did even more impressive in retrospect.

No doubt it does hurt USC, but the Rams owner is definitely in the hole when it comes to $$'s. The amount of money he put out on that was obscene!!! Is there a way that USC can get the city of Los Angeles to upgrade the LA Coliseum?? I know that it is ancient, but it definitely has some charm to it, IMO. Regardless, sounds like it could use some upgrades. Maybe do like what Stanford did with their stadium, and bury some of it.

I think Stan Kroenke is going to be more than fine even after building that Rams stadium. The guy is worth nearly $11 billion and his wife is worth almost as much as part of the Walton (Walmart founder) family.

Not only did Kroenke fork out a little over $3 billion (estimated) for the stadium, but the city of St. Louis sued him in federal court as well, and Kroenke was forced to pay. It will be awhile before he recoups that money, IMO. As for his wife, yes, she is a Walton, but a lot of Walmart's policies have me wondering just how solvent they really are. (Let's just say that I might have inside info on Walmart).

Kroenke had to pay some of it, but the NFL's other teams will be paying some.

In The Athletic, Richard Deitsch interviewed Jimmy Pitaro, Chairman of ESPN about a variety of matters, including the NBA, NFL, Formula One and college sports. Relevant excerpts on college football are below. No new news but he echoes the Scott Dochtermann article from last week which indicates that ESPN is definitely in the running for the Big Ten's rights but that they are prioritizing the SEC.

https://theathletic.com/3371588/2022/06/...1-big-ten/

"On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward

Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.

On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12

Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.

The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were honest on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

(06-20-2022 09:41 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  In The Athletic, Richard Deitsch interviewed Jimmy Pitaro, Chairman of ESPN about a variety of matters, including the NBA, NFL, Formula One and college sports. Relevant excerpts on college football are below. No new news but he echoes the Scott Dochtermann article from last week which indicates that ESPN is definitely in the running for the Big Ten's rights but that they are prioritizing the SEC.

https://theathletic.com/3371588/2022/06/...1-big-ten/

"On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward

Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.

On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12

Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.

The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were honest on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

Highly recommend reading/listening to this interview not just for the college sports portion, but everything ranging from the NBA, NFL, F1 and how to balance the linear TV business with streaming. Whatever one personally thinks of ESPN, it's really insightful for any overall sports fan.

With everything that Pitaro is dealing with (particularly the linear TV vs. streaming piece along with ESPN's wider role with Disney overall), it's also an indication to me that ESPN doesn't care or have time about "controlling college football" at least in the sense that is often discussed in these forums. College football rights are simply one cog in a wide-ranging moneymaking machine for ESPN. It's certainly an important cog, but only in the sense that it contributes to profits and not any more specifically important to the company compared to the NFL or NBA.

“ is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

TV windows are going to be a huge component of any new deal, along with the money (most important). ESPN head man verifying that they are still very much in on both the Big Ten and Pac 12. From a windows perspective, looks like the SEC is taking over any Big 12 slots.

(06-20-2022 10:50 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  “ is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

TV windows are going to be a huge component of any new deal, along with the money (most important). ESPN head man verifying that they are still very much in on both the Big Ten and Pac 12. From a windows perspective, looks like the SEC is taking over any Big 12 slots.

One thing is that ABC and ESPN are both looked at as top line exposure platforms, so they really have 7 windows to offer per week (12 pm ET/3:30 pm ET/prime time on both ABC and ESPN plus late night on ESPN) as opposed to OTA networks that have a maximum of 3 windows per week. So, it's one thing to say that ABC OTA alone is going to have a tough time offering windows once they integrate the SEC Game of the Week package, but remember that ESPN itself still has a very high exposure quotient compared to any other cable network that the other media companies don't have.

(06-20-2022 09:41 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  In The Athletic, Richard Deitsch interviewed Jimmy Pitaro, Chairman of ESPN about a variety of matters, including the NBA, NFL, Formula One and college sports. Relevant excerpts on college football are below. No new news but he echoes the Scott Dochtermann article from last week which indicates that ESPN is definitely in the running for the Big Ten's rights but that they are prioritizing the SEC.

https://theathletic.com/3371588/2022/06/...1-big-ten/

"On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward

Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.

On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12

Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.

The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were honest on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

To me this sounds like the ESPN is definitely interested but doesn’t want to overpay or match whatever the highest bidder (CBS?) is offering. At some point, the BIG has to choose between top exposure and good money vs. top dollar and good exposure.

(06-20-2022 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 10:50 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  “ is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

TV windows are going to be a huge component of any new deal, along with the money (most important). ESPN head man verifying that they are still very much in on both the Big Ten and Pac 12. From a windows perspective, looks like the SEC is taking over any Big 12 slots.

One thing is that ABC and ESPN are both looked at as top line exposure platforms, so they really have 7 windows to offer per week (12 pm ET/3:30 pm ET/prime time on both ABC and ESPN plus late night on ESPN) as opposed to OTA networks that have a maximum of 3 windows per week. So, it's one thing to say that ABC OTA alone is going to have a tough time offering windows once they integrate the SEC Game of the Week package, but remember that ESPN itself still has a very high exposure quotient compared to any other cable network that the other media companies don't have.

ESPN2 is no slouch either with nearly the same reach as ESPN. So thats at least 3 to 4 more strong exposure windows. There are substantial drop offs in subscriber numbers when you get to ESPNU and ESPN-News. Even still---its starting to get crowded when you consider that both the ACC and AAC have exclusive ESPN deals that specify a certain number of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 exposure windows that must be provided to each of those leagues. While not exclusive deals---ESPN also has Big12 and Pac-12 deals that eat into those ABC/ESPN/ESPN-2 windows as well (not to mention whatever window requirements might be included in other ESPN exclusive deals with the MAC, Sunbelt, etc).

I do think ESPN absolutely sees Big-10 games as a "must have" property---but I suspect their eyes have always been on a package of games thats similar to what they have now.

(06-20-2022 12:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 09:41 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  In The Athletic, Richard Deitsch interviewed Jimmy Pitaro, Chairman of ESPN about a variety of matters, including the NBA, NFL, Formula One and college sports. Relevant excerpts on college football are below. No new news but he echoes the Scott Dochtermann article from last week which indicates that ESPN is definitely in the running for the Big Ten's rights but that they are prioritizing the SEC.

https://theathletic.com/3371588/2022/06/...1-big-ten/

"On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward

Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.

On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12

Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.

The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were honest on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

To me this sounds like the ESPN is definitely interested but doesn’t want to overpay or match whatever the highest bidder (CBS?) is offering. At some point, the BIG has to choose between top exposure and good money vs. top dollar and good exposure.

It doesn't look as if ESPN expects Texas and Oklahoma until 2025.

(06-20-2022 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 10:50 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  “ is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

TV windows are going to be a huge component of any new deal, along with the money (most important). ESPN head man verifying that they are still very much in on both the Big Ten and Pac 12. From a windows perspective, looks like the SEC is taking over any Big 12 slots.

One thing is that ABC and ESPN are both looked at as top line exposure platforms, so they really have 7 windows to offer per week (12 pm ET/3:30 pm ET/prime time on both ABC and ESPN plus late night on ESPN) as opposed to OTA networks that have a maximum of 3 windows per week. So, it's one thing to say that ABC OTA alone is going to have a tough time offering windows once they integrate the SEC Game of the Week package, but remember that ESPN itself still has a very high exposure quotient compared to any other cable network that the other media companies don't have.

Apparently that's not how the SEC looks at it, because their contract says the 3:30 pm Saturday slot must be on ABC (nor ABC or ESPN).

(06-20-2022 12:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 09:41 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  In The Athletic, Richard Deitsch interviewed Jimmy Pitaro, Chairman of ESPN about a variety of matters, including the NBA, NFL, Formula One and college sports. Relevant excerpts on college football are below. No new news but he echoes the Scott Dochtermann article from last week which indicates that ESPN is definitely in the running for the Big Ten's rights but that they are prioritizing the SEC.

https://theathletic.com/3371588/2022/06/...1-big-ten/

"On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward

Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.

On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12

Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.

The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were honest on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

To me this sounds like the ESPN is definitely interested but doesn’t want to overpay or match whatever the highest bidder (CBS?) is offering. At some point, the BIG has to choose between top exposure and good money vs. top dollar and good exposure.

CBS exposure is every bit as good as ABC. The problem you run into is that all of the playoffs and most of the bowls are on ESPN...

(06-20-2022 04:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 10:50 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  “ is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

TV windows are going to be a huge component of any new deal, along with the money (most important). ESPN head man verifying that they are still very much in on both the Big Ten and Pac 12. From a windows perspective, looks like the SEC is taking over any Big 12 slots.

One thing is that ABC and ESPN are both looked at as top line exposure platforms, so they really have 7 windows to offer per week (12 pm ET/3:30 pm ET/prime time on both ABC and ESPN plus late night on ESPN) as opposed to OTA networks that have a maximum of 3 windows per week. So, it's one thing to say that ABC OTA alone is going to have a tough time offering windows once they integrate the SEC Game of the Week package, but remember that ESPN itself still has a very high exposure quotient compared to any other cable network that the other media companies don't have.

Apparently that's not how the SEC looks at it, because their contract says the 3:30 pm Saturday slot must be on ABC (nor ABC or ESPN).

Yes, that’s for the SEC’s #1 package. What I’m talking about is the Big Ten’s #3 package after FOX and CBS OTA games. If the Big Ten is getting their #3 game on either ABC or ESPN every week, I would call that a win exposure-wise: at least 2 OTA games per week with a possible 3rd (with that 3rd game getting no worse than an ESPN slot).

(06-20-2022 04:33 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 12:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 09:41 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  In The Athletic, Richard Deitsch interviewed Jimmy Pitaro, Chairman of ESPN about a variety of matters, including the NBA, NFL, Formula One and college sports. Relevant excerpts on college football are below. No new news but he echoes the Scott Dochtermann article from last week which indicates that ESPN is definitely in the running for the Big Ten's rights but that they are prioritizing the SEC.

https://theathletic.com/3371588/2022/06/...1-big-ten/

"On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward

Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.

On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12

Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.

The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were honest on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

To me this sounds like the ESPN is definitely interested but doesn’t want to overpay or match whatever the highest bidder (CBS?) is offering. At some point, the BIG has to choose between top exposure and good money vs. top dollar and good exposure.

CBS exposure is every bit as good as ABC. The problem you run into is that all of the playoffs and most of the bowls are on ESPN...

Like I’ve said, I don’t think it’s so much about the OTA games, but rather the next level down: ESPN versus the other cable networks and ESPN+ versus the other streaming services. Plus, add in basketball, where ESPN has a massive unchecked advantage on weeknights.

If it was just about money and OTA exposure, I don’t think that these negotiations would be taking so long. It’s really more about all facets of the entire package from lower tier games to streaming to basketball (not just the top 2 or 3 football games) - THAT is where the ESPN exposure really makes a big difference.

(06-20-2022 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-20-2022 10:50 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  “ is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference."

TV windows are going to be a huge component of any new deal, along with the money (most important). ESPN head man verifying that they are still very much in on both the Big Ten and Pac 12. From a windows perspective, looks like the SEC is taking over any Big 12 slots.

One thing is that ABC and ESPN are both looked at as top line exposure platforms, so they really have 7 windows to offer per week (12 pm ET/3:30 pm ET/prime time on both ABC and ESPN plus late night on ESPN) as opposed to OTA networks that have a maximum of 3 windows per week. So, it's one thing to say that ABC OTA alone is going to have a tough time offering windows once they integrate the SEC Game of the Week package, but remember that ESPN itself still has a very high exposure quotient compared to any other cable network that the other media companies don't have.

Have they ever done all 3 time slots on ABC for football?

And I don't think they use all 4 in ESPN and ESPN2. So really they have 8 slots, 5 top tier (2 ABC, 3 ESPN) and 3 on ESPN2, a step below. As for ESPNU and ESPNNews they aren't much better than streaming.

ESPN refusing to negotiate early with the Big 12 was part of the trigger for UT and OU to leave. Its clear ESPN has locked up the ACC and SEC and wants as much of the Big 10 as they can get. Then they will figure out what they have left in time slots for the Pac 12 and Big 12.

(06-20-2022 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Have they ever done all 3 time slots on ABC for football?

And I don't think they use all 4 in ESPN and ESPN2. So really they have 8 slots, 5 top tier (2 ABC, 3 ESPN) and 3 on ESPN2, a step below. As for ESPNU and ESPNNews they aren't much better than streaming.

ABC frequently has tripleheaders on Saturday, including the first three weeks this year. I also believe there are many weeks where either ESPN or ESPN2 has four windows.

(06-20-2022 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  ESPN refusing to negotiate early with the Big 12 was part of the trigger for UT and OU to leave. Its clear ESPN has locked up the ACC and SEC and wants as much of the Big 10 as they can get. Then they will figure out what they have left in time slots for the Pac 12 and Big 12.

That certainly appears to be the case. As someone else pointed out, Pitaro expressly said they were saving capacity for the Big Ten and Pac 12. There was no mention of the Big XII. It also helps explain why Bowlsby publicly accused ESPN of breaking up the Big XII before cooler heads prevailed.