(01-13-2020 02:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  With the data shown here it's an open question whether there may even be a major realignment in the immediate years ahead. Sure, if a program like OU or ND comes theoretically knocking there are at least three conferences who would take either of them. With that said, the respective programs know themselves what value they would have in an open market. So why not use that relative privileged position as leverage?

So then we get to the question of whether a program like UT or OU can gain more by leveraging a stay vs leveraging for a favored move from their standpoint. On the one hand, money won't be the principle reason as both can raise loads of funds on their own. One the other, the giant risk of staying is the possibility of both losing national exposure the longer they stay behind the SEC and Big Ten in terms of gaining the spotlight. Both want to be up front and on national television and there are programs like Ohio State, Michigan, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Alabama and USC who also seek to be nationally relevant. A program like Notre Dame is fine with the ACC arrangement because they knew that programs all over the country pine to get a playing date with them and still leave enough room to travel for recruiting purposes. Btw, the likes of ND, UCLA, USC (I'm surprised you didn't mention them) and Washington are out of any serious discussion because of either geography or contractual obligations. It would take extreme circumstances to the point where we would be talking a radical remake of college football, instead of just a standard realignment. (An example would be if both OU and UT wind up in the SEC, which I think the Big Ten would, afterwards, move to open talks with the PAC Cal 4 because they would be put in a position where they would be playing catch-up, but that's for another time).

(01-13-2020 06:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  You can throw your metrics out of the window JR.
ESPN has just overpaid the SEC to own the conference lock, stock and barrel. Why?
ESPN doubled down on the properties that they felt were most valuable. Realistically ESPN is bumping one of their own games off of the air to accommodate the extra SEC game.
Let's look at ESPN's collegiate assets as they exist before the renewal of the Big 12 and B1G contracts.
They own the ACC and SEC, they own 2 or 3 Notre Dame games per year and they own 1 Texas game per year, but control the rest of the entire Texas schedule for the next 11 years. Plus they have a new contract with the AAC.
How much more inventory do they need?
They did make an offer to the PAC, which we know was rejected. What we don't know is if the offer was a serious one or just an attempt to steal the conference or throw their competitors off of their track before the SEC/CBS bid.

September 9, 2017 is the date that changed realignment, and has shifted future schedules.

The losers: the B1G, the PAC and all of the Big 12 not named Texas.
The B1G because there attempt at a short contract money grab may have backfired. ESPN has less need to pay a premium for B1G acces values. The PAC because they rejected the only platform that could make some of their games relevant and give them necessary national exposure. The Big 12 because ESPN has control over the only true value of that conference.

Realignment is about managing inventory.

(01-13-2020 06:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  You can throw your metrics out of the window JR.
ESPN has just overpaid the SEC to own the conference lock, stock and barrel. Why?
ESPN doubled down on the properties that they felt were most valuable. Realistically ESPN is bumping one of their own games off of the air to accommodate the extra SEC game.
Let's look at ESPN's collegiate assets as they exist before the renewal of the Big 12 and B1G contracts.
They own the ACC and SEC, they own 2 or 3 Notre Dame games per year and they own 1 Texas game per year, but control the rest of the entire Texas schedule for the next 11 years. Plus they have a new contract with the AAC.
How much more inventory do they need?
They did make an offer to the PAC, which we know was rejected. What we don't know is if the offer was a serious one or just an attempt to steal the conference or throw their competitors off of their track before the SEC/CBS bid.

September 9, 2017 is the date that changed realignment, and has shifted future schedules.

The losers: the B1G, the PAC and all of the Big 12 not named Texas.
The B1G because there attempt at a short contract money grab may have backfired. ESPN has less need to pay a premium for B1G acces values. The PAC because they rejected the only platform that could make some of their games relevant and give them necessary national exposure. The Big 12 because ESPN has control over the only true value of that conference.

Realignment is about managing inventory.

(01-13-2020 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  You can throw your metrics out of the window JR.
ESPN has just overpaid the SEC to own the conference lock, stock and barrel. Why?
ESPN doubled down on the properties that they felt were most valuable. Realistically ESPN is bumping one of their own games off of the air to accommodate the extra SEC game.
Let's look at ESPN's collegiate assets as they exist before the renewal of the Big 12 and B1G contracts.
They own the ACC and SEC, they own 2 or 3 Notre Dame games per year and they own 1 Texas game per year, but control the rest of the entire Texas schedule for the next 11 years. Plus they have a new contract with the AAC.
How much more inventory do they need?
They did make an offer to the PAC, which we know was rejected. What we don't know is if the offer was a serious one or just an attempt to steal the conference or throw their competitors off of their track before the SEC/CBS bid.

September 9, 2017 is the date that changed realignment, and has shifted future schedules.

The losers: the B1G, the PAC and all of the Big 12 not named Texas.
The B1G because there attempt at a short contract money grab may have backfired. ESPN has less need to pay a premium for B1G acces values. The PAC because they rejected the only platform that could make some of their games relevant and give them necessary national exposure. The Big 12 because ESPN has control over the only true value of that conference.

Realignment is about managing inventory.

Yes it is. ESPN is solidifying it's hold on everything South of Kentucky and Virginia and Missouri all the way into Texas which is essentially a monopoly over the two conferences with the highest % of actual viewers to possible viewers and the total hold over the largest market along the Eastern Seaboard.

The PAC has the lowest number of actual viewers to possible viewers of any conference so even thought that is still a growth area, it isn't a particularly valuable one to ESPN.

They do hold 49% of the Big 10 but they recognize old animosities on the part of the Big 10 and probably suspect that FOX will go hard for the rest of that inventory next time out.

So yes it is a form of network war fought by proxies most likely to secure what can be secured in Texas, and possibly Oklahoma and Kansas.

But why I underlined and placed in bold your last line is because product management also involves product placement. That's coming next.

(01-13-2020 01:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the big question right now is will the SEC entertain making an offer to admit the Texlahoma 4 as a group. It’s the easiest way to secure two of the biggest prizes out there from the combined inventory of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC 12.

If they don’t take the two little brothers they may have to settle for one gem and one little brother. Texas and Texas Tech would not be a bad SEC addition and it satisfies the two expansion goals of adding premium content and locking down the South for ESPN/SEC. instead of a 40% share of Texas they will pretty much control the content for the entire state.

(01-13-2020 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 01:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the big question right now is will the SEC entertain making an offer to admit the Texlahoma 4 as a group. It’s the easiest way to secure two of the biggest prizes out there from the combined inventory of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC 12.

If they don’t take the two little brothers they may have to settle for one gem and one little brother. Texas and Texas Tech would not be a bad SEC addition and it satisfies the two expansion goals of adding premium content and locking down the South for ESPN/SEC. instead of a 40% share of Texas they will pretty much control the content for the entire state.

That is the question but not for the SEC, but for ESPN. I definitely think ESPN wants all of Texas. The question then becomes does ESPN see Oklahoma's presence in DFW as essential as well, and do they want their national brand? If so the price might well be OSU too. If not they let OU and Kansas head to the Big 10. Of course FOX will be bidding too.

(01-13-2020 07:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to control the CFB market in Texas, all they'd have to do is acquire all Big 12 TV rights in the next contract.

(01-13-2020 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 07:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to control the CFB market in Texas, all they'd have to do is acquire all Big 12 TV rights in the next contract.

True, but Texas and Texas Tech gives it to them for the price of 2 not 10.

(01-13-2020 03:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 01:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the big question right now is will the SEC entertain making an offer to admit the Texlahoma 4 as a group. It’s the easiest way to secure two of the biggest prizes out there from the combined inventory of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC 12.

If they don’t take the two little brothers they may have to settle for one gem and one little brother. Texas and Texas Tech would not be a bad SEC addition and it satisfies the two expansion goals of adding premium content and locking down the South for ESPN/SEC. instead of a 40% share of Texas they will pretty much control the content for the entire state.

That is the question but not for the SEC, but for ESPN. I definitely think ESPN wants all of Texas. The question then becomes does ESPN see Oklahoma's presence in DFW as essential as well, and do they want their national brand? If so the price might well be OSU too. If not they let OU and Kansas head to the Big 10. Of course FOX will be bidding too.

If this is true (that ESPN wants all of Texas for several reasons), then we can assume:
that conferences will not pass the 16 member limit
it is very, very hard to integrate more than two schools at a time
Texas has four schools in the Big 12 which will need to be assigned to the SEC or the ACC
The SEC and the ACC will have two openings each if both go to 16
West Virginia is the odd man out and likely headed to the AAC to replace UConn
Notre Dame will not join the ACC as a full time member
ESPN does not see long term value in Oklahoma beyond the RRR

The questions are then how do you break up the Texas inventory to benefit both the SEC and the ACC? 2 and 2, private/public...two private, two public. Which conference benefits most from being in the Dallas market?

(01-13-2020 10:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 07:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to control the CFB market in Texas, all they'd have to do is acquire all Big 12 TV rights in the next contract.

True, but Texas and Texas Tech gives it to them for the price of 2 not 10.

It's a higher price per team in the SEC, and the SEC would demand an even larger amount per team if they landed UT and OU.

I think that OU and UT ultimately won't pursue the SEC for the same reason that Bobby Bowden didn't want to go there, but I suppose we will all find out in a few years.

(01-13-2020 02:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  .

Certainly Notre Dame can hold out, unless there is some movement and we wind up with a P4. In a P4 world the champs will wind up playing for it all and therein lies the push for Notre Dame.

The key to taking Texas is for a conference to first lure away Oklahoma. They are aware of their need to be tied to Texas for recruiting purposes and while they would prefer the Longhorns be that tie, there are other ways to remain tied to Texas the state for recruiting.

The third most valuable program in the Big 12 in terms of gross revenue is Kansas and Kansas realizes their precarious position in all of this. A conference which offers Kansas can undo the Big 12 especially if Oklahoma follows.

Texas does have leverage and I imagine if they feel compelled to protect anyone it will be Texas Tech. I think the conference willing to take Texas Tech can land Texas.

If Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech leave then schools like Notre Dame have some serious thinking to do.

Quote:When you take into consideration that most conferences, with the current exceptions of the SEC and Big 12 (who award bonuses to participating teams), divide all bowl money equally, Notre Dame has done better as an independent. That wouldn’t be the case if Notre Dame hadn’t appeared in the Fiesta Bowl in the 2015 season ($4M payout on top of its base amount) or in the semifinals in the 2018 season ($6M payout on top of its base amount).

With its success, however, Notre Dame has taken home $28M. Dividing bowl money equally, ACC schools would have received approximately $24.1M each over those five years from CFP payouts. For the Pac-12 and Big Ten it was approximately $24M each. Participating teams from the SEC and Big 12 would have made out better given the extra monies their conferences award them for appearing in the games (see the 2019 policies here).

A quick look at the past five years under the CFP make it obvious why Notre Dame feels no pressure to join a conference. If Notre Dame can gain a bid to an access bowl or semifinal every 3-5 years, taken together with its Orange Bowl deal and regular season television deal with NBC, there’s no financial reason to join a conference yet.

(01-13-2020 11:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Going past 16 isn’t impossible—it’s just a radical departure from the traditional paradigm. An 18+ member conference is really more like a confederation of programs. You’re not going to play everyone every year or maybe even every other year but all of the programs have a shared financial interest. Obviously you’re still going to have protected annual rivalries, just not as many.