(12-17-2015 12:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The P5 is the P5. The only question is whether it becomes the P4 or P3. Time, monetary disparity, and the pressure to compete will decide that issue.

Maybe Texas fancies itself as Snow White (surrounded by dwarfs), but OU does not. Therein lies the fuse that could blow the Big 12 apart.

Florida State and Clemson will not be content to sit idly by and let the gap grow in revenue with their in state rivals. Couple that with the shenanigans at UNC academically and you have a volatile mixture within the ACC. If Notre Dame or another big draw school like Texas refuse to join the ACC in full and therefore the national audience is not in the bag for an ACCN then therein lies the fuse that can ignite that simmering mixture within the ACC.

The Big 10, SEC, and PAC might have some minor issues but nothing that can blow them apart. In that regard all 3 are extremely stable. More importantly all 3 need only do nothing as the present momentum each has will only build pressure within the other two. Time is truly on their side.

Question,

Assuming the networks are flexible on some of the finer points, who exactly do these conferences want?

I see the SEC wanting Oklahoma, Texas, Florida State, Clemson, and a NC and VA school.

I see the B1G wanting Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, a NC and a VA school, and perhaps Georgia Tech

I see the PAC 12 wanting Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe a couple more from the Big 12 to balance out the numbers.

Obviously, not everyone can get what they want. Where Texas goes decides a lot for everyone else which I don't really like that there is only one such linchpin in all this.

Crazy theory #471:

Is it possible that ESPN wants to save both the Big 12 and the ACC? That providing networks to both will increase the amount of content that ESPN has under its control?

ESPN has several mostly underused properties like ESPNews, ESPN Classic, the infamous LHN, and an ESPNU channel that won't have much of anything if both the SEC and ACC have their own network.

The SECN has set the standard for conference TV networks with the BTN close behind. Whatever the PAC 12, the ACC, or the Big 12 put up will never compete directly with those 2 for profitability. I say that even with the potential for some sort of hybrid Big12/ACC league emerging as the fans of such a league won't have longstanding rivalries to be interested in or a craving for match-ups from other regions that have no history with each other.

BUT...does ESPN gain more by converting some of their current products to conference networks and consolidating their college athletics properties in that they create better footing to secure 1st and 2nd Tier rights in the future?

Let's say ESPN allows the Big 12 to expand with some desirable, but more regionally aligned programs...such as Houston, Memphis, BYU, Colorado State, UCF, USF...not all of them obviously but enough to dedicate a network to. Let's also say ESPN gives the SEC a slight boost with programs like Cincinnati(new market) and SMU(greater share of TX). UConn is always available if Notre Dame decides to join the ACC.

The LHN is converted to a Big 12 Network. Either ESPNews or ESPN Classic is converted to an ACC Network. They can still use ESPNU for leftover content from the 3 leagues that they essentially own with scattered content from other leagues as well obviously.

This way both the Big 12 and the ACC survive in a more regional format with an economic boost from a network without having to be carved up and gerrymandered into some sort of hybrid which I imagine none of the parties really are interested in or it would have happened by now.

Of course, all the most valuable properties would easily fit into the SEC for the most part, but 1) ESPN would lose a lot of content from marginal programs, 2) ESPN doesn't really want to pay any exorbitant rates to a mega-SEC, and 3) ESPN would lose some of those valuable properties to the Big Ten and/or PAC.

Pat, I'd like to solve the puzzle!

If you want to know whether ESPN wants schools from the Big 12 or ACC in another conference then ask yourself whether the school in question is worth $40 million a year to ESPN in the conference being considered.

Moving Texas would save them some money long term. Moving Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or Florida State from a branding standpoint would be worth it.

Forget T2 & T3 inventory. In a world that is moving to streaming content is the key revenue enhancer. Brand vs brand generates the most revenue. ESPN would be happy to pay for further consolidation if they don't have to pay top dollar for filler schools that don't have brand cachet.

That is why at the end of the GOR's it is highly unlikely that the little brothers find homes.

Face it, if the SEC expanded with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson and Oklahoma then ESPN would multiply the value of owning Kentucky in hoops, and would have 3 more brand multipliers to add to an already deep football product. Let's say each of those schools got 17 million more for moving. For not having to pay Wake Forest, Boston College, Miami, Pitt, Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, top dollar anymore ESPN saves overhead while multiplying their must see lineup which sells very well whether on prime time TV or streamed. Multiply that savings by what they no longer have to pay for half of the Big 12 properties not involved in such a move and voila they have content galore, few dogs, and a lot less mouth to feed. Even if the ESPN had to add Texas, Oklahoma State, Louisville, and Texas Tech to get it done it still comes out money ahead.

Don't think in terms of markets. That issue is fast becoming passe. Don't think in terms of who you would like to see in a conference because the conferences will have only a smidgen of input in regards to additions. Think instead of how much a network can maximize its profits without having to maintain larger inventory. That's where we are headed. And finally ask yourself for instance is a Cincinnati worth 40 million a year to ESPN. The Bearcats are nice, but not 40 million a year nice to the bottom line.