What if the P5 only thought they were running things?

What if everything is simply a manipulation by competing networks?

Big Ten top tier rights expire in 2016.

If ESPN wins the rights, ESPN retains essentially a monopoly position in college football holding virtually all top tier rights. Fox is shut out of the top rights for every conference despite a considerable investment in FS1 and FS2.

If Fox wins Fox now has the Big 10 totally locked up and has top teams and top games in hand.

How far would ESPN go to retain those rights?

Would they self deal against the ACC (who they own lock, stock and barrel)? Would they self-deal against the SEC (locked up through 2034)? Would they self-deal against Big XII where they own half the rights?

If ESPN is determined enough to keep the Big 10, they might well work with the Big 10 to help them add desired teams.

On the other hand, if you are Fox and you don't have anyone's top tier rights (save CUSA which is a shell of what it was when the deal was signed) how far would you go to get the Big 10's rights?

ESPN historically signs deals that you can look at and say, "They'll make a profit."

Fox has done deals (most notably the NFL) where they lose money on paper but they use the product to create viewing habit and to promote other programming, so that the deal might appear to be a money loser but when taken in total context, they are profitable.

If you are Fox and win the rights, a 14 team Big 10 is nice but a larger Big 10 is even nicer if you get the right schools in. You make sure Delany knows what you think a 14 team Big 10 is worth but also what a larger Big 10 with names like Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida State, Missouri, Clemson is worth.

Fox has a big investment in FS1 and FS2 and they need compelling content. If they miss on the Big 10, they are looking at waiting until 2025 for another bite at the apple. If they are willing to get down and dirty, the Big 10 negotiation is the time to do it.

So what does ESPN do if Fox wins the rights to the Big 10 and the Big 10 grows to 16, 18 or 20?

They do the only smart thing they can do. They sit down with the SEC and put even more money on the table to drive expansion. ESPN owns 100% of the ACC but if you move the better ACC content to the SEC, then you own those rights for another 10 years. You own half the Big XII rights (more in the case of Texas and Kansas) if you can get it into the SEC you add another ten years of ownership

The Pac-12 maybe rethinks coming to the Central time zone to insure peer status.

The wreckage of the Big XII and ACC gets paid off until the TV deals expire (thanks to the GOR) but what's left is no better than the AAC without the regular games against their old conference foes.

And it is essential that you've restructured the NCAA because now you may need to get approval for conference semi-finals in addition to a championship game and you need to make sure those who've been left behind to act as roadblocks to you.

(08-15-2013 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What if the P5 only thought they were running things?

What if everything is simply a manipulation by competing networks?

Big Ten top tier rights expire in 2016.

If ESPN wins the rights, ESPN retains essentially a monopoly position in college football holding virtually all top tier rights. Fox is shut out of the top rights for every conference despite a considerable investment in FS1 and FS2.

If Fox wins Fox now has the Big 10 totally locked up and has top teams and top games in hand.

How far would ESPN go to retain those rights?

Would they self deal against the ACC (who they own lock, stock and barrel)? Would they self-deal against the SEC (locked up through 2034)? Would they self-deal against Big XII where they own half the rights?

If ESPN is determined enough to keep the Big 10, they might well work with the Big 10 to help them add desired teams.

On the other hand, if you are Fox and you don't have anyone's top tier rights (save CUSA which is a shell of what it was when the deal was signed) how far would you go to get the Big 10's rights?

ESPN historically signs deals that you can look at and say, "They'll make a profit."

Fox has done deals (most notably the NFL) where they lose money on paper but they use the product to create viewing habit and to promote other programming, so that the deal might appear to be a money loser but when taken in total context, they are profitable.

If you are Fox and win the rights, a 14 team Big 10 is nice but a larger Big 10 is even nicer if you get the right schools in. You make sure Delany knows what you think a 14 team Big 10 is worth but also what a larger Big 10 with names like Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida State, Missouri, Clemson is worth.

Fox has a big investment in FS1 and FS2 and they need compelling content. If they miss on the Big 10, they are looking at waiting until 2025 for another bite at the apple. If they are willing to get down and dirty, the Big 10 negotiation is the time to do it.

So what does ESPN do if Fox wins the rights to the Big 10 and the Big 10 grows to 16, 18 or 20?

They do the only smart thing they can do. They sit down with the SEC and put even more money on the table to drive expansion. ESPN owns 100% of the ACC but if you move the better ACC content to the SEC, then you own those rights for another 10 years. You own half the Big XII rights (more in the case of Texas and Kansas) if you can get it into the SEC you add another ten years of ownership

The Pac-12 maybe rethinks coming to the Central time zone to insure peer status.

The wreckage of the Big XII and ACC gets paid off until the TV deals expire (thanks to the GOR) but what's left is no better than the AAC without the regular games against their old conference foes.

And it is essential that you've restructured the NCAA because now you may need to get approval for conference semi-finals in addition to a championship game and you need to make sure those who've been left behind to act as roadblocks to you.

I've been saying all along it was the networks driving this. What you suggest is possible. But if it did happen I don't think you would see Clemson and Florida State going to the Big 10. If the goal for the most dominant leagues are met financially then their next objective should be a definable conference boundary that minimizes travel expenses. Their markets will be expanded on the periphery but I don't see the Big 10 in the shape of an upside down horseshoe with one end extending into Texas while the other extends into Florida with nothing in the middle.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Kansas get them to 20 and keep their academic profile in line with only minor exceptions.

For the SEC North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and West Virginia extend and solidify the conference without really increasing the travel issues very much.

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech can all go to the PAC. If they want 20 they can go ahead and take two of B.Y.U., Baylor, or T.C.U..

The rest can reform with the AAC and constitute a 4th D4 conference.

Both the SEC and Big 10 get into North Carolina and Virginia. The heart of the Big 12 moves west giving the PAC a couple of national brands and central time zones slots to sell and schools like South Florida, UConn, Cincinnati, and East Carolina are joined by Miami, Wake Forest, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Louisville, T.C.U. and Baylor. There is the buffer/access conference of which many have already spoken.

that's an awful lot of what ifs...

Fox wants the Big Ten and will pay for it. They want content for FS1, not only football but also more hoops. Fox gets a bit less than one-third of Pac-12 hoops and gets first call on Big East hoops. Fox doesn't have any Big 12 basketball; ESPN kept first call on the Big 12.

IMO, the Big Ten won't want to cut out ESPN entirely even if Fox puts more money on the table. So, my guess is that the Big Ten gets paid big, Fox and ESPN split Big Ten football and basketball, but Fox gets more.

I don't see the networks manipulating more expansion at this time. I think they are sick and tired of conferences coming back to them and asking for more money every time they add anyone.

I think the "nuclear option" is only used by the networks to manipulate expansion in rare cases when they really want to stop something that would cost them a ton of money. ESPN bribed Texas with LHN (and ESPN and Fox agreed not to reduce the Big 12's TV deal) because they didn't want the Pac to have the combined market power of California and Texas. ESPN figured (correctly) that they would save a lot of money in the long run by writing a check to the Longhorns. For any move that is less threatening to the networks, they won't intervene even if they don't like it. They'll use the power of their money in a more subtle way when they can.

The entire premise of this post is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. FOX is a 49% OWNER in the Big 10 network. This is not a time-limited GoR. This is OWNERSHIP. You're smoking crack if you think FOX loses a foothold in the B1G to ESPN exclusivity.

(08-15-2013 09:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox wants the Big Ten and will pay for it. They want content for FS1, not only football but also more hoops. Fox gets a bit less than one-third of Pac-12 hoops and gets first call on Big East hoops. Fox doesn't have any Big 12 basketball; ESPN kept first call on the Big 12.

IMO, the Big Ten won't want to cut out ESPN entirely even if Fox puts more money on the table. So, my guess is that the Big Ten gets paid big, Fox and ESPN split Big Ten football and basketball, but Fox gets more.

I don't see the networks manipulating more expansion at this time. I think they are sick and tired of conferences coming back to them and asking for more money every time they add anyone.

I think the "nuclear option" is only used by the networks to manipulate expansion in rare cases when they really want to stop something that would cost them a ton of money. ESPN bribed Texas with LHN (and ESPN and Fox agreed not to reduce the Big 12's TV deal) because they didn't want the Pac to have the combined market power of California and Texas. ESPN figured (correctly) that they would save a lot of money in the long run by writing a check to the Longhorns. For any move that is less threatening to the networks, they won't intervene even if they don't like it. They'll use the power of their money in a more subtle way when they can.

If FOX makes a push for more than what you have suggested I see the SEC and ACC becoming the repository of the top brands that ESPN wishes to hang onto. Kansas and Texas both come to mind from the Big 12. Oklahoma may lean more toward FOX because of their 3rd tier. It will be interesting to see how they play out.

(08-15-2013 09:50 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The entire premise of this post is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. FOX is a 49% OWNER in the Big 10 network. This is not a time-limited GoR. This is OWNERSHIP. You're smoking crack if you think FOX loses a foothold in the B1G to ESPN exclusivity.

FOX owns arguably 49 - 51% of tier 2 in the Big 10. I believe the OP is talking about tier one property.

(08-15-2013 09:50 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The entire premise of this post is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. FOX is a 49% OWNER in the Big 10 network. This is not a time-limited GoR. This is OWNERSHIP. You're smoking crack if you think FOX loses a foothold in the B1G to ESPN exclusivity.

Actually Fox owns 51% they bought controlling interest from the Big 10.

(08-15-2013 09:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox wants the Big Ten and will pay for it. They want content for FS1, not only football but also more hoops. Fox gets a bit less than one-third of Pac-12 hoops and gets first call on Big East hoops. Fox doesn't have any Big 12 basketball; ESPN kept first call on the Big 12.

IMO, the Big Ten won't want to cut out ESPN entirely even if Fox puts more money on the table. So, my guess is that the Big Ten gets paid big, Fox and ESPN split Big Ten football and basketball, but Fox gets more.

I don't see the networks manipulating more expansion at this time. I think they are sick and tired of conferences coming back to them and asking for more money every time they add anyone.

I think the "nuclear option" is only used by the networks to manipulate expansion in rare cases when they really want to stop something that would cost them a ton of money. ESPN bribed Texas with LHN (and ESPN and Fox agreed not to reduce the Big 12's TV deal) because they didn't want the Pac to have the combined market power of California and Texas. ESPN figured (correctly) that they would save a lot of money in the long run by writing a check to the Longhorns. For any move that is less threatening to the networks, they won't intervene even if they don't like it. They'll use the power of their money in a more subtle way when they can.

The ESPN/Fox response to the Big XII is the biggest argument against the premise that ESPN/Fox WANT consolidation.

What happened there was essentially a play to prevent six big players from turning into four.

Consolidation is wonderful IF you are the rights holder and expect to remain so for an extended time.

If Fox wins 100% of the Big 10 as constituted today, ESPN isn't happy BUT ESPN still holds a huge amount of valuable content. They don't have Rutgers but they still hold Syracuse. They don't have Ohio State but they have Cincinnati and mid-week MAC games.

If they had lost the ACC ESPN is mostly shut out of North Carolina (except for ECU and eventually mid-week App St) but ESPN is still in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina).

JR is on the right track.

You don't want pure consolidation, you want NFL style consolidation.
Fox and CBS both have NY teams, both have Florida teams, both have Pennsylvania teams, both have Texas teams, both have Missouri teams, both have Bay area teams, and formerly both had LA teams and there has been more than one claim that the NFL isn't looking to relocate "A" team to LA but two in order to keep the TV deals relatively balanced.

It may not be practical to share California but it is VERY practical to split Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York area, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana.

Ideally you split things up so that a successful bidder for one package has a package of roughly similar value to the other package

(08-15-2013 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The wreckage of the Big XII and ACC gets paid off until the TV deals expire (thanks to the GOR) but what's left is no better than the AAC without the regular games against their old conference foes.

And it is essential that you've restructured the NCAA because now you may need to get approval for conference semi-finals in addition to a championship game and you need to make sure those who've been left behind to act as roadblocks to you.

Even if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina all roll out of the B12/ACC both conferences will reload with AAC/MWC effectively to the point where they will remain contract leagues.

B12: Houston, Memphis, Tulane, New Mexico, Colorado St., BYU
AAC: Cincinnati, WVU, UConn

The ACC/B12 are weakened but still contract worthy.

B12 North: BYU, Col St, K-State, Okie St, Memphis, Iowa St
B12 South: New Mexico, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Tulane

The MWC would then be forced to take in NMSU, UTEP while the AAC would be looking at UMass, ODU, UAB, Rice, USM. The AAC and MWC look more and more regional and mid major as time progresses.

and this trickles down to us how?

(08-15-2013 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What if the P5 only thought they were running things?

What if everything is simply a manipulation by competing networks?

Big Ten top tier rights expire in 2016.

If ESPN wins the rights, ESPN retains essentially a monopoly position in college football holding virtually all top tier rights. Fox is shut out of the top rights for every conference despite a considerable investment in FS1 and FS2.

If Fox wins Fox now has the Big 10 totally locked up and has top teams and top games in hand.

How far would ESPN go to retain those rights?

Would they self deal against the ACC (who they own lock, stock and barrel)? Would they self-deal against the SEC (locked up through 2034)? Would they self-deal against Big XII where they own half the rights?

If ESPN is determined enough to keep the Big 10, they might well work with the Big 10 to help them add desired teams.

On the other hand, if you are Fox and you don't have anyone's top tier rights (save CUSA which is a shell of what it was when the deal was signed) how far would you go to get the Big 10's rights?

ESPN historically signs deals that you can look at and say, "They'll make a profit."

Fox has done deals (most notably the NFL) where they lose money on paper but they use the product to create viewing habit and to promote other programming, so that the deal might appear to be a money loser but when taken in total context, they are profitable.

If you are Fox and win the rights, a 14 team Big 10 is nice but a larger Big 10 is even nicer if you get the right schools in. You make sure Delany knows what you think a 14 team Big 10 is worth but also what a larger Big 10 with names like Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida State, Missouri, Clemson is worth.

Fox has a big investment in FS1 and FS2 and they need compelling content. If they miss on the Big 10, they are looking at waiting until 2025 for another bite at the apple. If they are willing to get down and dirty, the Big 10 negotiation is the time to do it.

So what does ESPN do if Fox wins the rights to the Big 10 and the Big 10 grows to 16, 18 or 20?

They do the only smart thing they can do. They sit down with the SEC and put even more money on the table to drive expansion. ESPN owns 100% of the ACC but if you move the better ACC content to the SEC, then you own those rights for another 10 years. You own half the Big XII rights (more in the case of Texas and Kansas) if you can get it into the SEC you add another ten years of ownership

The Pac-12 maybe rethinks coming to the Central time zone to insure peer status.

The wreckage of the Big XII and ACC gets paid off until the TV deals expire (thanks to the GOR) but what's left is no better than the AAC without the regular games against their old conference foes.

And it is essential that you've restructured the NCAA because now you may need to get approval for conference semi-finals in addition to a championship game and you need to make sure those who've been left behind to act as roadblocks to you.

"but what's left is no better than the AAC "

Really? Have you looked at the AAC? And that's not considering that the ACC and B12 would back fill with the best of the AAC.

too many what ifs to reflect on

what if the pink sunset clouds are really cotton candy?

(08-15-2013 10:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox wants the Big Ten and will pay for it. They want content for FS1, not only football but also more hoops. Fox gets a bit less than one-third of Pac-12 hoops and gets first call on Big East hoops. Fox doesn't have any Big 12 basketball; ESPN kept first call on the Big 12.

IMO, the Big Ten won't want to cut out ESPN entirely even if Fox puts more money on the table. So, my guess is that the Big Ten gets paid big, Fox and ESPN split Big Ten football and basketball, but Fox gets more.

I don't see the networks manipulating more expansion at this time. I think they are sick and tired of conferences coming back to them and asking for more money every time they add anyone.

I think the "nuclear option" is only used by the networks to manipulate expansion in rare cases when they really want to stop something that would cost them a ton of money. ESPN bribed Texas with LHN (and ESPN and Fox agreed not to reduce the Big 12's TV deal) because they didn't want the Pac to have the combined market power of California and Texas. ESPN figured (correctly) that they would save a lot of money in the long run by writing a check to the Longhorns. For any move that is less threatening to the networks, they won't intervene even if they don't like it. They'll use the power of their money in a more subtle way when they can.

The ESPN/Fox response to the Big XII is the biggest argument against the premise that ESPN/Fox WANT consolidation.

What happened there was essentially a play to prevent six big players from turning into four.

Consolidation is wonderful IF you are the rights holder and expect to remain so for an extended time.

If Fox wins 100% of the Big 10 as constituted today, ESPN isn't happy BUT ESPN still holds a huge amount of valuable content. They don't have Rutgers but they still hold Syracuse. They don't have Ohio State but they have Cincinnati and mid-week MAC games.

If they had lost the ACC ESPN is mostly shut out of North Carolina (except for ECU and eventually mid-week App St) but ESPN is still in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina).

JR is on the right track.

You don't want pure consolidation, you want NFL style consolidation.
Fox and CBS both have NY teams, both have Florida teams, both have Pennsylvania teams, both have Texas teams, both have Missouri teams, both have Bay area teams, and formerly both had LA teams and there has been more than one claim that the NFL isn't looking to relocate "A" team to LA but two in order to keep the TV deals relatively balanced.

It may not be practical to share California but it is VERY practical to split Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York area, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana.

Ideally you split things up so that a successful bidder for one package has a package of roughly similar value to the other package

First, the NFC package is worth significantly more than the AFC package based upon the TV markets. It not like Giants/Jets split the NYC market evenly. That being said, the NFL does represent the type of split FOX and ESPN are looking.

The attempt to try and resolve that split is why the B12 still exists. Because I don't think there is parting of the B12 where all parties gain and lose equally. The 50/50 split was the best comprise that could be hammered out. Just imagine if the P16 had come to fruition. How would FOX and ESPN have divided Baylor, ISU, KU and KSU? JR and H1 have come up with interesting variations to solve that conundrum. But in the end I just don't see what motivation would exist for ESPN to find a home for at least two of those schools.

(08-16-2013 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox wants the Big Ten and will pay for it. They want content for FS1, not only football but also more hoops. Fox gets a bit less than one-third of Pac-12 hoops and gets first call on Big East hoops. Fox doesn't have any Big 12 basketball; ESPN kept first call on the Big 12.

IMO, the Big Ten won't want to cut out ESPN entirely even if Fox puts more money on the table. So, my guess is that the Big Ten gets paid big, Fox and ESPN split Big Ten football and basketball, but Fox gets more.

I don't see the networks manipulating more expansion at this time. I think they are sick and tired of conferences coming back to them and asking for more money every time they add anyone.

I think the "nuclear option" is only used by the networks to manipulate expansion in rare cases when they really want to stop something that would cost them a ton of money. ESPN bribed Texas with LHN (and ESPN and Fox agreed not to reduce the Big 12's TV deal) because they didn't want the Pac to have the combined market power of California and Texas. ESPN figured (correctly) that they would save a lot of money in the long run by writing a check to the Longhorns. For any move that is less threatening to the networks, they won't intervene even if they don't like it. They'll use the power of their money in a more subtle way when they can.

The ESPN/Fox response to the Big XII is the biggest argument against the premise that ESPN/Fox WANT consolidation.

What happened there was essentially a play to prevent six big players from turning into four.

Consolidation is wonderful IF you are the rights holder and expect to remain so for an extended time.

If Fox wins 100% of the Big 10 as constituted today, ESPN isn't happy BUT ESPN still holds a huge amount of valuable content. They don't have Rutgers but they still hold Syracuse. They don't have Ohio State but they have Cincinnati and mid-week MAC games.

If they had lost the ACC ESPN is mostly shut out of North Carolina (except for ECU and eventually mid-week App St) but ESPN is still in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina).

JR is on the right track.

You don't want pure consolidation, you want NFL style consolidation.
Fox and CBS both have NY teams, both have Florida teams, both have Pennsylvania teams, both have Texas teams, both have Missouri teams, both have Bay area teams, and formerly both had LA teams and there has been more than one claim that the NFL isn't looking to relocate "A" team to LA but two in order to keep the TV deals relatively balanced.

It may not be practical to share California but it is VERY practical to split Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York area, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana.

Ideally you split things up so that a successful bidder for one package has a package of roughly similar value to the other package

First, the NFC package is worth significantly more than the AFC package based upon the TV markets. It not like Giants/Jets split the NYC market evenly. That being said, the NFL does represent the type of split FOX and ESPN are looking.

The attempt to try and resolve that split is why the B12 still exists. Because I don't think there is parting of the B12 where all parties gain and lose equally. The 50/50 split was the best comprise that could be hammered out. Just imagine if the P16 had come to fruition. How would FOX and ESPN have divided Baylor, ISU, KU and KSU? JR and H1 have come up with interesting variations to solve that conundrum. But in the end I just don't see what motivation would exist for ESPN to find a home for at least two of those schools.

I agree Giants fans outnumber Jets fans. That being said Giants fans are watching the Jets games and vice versa. They're just going to watch football regardless. So for a media rights standpoint its 50/50.