ken d
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17,426
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1226
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh |
RE: B1G
(04-05-2015 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-05-2015 05:46 PM)ken d Wrote: I have said many times that I believe that reasons for no realignment in the near future are far more compelling than any reasons for expansion. For the most part (West Virginia being a likely exception), P5 schools are now either where they want to be or where they can realistically aspire to be. And most conferences have set up effective barriers to movement by all but a handful of schools.
That being said, it's entirely possible that I am wrong about the Big Ten's satisfaction with the status quo. If they have some larger number in mind, I have to believe that it isn't a perceived need to improve themselves competitively that would drive their decision. I think it would have to be a desire to expand their market reach.
For the Big Ten, the biggest markets that would make sense for their network that they don't already have significant penetration in are North Carolina, Virginia and Texas. And Texas is far bigger than both the others combined. In addition, I think the only combination of schools in NC and Virginia that make sense for the Big Ten are the two flagships, UVa and UNC. I just don't see how they could persuade those two and only those two to leave the schools they have been so close to for so long.
Therefore, I think the most likely expansion, should there be any, will be to their southwest. So the question is, who best fits their profile and also maximizes their market improvement. I said earlier that conferences have set up effective barriers to defection from their ranks. But effective doesn't necessarily mean insurmountable. GoR's are an example.
I don't believe GoR's are quite the poison pill many make them out to be. Like almost any other obstacle, they are subject to negotiation. For some expansion targets, their negotiating leverage might make them too expensive. It all depends on who holds the power, and how they want to use it. I firmly believe that no conference wants to test the enforce-ability of their GoR in court. That's a high risk strategy, and universities and their presidents are notoriously risk averse.
If, ultimately, the Big Ten would like to expand the reach of the BTN into the Texas market, they do have options. Some have mentioned Oklahoma as a likely, attractive target. And they aren't bad. Their academic standing may be less than the B1G would consider ideal, but they've already lost their virginity in that area. The Sooners are no more a compromise than Nebraska was. But if the goal is Texas, why settle for "Texas-ish", which is what Oklahoma is, market-wise. They're in the neighborhood, but they aren't the prime real estate.
The problem with actually going into Texas is that UT is way too much the prima donna to be a stable addition. They are a lousy partner, to put it mildly. And as good as the other Texas schools may be, either academically or athletically or both, the only other school that really makes sense is Texas A&M, and I don't think the Aggies would be nearly as comfortable in the Big Ten as they are in the SEC. And I don't think many current Big Ten schools would be comfortable with the Aggies either. But they would deliver a substantial number of subscribers to the BTN IMO.
Looking at pros instead of cons, A&M looks superior on several fronts. For one thing, they don't face significant penalties for early withdrawal. They have a fan base that is both large and rabid. And I think they could help other western division B1G teams in recruiting. But, they are pretty far removed from the rest of the league, and would really need a geographical bridge to make sense. A bridge like Missouri. Not so much a bridge like Kansas. Mizzou could deliver a lot of the same market that KU would thanks to its proximity to Kansas City, plus it could shore up the market in St Louis which is currently on their periphery.
In short, Oklahoma and Kansas have a strong surface appeal based on their football and basketball brand identities. But they are short on market appeal because of their limited populations. In the end, I think markets will drive any Big Ten expansion decision. And I don't think that any markets they would/should want would leave their current conference at any price the Big Ten would be willing to pay for them.
The SEC has a GOR KenD, but it is with ESPN for the SECN and not on behalf of the conference. We do not have an exit fee. Posters frequently confuse the two issues. Your analysis is very ACC centric and that's okay. But in reality there is no GOR out there that can be as easily negotiated as that of the ACC, as it is the only GOR where the value is determined by one entity, ESPN. The ACC grew in part with ESPN sheltering properties to which they wished to maintain rights which coincidentally were properties whose markets were likely to be coveted by a recalcitrant Jim Delany (as far as ESPN was concerned) and an uncertain future relationship with the Big 10 because of Delany. Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, and Virginia Tech were all stellar additions from a market check stand point as it pertained to hemming in the Big 10. Louisville was also a nice addition, but also served as the stabilizing factor that has been well attested to already. Parking those properties in the ACC not only enhanced the only conference 100% sold out to a network, but also proved to be an excellent place to park properties that had the kind of future leverage that might be required to get the WWL back into the Big 10. And here's where the rub comes in. ESPN if it chooses to fully honor any agreement with the ACC can mitigate any kind of diminished value suit arising from future departures and therefore limit said departure to the exit fee. GOR's can be skirted if there is no diminished value and only a conference 100% obligated to one network (particularly one brokering other negotiations and in control of properties with leverage value) can make sure that such values remain unaffected. Therefore the ACC is still the only conference where control of market valuations can be maintained by one entity and because of that it is the only conference still subject to market forces. If the parts of the ACC are worth more to ESPN elsewhere and as long as the network is willing to honor existing market values for the remainder of the that conference should other moves occur, then ruling movement from the ACC to any other conference as being out of the realm of possibility is naive.
That said I do not believe that ESPN wants to leverage ACC properties to the Big 10. I could fathom limited movement of marketable and duplicated properties within the ACC for the sake of gaining new markets and greater net value as being an objective of ESPN for both their bottom line and to secure more fully other properties of which they would like to have fuller control. Add to that assessment that the possession of Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College plus Virginia and North Carolina means that there is a higher degree of likelihood in landing Notre Dame more fully at some point in the future and I would say that the notion of bartering properties for a bigger piece of the Midwest is untenable.
Instead I think the game for ESPN is finding a way to park the most profitable properties from the Big 12 in either of their largest holdings, the ACC or SEC and then using a cross conference scheduling arrangement in all major sports to seal the content value and marketability of both. A piece of the PACN may still be another option for some or all of those currently FOX shared properties as well. All of that is a wait and see.
Yes ESPN likely wants to maintain its hold on some Big 10 T1 inventory, but I ask you which entity needs the other the most? The Big 10 is a very marketable product, but it's numbers weren't that great off of the Mouse. Whereas CBS did quite well with 1 game a week from the SEC. The Big 12's FOX numbers were atrocious as well. My argument would be that the Big 10 needs ESPN far worse than ESPN needs the Big 10. Therefore a scavenging of the ACC for the sake of salvaging a piece of the Big 10 doesn't seem likely to me. If anything a little extra cash should salve the Big 10's ills without having to give them a market they get to keep in 15 years should they walk away. Large corporations don't think in 15 year time spans. They aren't going to surrender what they have attained for short term gains. If Delany balks (and he won't) then Connecticut may be the only expansion candidate open to the Big 10. If FOX throws lots of money it could get ugly but Fox would be stupid to play that game at a time when cable TV and sports in general may have peaked in value.
FOX will, I think, cooperate as much as it is in mutual interest with ESPN and they will continue to buy their way into the college market slowly. ESPN will buy them off with leased product from regions of the country where they need broadcast rights.
So, while the ACC is not nearly as secure legally as many may think, objectively they are much more secure than the Big 12. And any future realignment will require both FOX and ESPN working out the placement of the Big 12 members before it will happen. If anything happens from within the ACC it will involve no more than two schools from duplicated markets and will then only transpire to make room for new markets and greater content.
I didn't think my analysis had much to do with the ACC. With respect to GoR's all my comments were pretty generic. I asserted only that they (GoRs) are obstacles which are subject to negotiation. I did express the opinion that poaching two schools from the SEC would cause less demonstrable financial harm to remaining 12 SEC members than poaching Oklahoma and Kansas would cause to the other 8 Big 12 members. For that reason, I concluded they would probably be relatively less costly if the Big Ten wanted to negotiate that.
Since I didn't consider Big Ten raids on the ACC to be likely, I never addressed or considered that league's GoR.
|
|
