I. The Current Conditions

Five years ago I told a group of my SEC friends on another site that the market model would be a passing phase on the way to the end goal of the networks. One reason that ESPN's overhead is too high is because they purposefully overpaid for the realignment that has already occurred. Their goal was to divide the interest of the largest states into multiple conferences. That's why they were behind a failed deal that would have taken N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, why they were for taking a large single market in Missouri away from potential rival FOX, and why they were for fragmenting the Texas market by backing A&M to the SEC, and why they were dead set against the SEC gaining a majority hold in Florida by taking F.S.U.. It's also why the sewed up the best product of the Old Big East in an effort to thwart the unleveraged expansion of the BTN into the Northeast. And why the later spent foolishly to tether Bevo away from the PAC.

To gain this control they were willing to pay multiple conferences for the total households subscribing to ESPN's bundle within the same duplicated states. But, this was just a temporary move on their part, and one that now will come to an end.

Five years ago I said that a saturation model would replace the footprint model which was but a carrot to move the product around that they wanted moved. By saturation I meant that in the state of Florida if the Gators drew 45% of the viewers, the Seminoles 40% of the viewers and the Canes the other 15% (numbers just for example) that they would only pay the SEC for 45% of the state of Florida and the ACC 60%.

Well the saturation model has now been replaced by market forces with a more far reaching method of fragmenting costs, streaming. The possibility of one day paying the conferences only for the actual number of viewers is changing the whole landscape of realignment.

The new winners of realignment will be those conferences with the most brand on brand competition whether that is football, basketball, or any other sport. The size of a markets won't matter when conferences are rewarded for actual viewers. The need to take a Virginia and North Carolina school is now only as important as the number of dedicated viewers they bring. In that regard the size of market is a plus, but it is no longer the slam dunk reason for the addition.

II. Economic Factors

While it is no longer 2008 the result of QE may very well be the same protracted stagnation that Japan has suffered for over 2 decades. Couple that with the dying out of the last two vested generations of the middle class in American history (WWII & Boomers) and the anticipation of well heeled donors in large numbers has passed and along with it the first decline in attendance at college football in decades is underway. In part this is happening because the rise in donations to buy tickets and the ticket prices themselves are causing more young fans to opt out and go the route of cable which to a much more tech savvy generation means those with the skill sets to appreciate and utilize cheaper delivery modes.

This has the networks, the conferences, the schools, and the consumers pausing to reevaluate their present positions. The SEC would have to add oodles of basketball schools to gain a larger toehold there, so they won't. Instead they will simply spend more football wealth on basketball and pursue growth by that method. The quickest way now for the SEC to add value is by seeking solid football brands to add to its already staunch inventory.

Conversely the Big 10 can't add enough football brands effectively to boost its content. It can however dominate college basketball and use the wealth of its region and alumni to build better football programs among its member schools. This doesn't mean that the Big 10 will not add football brands, but it does mean they can maximize their position by strengthening what it is that they already do wonderfully.

The net result of both will be better basketball and better football and probably a future alliance taking advantage of their inherent and historical rivalry.

The PAC will expand markets into areas where a higher percentage of viewers are engaged. The Big 12 has been a conference in need of scope and the PAC has been a conference in need of carriage and dedicated viewers. The PAC has scope and scholarship. The Big 12 has the second highest % of viewers based on market size in the nation just ahead of the Big 10 and just behind the SEC.

III. ESPN's Cuts
$250 million by 2017 is a tall order but not an insurmountable one. It won't take long for strategies to be reassessed and replaced before things start in earnest again to consolidate product into areas where it will be the most valuable, and to do so in ways that cut costs without punishing the schools.

Almost every conference leadership and office expenses eats one full member's share of the profits. Eliminating two conferences is the equivalent of eliminating two schools from the pie. Consolidating into three somewhat more compact regional conferences cuts down on the legal work for ESPN and could eliminate 5 more schools from the pie while delivering better product placement, guaranteeing the participation of all three regions through the semifinals in football, and permitting a wild card selection which could again provide a way to balance audience participation for the networks when needed.

For the schools regionalism cuts down on the travel for minor sports, particularly if divisional play is emphasized and the divisions are regionally grouped. It also guarantees that the alumni of the schools involved have a better chance to drive a reasonable distance to the away games. So it also serves to enhance ticket sales and attendance, not to mention the stands are a lot fuller when the fans care about playing the opponent.

IV. Future Realignment

I wouldn't be surprised if a push for consolidation occurs when everyone is up to speed with the new environment for broadcasting athletics and have some reasonable idea of what kind of transition period will transpire before streaming is a fuller reality. Since a school joins a conference with the intentions to stay and that kind of change is costly and cumbersome I don't see any further expansion based purely upon market models occurring.

Product placement and the most reasonable approach to shoring up weaknesses will be the new plan for expansion.

Based upon that I wouldn't be surprised to see no new networks formed. Those that are in operation will be utilized. The LHN could be converted into a second PAC site.

Perhaps we will see something like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and one of T.C.U. or Baylor to the PAC 12 to form 4 divisions of 5 schools:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Baylor/TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

I would agree a pac 20 with texas, texas tech, ou, Ok state, KU, k state, x, and x solves the problem. Disagree that you need to destroy the ACC post a pac 20 forming. I probably would create a 18-20 ACC to go along with a pac 20, big 10 and SEC. You could leave the big 10 and SEC at 14 or switch a couple school's into the big 10 and SEC. Total number of school's would be 68.

Pac 20: Texas, Texas Tech, OU, Ok state, KU, K state, Houston, New Mexico

ACC: Uconn, Temple, Cincy

Big 10: Iowa State, Missouri

SEC: WVU

You could change it up some with say TCU going to the pac 20 instead of Houston. Baylor going to the ACC instead of Temple.

I think you give too much credit to ESPN. I doubt they are that smart, strategic, or willing to play the long game.

(01-28-2016 10:21 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I think you give too much credit to ESPN. I doubt they are that smart, strategic, or willing to play the long game.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Otherwise necessity is just a mother!

(01-28-2016 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conversely the Big 10 can't add enough football brands effectively to boost its content. It can however dominate college basketball and use the wealth of its region and alumni to build better football programs among its member schools. This doesn't mean that the Big 10 will not add football brands, but it does mean they can maximize their position by strengthening what it is that they already do wonderfully.

The net result of both will be better basketball and better football and probably a future alliance taking advantage of their inherent and historical rivalry.

The PAC will expand markets into areas where a higher percentage of viewers are engaged. The Big 12 has been a conference in need of scope and the PAC has been a conference in need of carriage and dedicated viewers. The PAC has scope and scholarship. The Big 12 has the second highest % of viewers based on market size in the nation just ahead of the Big 10 and just behind the SEC.

III. ESPN's Cuts
$250 million by 2017 is a tall order but not an insurmountable one. It won't take long

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

You mentioned enhancing the basketball product of the Big Ten. I wonder if Miami would be considered. Yes, it is a private school and is well away from the traditional footprint. However:

- It is one that has good academics for a non-AAU
- the southern part of Florida, especially Miami, shares more cultural connections with the Northeast than the deep South
- has become strong in basketball in recent years
- still has the benefit of being in a fertile recruiting area, although it's an open question whether they can return to the heyday of "Da U"

I'm not convinced that the Big Ten would go that route but it's their best shot of getting into Florida and its high population of alumni and transients.

(01-28-2016 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I. The Current Conditions

Five years ago I told a group of my SEC friends on another site that the market model would be a passing phase on the way to the end goal of the networks. One reason that ESPN's overhead is too high is because they purposefully overpaid for the realignment that has already occurred. Their goal was to divide the interest of the largest states into multiple conferences. That's why they were behind a failed deal that would have taken N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, why they were for taking a large single market in Missouri away from potential rival FOX, and why they were for fragmenting the Texas market by backing A&M to the SEC, and why they were dead set against the SEC gaining a majority hold in Florida by taking F.S.U.. It's also why the sewed up the best product of the Old Big East in an effort to thwart the unleveraged expansion of the BTN into the Northeast. And why the later spent foolishly to tether Bevo away from the PAC.

To gain this control they were willing to pay multiple conferences for the total households subscribing to ESPN's bundle within the same duplicated states. But, this was just a temporary move on their part, and one that now will come to an end.

Five years ago I said that a saturation model would replace the footprint model which was but a carrot to move the product around that they wanted moved. By saturation I meant that in the state of Florida if the Gators drew 45% of the viewers, the Seminoles 40% of the viewers and the Canes the other 15% (numbers just for example) that they would only pay the SEC for 45% of the state of Florida and the ACC 60%.

Well the saturation model has now been replaced by market forces with a more far reaching method of fragmenting costs, streaming. The possibility of one day paying the conferences only for the actual number of viewers is changing the whole landscape of realignment.

The new winners of realignment will be those conferences with the most brand on brand competition whether that is football, basketball, or any other sport. The size of a markets won't matter when conferences are rewarded for actual viewers. The need to take a Virginia and North Carolina school is now only as important as the number of dedicated viewers they bring. In that regard the size of market is a plus, but it is no longer the slam dunk reason for the addition.

II. Economic Factors

While it is no longer 2008 the result of QE may very well be the same protracted stagnation that Japan has suffered for over 2 decades. Couple that with the dying out of the last two vested generations of the middle class in American history (WWII & Boomers) and the anticipation of well heeled donors in large numbers has passed and along with it the first decline in attendance at college football in decades is underway. In part this is happening because the rise in donations to buy tickets and the ticket prices themselves are causing more young fans to opt out and go the route of cable which to a much more tech savvy generation means those with the skill sets to appreciate and utilize cheaper delivery modes.

This has the networks, the conferences, the schools, and the consumers pausing to reevaluate their present positions. The SEC would have to add oodles of basketball schools to gain a larger toehold there, so they won't. Instead they will simply spend more football wealth on basketball and pursue growth by that method. The quickest way now for the SEC to add value is by seeking solid football brands to add to its already staunch inventory.

Conversely the Big 10 can't add enough football brands effectively to boost its content. It can however dominate college basketball and use the wealth of its region and alumni to build better football programs among its member schools. This doesn't mean that the Big 10 will not add football brands, but it does mean they can maximize their position by strengthening what it is that they already do wonderfully.

The net result of both will be better basketball and better football and probably a future alliance taking advantage of their inherent and historical rivalry.

The PAC will expand markets into areas where a higher percentage of viewers are engaged. The Big 12 has been a conference in need of scope and the PAC has been a conference in need of carriage and dedicated viewers. The PAC has scope and scholarship. The Big 12 has the second highest % of viewers based on market size in the nation just ahead of the Big 10 and just behind the SEC.

III. ESPN's Cuts
$250 million by 2017 is a tall order but not an insurmountable one. It won't take long for strategies to be reassessed and replaced before things start in earnest again to consolidate product into areas where it will be the most valuable, and to do so in ways that cut costs without punishing the schools.

Almost every conference leadership and office expenses eats one full member's share of the profits. Eliminating two conferences is the equivalent of eliminating two schools from the pie. Consolidating into three somewhat more compact regional conferences cuts down on the legal work for ESPN and could eliminate 5 more schools from the pie while delivering better product placement, guaranteeing the participation of all three regions through the semifinals in football, and permitting a wild card selection which could again provide a way to balance audience participation for the networks when needed.

For the schools regionalism cuts down on the travel for minor sports, particularly if divisional play is emphasized and the divisions are regionally grouped. It also guarantees that the alumni of the schools involved have a better chance to drive a reasonable distance to the away games. So it also serves to enhance ticket sales and attendance, not to mention the stands are a lot fuller when the fans care about playing the opponent.

IV. Future Realignment

I wouldn't be surprised if a push for consolidation occurs when everyone is up to speed with the new environment for broadcasting athletics and have some reasonable idea of what kind of transition period will transpire before streaming is a fuller reality. Since a school joins a conference with the intentions to stay and that kind of change is costly and cumbersome I don't see any further expansion based purely upon market models occurring.

Product placement and the most reasonable approach to shoring up weaknesses will be the new plan for expansion.

Based upon that I wouldn't be surprised to see no new networks formed. Those that are in operation will be utilized. The LHN could be converted into a second PAC site.

Perhaps we will see something like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and one of T.C.U. or Baylor to the PAC 12 to form 4 divisions of 5 schools:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Baylor/TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

A few quick thoughts.

Under part II:
I don't think that the SEC would have to add "oodles" of basketball schools to gain a toehold there. The SEC actually has good basketball potential. Tennessee, LSU, Florida & Arkansas all of good tradition & Kentucky is a basketball blue blood. The Mississippi's schools along with Auburn have shown the ability to good as well. Certainly, however, adding a few elite programs (Kansas, NC, Duke, Louisville) would instantly put the SEC among the best in basketball & enhance fan support.

I agree on the B1G. Getting Texas &/or Oklahoma would be huge for them. Adding a combination of basketball schools like Kansas, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, NC or Duke would be a great compliment.

III ESPN Cuts:
To consolidate into a P3 you have to a lot of schools up to the B1G & SEC pay level, about a $10-$15 million dollar increase for each. I don't see how cutting roughly 5 programs & 2 conference shares out pays for this. Sure you're consolidating conferences but you are also giving roughly 20 programs a substantial pay raise. It would seem to me to make this streaming model work that either the conferences would have to take a pay cut or do some consolidation from within to be revenue neutral. Even in a streaming model you will still have games like Kentucky v Vanderbilt that will diminish the overall shares from games like Alabama v Florida.

What to do with the wildcard spot in the CFP? Wouldn't that spot have to go to someone outside of the P3 to avoid federal interference & to avoid a rematch? With the P3 holding their own 4 team conference playoffs wouldn't they have already proven who their best 3 teams are? By giving the P3 the wildcard spot you risk having another Alabama v LSU situation again.

IV Future Realignment:
How does enhancing B1G basketball help them or the networks if football revenue drives the bus? As you said, they well shore up conference weaknesses.

You are right, they won't be paying 3 ACC schools $21.5 million each or $26 million each to 2 Big 12 schools but they will be paying over $30 million to 12 ACC schools & 7 Big 12 schools. That's another $28 million spent on the B12 schools & $108 million spent on ACC schools, $136 million more. They would be spending $136 million to save $130 million? Now with the reduced overhead the may turn out to be revenue neutral.

(01-29-2016 11:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I. The Current Conditions

Five years ago I told a group of my SEC friends on another site that the market model would be a passing phase on the way to the end goal of the networks. One reason that ESPN's overhead is too high is because they purposefully overpaid for the realignment that has already occurred. Their goal was to divide the interest of the largest states into multiple conferences. That's why they were behind a failed deal that would have taken N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, why they were for taking a large single market in Missouri away from potential rival FOX, and why they were for fragmenting the Texas market by backing A&M to the SEC, and why they were dead set against the SEC gaining a majority hold in Florida by taking F.S.U.. It's also why the sewed up the best product of the Old Big East in an effort to thwart the unleveraged expansion of the BTN into the Northeast. And why the later spent foolishly to tether Bevo away from the PAC.

To gain this control they were willing to pay multiple conferences for the total households subscribing to ESPN's bundle within the same duplicated states. But, this was just a temporary move on their part, and one that now will come to an end.

Five years ago I said that a saturation model would replace the footprint model which was but a carrot to move the product around that they wanted moved. By saturation I meant that in the state of Florida if the Gators drew 45% of the viewers, the Seminoles 40% of the viewers and the Canes the other 15% (numbers just for example) that they would only pay the SEC for 45% of the state of Florida and the ACC 60%.

Well the saturation model has now been replaced by market forces with a more far reaching method of fragmenting costs, streaming. The possibility of one day paying the conferences only for the actual number of viewers is changing the whole landscape of realignment.

The new winners of realignment will be those conferences with the most brand on brand competition whether that is football, basketball, or any other sport. The size of a markets won't matter when conferences are rewarded for actual viewers. The need to take a Virginia and North Carolina school is now only as important as the number of dedicated viewers they bring. In that regard the size of market is a plus, but it is no longer the slam dunk reason for the addition.

II. Economic Factors

While it is no longer 2008 the result of QE may very well be the same protracted stagnation that Japan has suffered for over 2 decades. Couple that with the dying out of the last two vested generations of the middle class in American history (WWII & Boomers) and the anticipation of well heeled donors in large numbers has passed and along with it the first decline in attendance at college football in decades is underway. In part this is happening because the rise in donations to buy tickets and the ticket prices themselves are causing more young fans to opt out and go the route of cable which to a much more tech savvy generation means those with the skill sets to appreciate and utilize cheaper delivery modes.

This has the networks, the conferences, the schools, and the consumers pausing to reevaluate their present positions. The SEC would have to add oodles of basketball schools to gain a larger toehold there, so they won't. Instead they will simply spend more football wealth on basketball and pursue growth by that method. The quickest way now for the SEC to add value is by seeking solid football brands to add to its already staunch inventory.

Conversely the Big 10 can't add enough football brands effectively to boost its content. It can however dominate college basketball and use the wealth of its region and alumni to build better football programs among its member schools. This doesn't mean that the Big 10 will not add football brands, but it does mean they can maximize their position by strengthening what it is that they already do wonderfully.

The net result of both will be better basketball and better football and probably a future alliance taking advantage of their inherent and historical rivalry.

The PAC will expand markets into areas where a higher percentage of viewers are engaged. The Big 12 has been a conference in need of scope and the PAC has been a conference in need of carriage and dedicated viewers. The PAC has scope and scholarship. The Big 12 has the second highest % of viewers based on market size in the nation just ahead of the Big 10 and just behind the SEC.

III. ESPN's Cuts
$250 million by 2017 is a tall order but not an insurmountable one. It won't take long for strategies to be reassessed and replaced before things start in earnest again to consolidate product into areas where it will be the most valuable, and to do so in ways that cut costs without punishing the schools.

Almost every conference leadership and office expenses eats one full member's share of the profits. Eliminating two conferences is the equivalent of eliminating two schools from the pie. Consolidating into three somewhat more compact regional conferences cuts down on the legal work for ESPN and could eliminate 5 more schools from the pie while delivering better product placement, guaranteeing the participation of all three regions through the semifinals in football, and permitting a wild card selection which could again provide a way to balance audience participation for the networks when needed.

For the schools regionalism cuts down on the travel for minor sports, particularly if divisional play is emphasized and the divisions are regionally grouped. It also guarantees that the alumni of the schools involved have a better chance to drive a reasonable distance to the away games. So it also serves to enhance ticket sales and attendance, not to mention the stands are a lot fuller when the fans care about playing the opponent.

IV. Future Realignment

I wouldn't be surprised if a push for consolidation occurs when everyone is up to speed with the new environment for broadcasting athletics and have some reasonable idea of what kind of transition period will transpire before streaming is a fuller reality. Since a school joins a conference with the intentions to stay and that kind of change is costly and cumbersome I don't see any further expansion based purely upon market models occurring.

Product placement and the most reasonable approach to shoring up weaknesses will be the new plan for expansion.

Based upon that I wouldn't be surprised to see no new networks formed. Those that are in operation will be utilized. The LHN could be converted into a second PAC site.

Perhaps we will see something like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and one of T.C.U. or Baylor to the PAC 12 to form 4 divisions of 5 schools:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Baylor/TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

A few quick thoughts.

Under part II:
I don't think that the SEC would have to add "oodles" of basketball schools to gain a toehold there. The SEC actually has good basketball potential. Tennessee, LSU, Florida & Arkansas all of good tradition & Kentucky is a basketball blue blood. The Mississippi's schools along with Auburn have shown the ability to good as well. Certainly, however, adding a few elite programs (Kansas, NC, Duke, Louisville) would instantly put the SEC among the best in basketball & enhance fan support.

I agree on the B1G. Getting Texas &/or Oklahoma would be huge for them. Adding a combination of basketball schools like Kansas, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, NC or Duke would be a great compliment.

III ESPN Cuts:
To consolidate into a P3 you have to a lot of schools up to the B1G & SEC pay level, about a $10-$15 million dollar increase for each. I don't see how cutting roughly 5 programs & 2 conference shares out pays for this. Sure you're consolidating conferences but you are also giving roughly 20 programs a substantial pay raise. It would seem to me to make this streaming model work that either the conferences would have to take a pay cut or do some consolidation from within to be revenue neutral. Even in a streaming model you will still have games like Kentucky v Vanderbilt that will diminish the overall shares from games like Alabama v Florida.

What to do with the wildcard spot in the CFP? Wouldn't that spot have to go to someone outside of the P3 to avoid federal interference & to avoid a rematch? With the P3 holding their own 4 team conference playoffs wouldn't they have already proven who their best 3 teams are? By giving the P3 the wildcard spot you risk having another Alabama v LSU situation again.

IV Future Realignment:
How does enhancing B1G basketball help them or the networks if football revenue drives the bus? As you said, they well shore up conference weaknesses.

You are right, they won't be paying 3 ACC schools $21.5 million each or $26 million each to 2 Big 12 schools but they will be paying over $30 million to 12 ACC schools & 7 Big 12 schools. That's another $28 million spent on the B12 schools & $108 million spent on ACC schools, $136 million more. They would be spending $136 million to save $130 million? Now with the reduced overhead the may turn out to be revenue neutral.

Lenville you didn't read carefully enough. In the Big 10 (FOX owns 51% of the BTN. ESPN isn't the primary pay master in this scenario other than to the SEC. They would pay about 40% of the total of the six schools moving to the Big 10. That's a reduction even with a 10-15 million pay boost.

Everything that the PAC gets will be a 50% split with FOX. That will be a slight increase.

Subletting some SEC T2 games would save them quite a bit.

The only schools they have to pony up for completely will be the six going to the SEC. CBS will just given them the same share the rest get now. So dropping 5 schools is a savings of 136 million. Dropping 60% of the payout to those going Big 10 is another savings. Subletting some T2 SEC games is another savings. Their profits go up in the Big 10 and SEC and possibly in the PAC. Then dropping a channel and cutting more heads gives you the rest.

As far as the wildcard game goes it would be given to the school regardless of conference that had the best remaining record within the P4. There is no lawsuit if a baseline level of athletic investment, minimal standards for facilities are set, and a requisite number of sports required for admittance.

(01-28-2016 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  IV. Future Realignment

I wouldn't be surprised if a push for consolidation occurs when everyone is up to speed with the new environment for broadcasting athletics and have some reasonable idea of what kind of transition period will transpire before streaming is a fuller reality. Since a school joins a conference with the intentions to stay and that kind of change is costly and cumbersome I don't see any further expansion based purely upon market models occurring.

Product placement and the most reasonable approach to shoring up weaknesses will be the new plan for expansion.

Based upon that I wouldn't be surprised to see no new networks formed. Those that are in operation will be utilized. The LHN could be converted into a second PAC site.

Perhaps we will see something like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and one of T.C.U. or Baylor to the PAC 12 to form 4 divisions of 5 schools:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Baylor/TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

When speaking of savings, there is also the projected costs that would be associated with keeping the ACC together...i.e. a new network and probably an increased T1 contract in the future.

When moving a few schools to the SEC, the SECN proceeds will cover most of the increase over the current ACC contract without the overhead of an entirely new network.

Let's say the B1G took UNC, Duke, UVA, Syracuse, BC, and finally landed Notre Dame. The ACC isn't even paying ND that much so splitting what they currently do with FOX might even save a little cash there as well albeit a small amount.

Let's then say the SEC took Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, and Virginia Tech. The SECN value will increase somewhat from tapping a couple of large new markets. Even though the market model will be reduced in influence, it won't completely go away for a while. Eventually, the value of streaming products will increase as well when demand and consumption goes up. The reason it's so much cheaper now is because 1) overhead, but 2) those services don't have nearly as many subscribers as traditional cable. The value of the SECN will probably increase with time rather than decrease as cable is phased out. Same for the BTN.

I'm not sure I see ESPN and FOX splitting the ownership of the PAC Networks. That would kind of be like those 2 entities splitting ownership of ESPNU or FS2. I think there might be too many conflicting interests for that to work, but splitting the T1 and T2 rights? Absolutely.

I also see the logic of the PAC 12 expanding into Big 12 country to gain viewers even if the markets aren't as great by the standard of today's model.

UT, TT, TCU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and ISU...I can see that working. I'd call that the Pacific Western Conference That league might be able to at least double their viewership with a move like that.

So at that point you have Baylor, WVU, Pitt, Wake, and Miami on the outside looking in. Schools like Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and UConn are also left without a Power home for good probably. Although, I can see schools like BYU and WVU becoming more valuable in a purely viewer based model.

(01-29-2016 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 11:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I. The Current Conditions

Five years ago I told a group of my SEC friends on another site that the market model would be a passing phase on the way to the end goal of the networks. One reason that ESPN's overhead is too high is because they purposefully overpaid for the realignment that has already occurred. Their goal was to divide the interest of the largest states into multiple conferences. That's why they were behind a failed deal that would have taken N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, why they were for taking a large single market in Missouri away from potential rival FOX, and why they were for fragmenting the Texas market by backing A&M to the SEC, and why they were dead set against the SEC gaining a majority hold in Florida by taking F.S.U.. It's also why the sewed up the best product of the Old Big East in an effort to thwart the unleveraged expansion of the BTN into the Northeast. And why the later spent foolishly to tether Bevo away from the PAC.

To gain this control they were willing to pay multiple conferences for the total households subscribing to ESPN's bundle within the same duplicated states. But, this was just a temporary move on their part, and one that now will come to an end.

Five years ago I said that a saturation model would replace the footprint model which was but a carrot to move the product around that they wanted moved. By saturation I meant that in the state of Florida if the Gators drew 45% of the viewers, the Seminoles 40% of the viewers and the Canes the other 15% (numbers just for example) that they would only pay the SEC for 45% of the state of Florida and the ACC 60%.

Well the saturation model has now been replaced by market forces with a more far reaching method of fragmenting costs, streaming. The possibility of one day paying the conferences only for the actual number of viewers is changing the whole landscape of realignment.

The new winners of realignment will be those conferences with the most brand on brand competition whether that is football, basketball, or any other sport. The size of a markets won't matter when conferences are rewarded for actual viewers. The need to take a Virginia and North Carolina school is now only as important as the number of dedicated viewers they bring. In that regard the size of market is a plus, but it is no longer the slam dunk reason for the addition.

II. Economic Factors

While it is no longer 2008 the result of QE may very well be the same protracted stagnation that Japan has suffered for over 2 decades. Couple that with the dying out of the last two vested generations of the middle class in American history (WWII & Boomers) and the anticipation of well heeled donors in large numbers has passed and along with it the first decline in attendance at college football in decades is underway. In part this is happening because the rise in donations to buy tickets and the ticket prices themselves are causing more young fans to opt out and go the route of cable which to a much more tech savvy generation means those with the skill sets to appreciate and utilize cheaper delivery modes.

This has the networks, the conferences, the schools, and the consumers pausing to reevaluate their present positions. The SEC would have to add oodles of basketball schools to gain a larger toehold there, so they won't. Instead they will simply spend more football wealth on basketball and pursue growth by that method. The quickest way now for the SEC to add value is by seeking solid football brands to add to its already staunch inventory.

Conversely the Big 10 can't add enough football brands effectively to boost its content. It can however dominate college basketball and use the wealth of its region and alumni to build better football programs among its member schools. This doesn't mean that the Big 10 will not add football brands, but it does mean they can maximize their position by strengthening what it is that they already do wonderfully.

The net result of both will be better basketball and better football and probably a future alliance taking advantage of their inherent and historical rivalry.

The PAC will expand markets into areas where a higher percentage of viewers are engaged. The Big 12 has been a conference in need of scope and the PAC has been a conference in need of carriage and dedicated viewers. The PAC has scope and scholarship. The Big 12 has the second highest % of viewers based on market size in the nation just ahead of the Big 10 and just behind the SEC.

III. ESPN's Cuts
$250 million by 2017 is a tall order but not an insurmountable one. It won't take long for strategies to be reassessed and replaced before things start in earnest again to consolidate product into areas where it will be the most valuable, and to do so in ways that cut costs without punishing the schools.

Almost every conference leadership and office expenses eats one full member's share of the profits. Eliminating two conferences is the equivalent of eliminating two schools from the pie. Consolidating into three somewhat more compact regional conferences cuts down on the legal work for ESPN and could eliminate 5 more schools from the pie while delivering better product placement, guaranteeing the participation of all three regions through the semifinals in football, and permitting a wild card selection which could again provide a way to balance audience participation for the networks when needed.

For the schools regionalism cuts down on the travel for minor sports, particularly if divisional play is emphasized and the divisions are regionally grouped. It also guarantees that the alumni of the schools involved have a better chance to drive a reasonable distance to the away games. So it also serves to enhance ticket sales and attendance, not to mention the stands are a lot fuller when the fans care about playing the opponent.

IV. Future Realignment

I wouldn't be surprised if a push for consolidation occurs when everyone is up to speed with the new environment for broadcasting athletics and have some reasonable idea of what kind of transition period will transpire before streaming is a fuller reality. Since a school joins a conference with the intentions to stay and that kind of change is costly and cumbersome I don't see any further expansion based purely upon market models occurring.

Product placement and the most reasonable approach to shoring up weaknesses will be the new plan for expansion.

Based upon that I wouldn't be surprised to see no new networks formed. Those that are in operation will be utilized. The LHN could be converted into a second PAC site.

Perhaps we will see something like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and one of T.C.U. or Baylor to the PAC 12 to form 4 divisions of 5 schools:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Baylor/TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

A few quick thoughts.

Under part II:
I don't think that the SEC would have to add "oodles" of basketball schools to gain a toehold there. The SEC actually has good basketball potential. Tennessee, LSU, Florida & Arkansas all of good tradition & Kentucky is a basketball blue blood. The Mississippi's schools along with Auburn have shown the ability to good as well. Certainly, however, adding a few elite programs (Kansas, NC, Duke, Louisville) would instantly put the SEC among the best in basketball & enhance fan support.

I agree on the B1G. Getting Texas &/or Oklahoma would be huge for them. Adding a combination of basketball schools like Kansas, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, NC or Duke would be a great compliment.

III ESPN Cuts:
To consolidate into a P3 you have to a lot of schools up to the B1G & SEC pay level, about a $10-$15 million dollar increase for each. I don't see how cutting roughly 5 programs & 2 conference shares out pays for this. Sure you're consolidating conferences but you are also giving roughly 20 programs a substantial pay raise. It would seem to me to make this streaming model work that either the conferences would have to take a pay cut or do some consolidation from within to be revenue neutral. Even in a streaming model you will still have games like Kentucky v Vanderbilt that will diminish the overall shares from games like Alabama v Florida.

What to do with the wildcard spot in the CFP? Wouldn't that spot have to go to someone outside of the P3 to avoid federal interference & to avoid a rematch? With the P3 holding their own 4 team conference playoffs wouldn't they have already proven who their best 3 teams are? By giving the P3 the wildcard spot you risk having another Alabama v LSU situation again.

IV Future Realignment:
How does enhancing B1G basketball help them or the networks if football revenue drives the bus? As you said, they well shore up conference weaknesses.

You are right, they won't be paying 3 ACC schools $21.5 million each or $26 million each to 2 Big 12 schools but they will be paying over $30 million to 12 ACC schools & 7 Big 12 schools. That's another $28 million spent on the B12 schools & $108 million spent on ACC schools, $136 million more. They would be spending $136 million to save $130 million? Now with the reduced overhead the may turn out to be revenue neutral.

Lenville you didn't read carefully enough. In the Big 10 (FOX owns 51% of the BTN. ESPN isn't the primary pay master in this scenario other than to the SEC. They would pay about 40% of the total of the six schools moving to the Big 10. That's a reduction even with a 10-15 million pay boost.

Everything that the PAC gets will be a 50% split with FOX. That will be a slight increase.

Subletting some SEC T2 games would save them quite a bit.

The only schools they have to pony up for completely will be the six going to the SEC. CBS will just given them the same share the rest get now. So dropping 5 schools is a savings of 136 million. Dropping 60% of the payout to those going Big 10 is another savings. Subletting some T2 SEC games is another savings. Their profits go up in the Big 10 and SEC and possibly in the PAC. Then dropping a channel and cutting more heads gives you the rest.

As far as the wildcard game goes it would be given to the school regardless of conference that had the best remaining record within the P4. There is no lawsuit if a baseline level of athletic investment, minimal standards for facilities are set, and a requisite number of sports required for admittance.

I understood your point of ESPN passing a lot of the cost off onto Fox but my point was simply that the overall costs would be about the same. While ESPN would be saving a ton of money, Fox would face a significant increase in their costs. Putting ND in a conference for football would be an increase for both ESPN & Fox since their current football TV contract is with NBC.

Why would Fox bailout ESPN when they could outbid them for what they want in the next round of negotiations & possibly pay a lot less?

As for a P3 wildcard you would face a situation like the Alabama v LSU BCS NCG which helped spur on the change to the CFP. The fans made it known that they don't want this. A move to a P4 or P2 seems more likely to me under your scenario.

Wouldn't the networks be able to save more money by combining the members of the B12 & ACC into 1 conference? Give them B12 money or $2 million more & a network for additional income. They could easily cut out 5-7 schools & really cut their overhead.

8 B12 x $2 million = $16 million
9 ACC x $7 million = $63 million
Norte Dame = additional $22 million
Total $101 million

Minus 2 B12 = $52 million
Minus 4 ACC = $84 million
Total cut $136 million

By combining the B12 & ACC into an 18 team conference, the networks would save $35 million & create an additional conference network that adds revenue while also fully gaining ND football. That's a win for ESPN & Fox.

(01-29-2016 06:14 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 11:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I. The Current Conditions

Five years ago I told a group of my SEC friends on another site that the market model would be a passing phase on the way to the end goal of the networks. One reason that ESPN's overhead is too high is because they purposefully overpaid for the realignment that has already occurred. Their goal was to divide the interest of the largest states into multiple conferences. That's why they were behind a failed deal that would have taken N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, why they were for taking a large single market in Missouri away from potential rival FOX, and why they were for fragmenting the Texas market by backing A&M to the SEC, and why they were dead set against the SEC gaining a majority hold in Florida by taking F.S.U.. It's also why the sewed up the best product of the Old Big East in an effort to thwart the unleveraged expansion of the BTN into the Northeast. And why the later spent foolishly to tether Bevo away from the PAC.

To gain this control they were willing to pay multiple conferences for the total households subscribing to ESPN's bundle within the same duplicated states. But, this was just a temporary move on their part, and one that now will come to an end.

Five years ago I said that a saturation model would replace the footprint model which was but a carrot to move the product around that they wanted moved. By saturation I meant that in the state of Florida if the Gators drew 45% of the viewers, the Seminoles 40% of the viewers and the Canes the other 15% (numbers just for example) that they would only pay the SEC for 45% of the state of Florida and the ACC 60%.

Well the saturation model has now been replaced by market forces with a more far reaching method of fragmenting costs, streaming. The possibility of one day paying the conferences only for the actual number of viewers is changing the whole landscape of realignment.

The new winners of realignment will be those conferences with the most brand on brand competition whether that is football, basketball, or any other sport. The size of a markets won't matter when conferences are rewarded for actual viewers. The need to take a Virginia and North Carolina school is now only as important as the number of dedicated viewers they bring. In that regard the size of market is a plus, but it is no longer the slam dunk reason for the addition.

II. Economic Factors

While it is no longer 2008 the result of QE may very well be the same protracted stagnation that Japan has suffered for over 2 decades. Couple that with the dying out of the last two vested generations of the middle class in American history (WWII & Boomers) and the anticipation of well heeled donors in large numbers has passed and along with it the first decline in attendance at college football in decades is underway. In part this is happening because the rise in donations to buy tickets and the ticket prices themselves are causing more young fans to opt out and go the route of cable which to a much more tech savvy generation means those with the skill sets to appreciate and utilize cheaper delivery modes.

This has the networks, the conferences, the schools, and the consumers pausing to reevaluate their present positions. The SEC would have to add oodles of basketball schools to gain a larger toehold there, so they won't. Instead they will simply spend more football wealth on basketball and pursue growth by that method. The quickest way now for the SEC to add value is by seeking solid football brands to add to its already staunch inventory.

Conversely the Big 10 can't add enough football brands effectively to boost its content. It can however dominate college basketball and use the wealth of its region and alumni to build better football programs among its member schools. This doesn't mean that the Big 10 will not add football brands, but it does mean they can maximize their position by strengthening what it is that they already do wonderfully.

The net result of both will be better basketball and better football and probably a future alliance taking advantage of their inherent and historical rivalry.

The PAC will expand markets into areas where a higher percentage of viewers are engaged. The Big 12 has been a conference in need of scope and the PAC has been a conference in need of carriage and dedicated viewers. The PAC has scope and scholarship. The Big 12 has the second highest % of viewers based on market size in the nation just ahead of the Big 10 and just behind the SEC.

III. ESPN's Cuts
$250 million by 2017 is a tall order but not an insurmountable one. It won't take long for strategies to be reassessed and replaced before things start in earnest again to consolidate product into areas where it will be the most valuable, and to do so in ways that cut costs without punishing the schools.

Almost every conference leadership and office expenses eats one full member's share of the profits. Eliminating two conferences is the equivalent of eliminating two schools from the pie. Consolidating into three somewhat more compact regional conferences cuts down on the legal work for ESPN and could eliminate 5 more schools from the pie while delivering better product placement, guaranteeing the participation of all three regions through the semifinals in football, and permitting a wild card selection which could again provide a way to balance audience participation for the networks when needed.

For the schools regionalism cuts down on the travel for minor sports, particularly if divisional play is emphasized and the divisions are regionally grouped. It also guarantees that the alumni of the schools involved have a better chance to drive a reasonable distance to the away games. So it also serves to enhance ticket sales and attendance, not to mention the stands are a lot fuller when the fans care about playing the opponent.

IV. Future Realignment

I wouldn't be surprised if a push for consolidation occurs when everyone is up to speed with the new environment for broadcasting athletics and have some reasonable idea of what kind of transition period will transpire before streaming is a fuller reality. Since a school joins a conference with the intentions to stay and that kind of change is costly and cumbersome I don't see any further expansion based purely upon market models occurring.

Product placement and the most reasonable approach to shoring up weaknesses will be the new plan for expansion.

Based upon that I wouldn't be surprised to see no new networks formed. Those that are in operation will be utilized. The LHN could be converted into a second PAC site.

Perhaps we will see something like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and one of T.C.U. or Baylor to the PAC 12 to form 4 divisions of 5 schools:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Baylor/TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

And a Big 10 that takes 6 of the best basketball, academic, and lacrosse schools of the ACC, while the SEC takes 6 of its football first schools.

Why? Such a move enhances ESPN's value in the basketball first schools by placing their content with that of the Big 10. ESPN keeps the T1 deal for Big 10 football and T1 for Big 10 basketball will have so much content it won't matter who has T2. ESPN cuts around 60% of the payout to those 6 schools but enhances their advertising appeal for the rights they retain.

ESPN enhances tremendously the content value for SEC football for the total expense of 6 schools. They now have so much SEC content they can sublease part of it to FOX to alleviate overhead and gain FOX's cooperation in the new approach for both networks. They will need it if they are to gain a % each of the PACN in exchange for improving PAC distribution and payout. Morphing the LHN helps here and the expenses are still split 50/50 for the product they were essentially sharing 50/50.

In the process ESPN no longer has to pay half of 26 million each for two Big 12 properties, or all of 21.5 million for 3 ACC properties. In total they should approach $130 million plus in reductions in overhead while maximizing their content values in hoops and football without having to give up access to anyone. Cutting a channel out like ESPN classic and more talking heads would clear the rest of the requirements.

Then they could spend their time planning with FOX for the transition to streaming while realizing that they still have the best basketball and football product to be offered but now those titles belong to the Big 10 and SEC.

While this might not be what happens, it certainly is a possibility that has to be considered.

A few quick thoughts.

Under part II:
I don't think that the SEC would have to add "oodles" of basketball schools to gain a toehold there. The SEC actually has good basketball potential. Tennessee, LSU, Florida & Arkansas all of good tradition & Kentucky is a basketball blue blood. The Mississippi's schools along with Auburn have shown the ability to good as well. Certainly, however, adding a few elite programs (Kansas, NC, Duke, Louisville) would instantly put the SEC among the best in basketball & enhance fan support.

I agree on the B1G. Getting Texas &/or Oklahoma would be huge for them. Adding a combination of basketball schools like Kansas, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, NC or Duke would be a great compliment.

III ESPN Cuts:
To consolidate into a P3 you have to a lot of schools up to the B1G & SEC pay level, about a $10-$15 million dollar increase for each. I don't see how cutting roughly 5 programs & 2 conference shares out pays for this. Sure you're consolidating conferences but you are also giving roughly 20 programs a substantial pay raise. It would seem to me to make this streaming model work that either the conferences would have to take a pay cut or do some consolidation from within to be revenue neutral. Even in a streaming model you will still have games like Kentucky v Vanderbilt that will diminish the overall shares from games like Alabama v Florida.

What to do with the wildcard spot in the CFP? Wouldn't that spot have to go to someone outside of the P3 to avoid federal interference & to avoid a rematch? With the P3 holding their own 4 team conference playoffs wouldn't they have already proven who their best 3 teams are? By giving the P3 the wildcard spot you risk having another Alabama v LSU situation again.

IV Future Realignment:
How does enhancing B1G basketball help them or the networks if football revenue drives the bus? As you said, they well shore up conference weaknesses.

You are right, they won't be paying 3 ACC schools $21.5 million each or $26 million each to 2 Big 12 schools but they will be paying over $30 million to 12 ACC schools & 7 Big 12 schools. That's another $28 million spent on the B12 schools & $108 million spent on ACC schools, $136 million more. They would be spending $136 million to save $130 million? Now with the reduced overhead the may turn out to be revenue neutral.

Lenville you didn't read carefully enough. In the Big 10 (FOX owns 51% of the BTN. ESPN isn't the primary pay master in this scenario other than to the SEC. They would pay about 40% of the total of the six schools moving to the Big 10. That's a reduction even with a 10-15 million pay boost.

Everything that the PAC gets will be a 50% split with FOX. That will be a slight increase.

Subletting some SEC T2 games would save them quite a bit.

The only schools they have to pony up for completely will be the six going to the SEC. CBS will just given them the same share the rest get now. So dropping 5 schools is a savings of 136 million. Dropping 60% of the payout to those going Big 10 is another savings. Subletting some T2 SEC games is another savings. Their profits go up in the Big 10 and SEC and possibly in the PAC. Then dropping a channel and cutting more heads gives you the rest.

As far as the wildcard game goes it would be given to the school regardless of conference that had the best remaining record within the P4. There is no lawsuit if a baseline level of athletic investment, minimal standards for facilities are set, and a requisite number of sports required for admittance.

I understood your point of ESPN passing a lot of the cost off onto Fox but my point was simply that the overall costs would be about the same. While ESPN would be saving a ton of money, Fox would face a significant increase in their costs. Putting ND in a conference for football would be an increase for both ESPN & Fox since their current football TV contract is with NBC.

Why would Fox bailout ESPN when they could outbid them for what they want in the next round of negotiations & possibly pay a lot less?

As for a P3 wildcard you would face a situation like the Alabama v LSU BCS NCG which helped spur on the change to the CFP. The fans made it known that they don't want this. A move to a P4 or P2 seems more likely to me under your scenario.

Wouldn't the networks be able to save more money by combining the members of the B12 & ACC into 1 conference? Give them B12 money or $2 million more & a network for additional income. They could easily cut out 5-7 schools & really cut their overhead.

8 B12 x $2 million = $16 million
9 ACC x $7 million = $63 million
Norte Dame = additional $22 million
Total $101 million

Minus 2 B12 = $52 million
Minus 4 ACC = $84 million
Total cut $136 million

By combining the B12 & ACC into an 18 team conference, the networks would save $35 million & create an additional conference network that adds revenue while also fully gaining ND football. That's a win for ESPN & Fox.

Lenville I discussed the N.D. situation in another post somewhere. They would keep their NBC contract and that would be deducted fully from their earnings until the contract expires. So deduct the 22 million for N.D.. Their away games would belong to Big 10 to distribute. Their home games to N.B.C. So knock out that 22 million. Calculate in the sublet value of SEC T2 content in one time slot for the season, maybe $35 million over 13 weeks.

As for your conference calculations figure 15 million x .40 x 6 for the ACC to the Big 10 = 36 million
figure 15 million x .8 x 6 for the SEC = 72 millon
figure 10 x .5 x 8 for the Big 12 schools move to the PAC =40 million

Total of 148 million likely additional revenue for those moving to bigger conf.
- 136 million savings from cutting 5 schools
- 35 million savings from subletting some SEC games.
23 milliion in savings without losing access to any schools.

Now look at additional advertising revenues from content games added. There are a lot of variables to get to a difference of 250 million for 2017 over 2016. Cut a channel (ESPN Classic), cut more heads.

Plus we are being generous with the estimates on additional income.