(01-11-2018 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-11-2018 09:27 AM)Erictelevision Wrote: PG: you're OBVIOUSLY correct that I overstated the geographic spread of the AAC. As to why the BIG XII is constantly discussed for implosion? It's the least geographically stable, and has an alpha-dog looking to get out.
I'd say the ACC is at least as geographically/culturally unstable. The ACC sprawls from Miami Beach in the south to Boston in the north and Louisville basically in the midwest.
And politically, it has its football-first deep south contingent and its mid-atlantic basketball-first contingent, and then its Yankee emphasize-both contingent as well.
Their commish did a great job with the GOR and promise of an AACN to settle things down, but those fissures still exist and if things head south, particularly if ACCN revenues don't materialize as hoped for, they could re-open.
Quo the ACC exists for three reasons:
1. It was initially cheap to acquire.
2. It was a great place to park the OBE teams that ESPN wanted to keep out of an independent Big 10 Network and away from Jim Delany and since the OBE was at least on par with, if not stronger than, the ACC at that time it was a move to protect ESPN's investment in the ACC.
3. The ACC existed to keep the SEC from becoming too strong in the Southeast, at least in terms of leverage over key states like Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Tech was conveniently already in the ACC. And in '91 ESPN successfully kept Clemson and even more so Florida State out of the SEC's hands. Serendipity was they also made sure that South Carolina stayed out of the ACC's hands. The last thing they wanted was for a conference to control a whole state. So the market model was used as an excuse to break up states.
If you don't believe me just look at the ESPN's property maps and remembered they targeted North Carolina, Virginia and Texas to break up state monopolies by conferences. They knew from day 1 that if they could split these big states it gave them an in to each of them without having to go through their primary conference. They were wiling to pay more short term on subscription fees but their plans all along were to shift to a % of the market pay model. Streaming refined that beyond their initial thinking so that in the future more of the pay will be based on actual viewership. Both play into the original plan of divide and conquer.
So Quo the ACC is not in peril as it should be because ESPN has a use for it. Whereas the Big 12 only has 3 maybe 4 products the networks are interested in: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Texas Tech since it is a P5 public in the state of Texas.
Breaking up the Big 12 is not a fan fantasy, it is a network fantasy. Texas and Oklahoma can be used to improve the Big 10 or SEC without giving them huge leverage.
Oklahoma in the SEC puts the SEC in Dallas without giving them control of the whole state by giving them Texas. Texas is large enough they may get their own way, but I would bet that ESPN would love to pair them with N.D. in the ACC, or even use them to gain more leverage with the Big 10. Kansas would be a good travel partner with either OU or UT. But neither FOX nor ESPN own a % of the PAC and there isn't much there for them. They both lease 50% of the PAC product and that gives them all they want for that time slot.
I seriously doubt that Texa-homa to the PAC is viable because those 4 all earn more than any PAC school for their TV rights and could earn even more in either of the Big 10 or SEC. In the case of Texas they earn close to 22 million more than the PAC schools for TV rights and OU earns about 11 million more. So it's not happening.
But if the networks could poach UT / OU / KU and another out of the Big 12 then when the contract expires in 2025 they are off the hook for 35 million each for the other 6. Does that mean the other 6 all lose P status? Probably not.
The PAC could be assisted with the Texas market by only Tech and T.C.U. if the networks are willing to underwrite that and even if the PAC TV revenue only goes up 3 million per school the networks would be saving about 5 million each on ever how many Big 12 schools head there so for the cost of about 21 million they could add two schools to the PAC and increase their CTZ inventory of PAC brands and do so without wasting OU or UT on a PAC schedule.
WVU could be another football / basketball bone to the ACC now that Louisville has cracked the academic argument there.
So I wouldn't rule out the absorption of the Big 12, but I would rule it out for about 5 more years.