ESPN really did a number on the B1G and the PAC by taking Missouri. It has forced Delany into a totally new strategy....and the PAC is the big looser.
Colorado and Kansas to the B1G is pretty much a sure thing at this point.
The SEC gets Oklahoma and the team they need ..... West Virginia.
Yep, Texas to the ACC and Notre Dame comes in too!

(01-05-2019 08:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here is an off the wall suggestion--what if the conference that was disassembled was the PAC 12 instead?

They are a financial mess right now and struggling to get playoff berths. The Big 12 could grab 6 of the 12 and the Big Ten could have 2 or maybe 4. Let's say the 4 California schools.

Oregon St and Washington St are probably the most likely left out.

Other than travel it might work out fine for the Big 10 and Big 12. But I have a feeling the PAC will stick together (at least its core members).

(01-05-2019 04:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 03:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 02:30 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:14 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  How is Rutgers working out for you? I must say when you took them you did not get the financial gain you thought. And the BIG does not hold Kansas City or St. Louis. St, Louis is now an SEC City and Kansas City belongs to KU. That's just the facts. If you think most of us in Big 12 Territory watch the Big 12 Net, we do not. You are misinformed.

The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.

I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.

Most of the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 are "baggage" as well. Half the SEC is "baggage."

You're right if we are talking about the quality of the athletic programs. My thoughts about the Big 12 breaking up are based on the value of the media content. ESPN dreams of a day when they can sell ads in North Carolina without paying four P5 schools in the bargain. Same is probably true in Indiana (3 P5's). I think they can drive a financial wedge between TX/OK and their bretheren. They still want to sell ads in Kansas, West Virginia, etc. but they would rather buy the content at G5 prices.

I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion. Chatting about it is so much simpler than arriving at agreements among muliple parties with different interests and motives. But who can say that these moves aren't already in the works? ...or not.

Correct. Especially now that we are moving toward a content driven pay model and the cable footprint subscription fee model will only be operative for T3 conference networks.

ESPN needs 3 schools to control the ad rates for a region (Texas and Oklahoma) of 32 bumping 33 million. They are currently paying 7 P5 salaries for what they control by owning the rights to A&M, Oklahoma, and Texas. Ideally they would be crazy not to try for that trio. Realistically they might be willing to accomodate 4 instead of 7, and would probably be more resistant to 5.

Not only do they efficiently land the region with those three but all 3 are all content multipliers as well. It's the equivalent of cutting 42% of your overhead and tripling your profit.

And at a time when recruits are becoming less available nationally it elevates the brands of those three schools in their region, and places them even more in the national eye.

It might not be popular, but it would be a synergistic move for all involved and for the network that lands them. Should Oklahoma ever commit to the SEC it may be the only move Texas could make to preserve their scheduling model and to keep from suffering a brand disadvantage.

On a side note which two do you think that ESPN or another conference would prefer from North Carolina? Would it be the two state schools which conferences might prefer, or would it be UNC & Duke as Cunningham once sought to protect?

As for the Carolina Quartet, maybe only UNC survives as an ACC member and the others, especially Duke, will have to earn their keep as Big East basketball teams.

(01-05-2019 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN really did a number on the B1G and the PAC by taking Missouri. It has forced Delany into a totally new strategy....and the PAC is the big looser.
Colorado and Kansas to the B1G is pretty much a sure thing at this point.
The SEC gets Oklahoma and the team they need ..... West Virginia.
Yep, Texas to the ACC and Notre Dame comes in too!

Wish you had posted this earlier. It would have saved us all a lot of keyboarding and strategery.

(01-05-2019 10:53 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN really did a number on the B1G and the PAC by taking Missouri. It has forced Delany into a totally new strategy....and the PAC is the big looser.
Colorado and Kansas to the B1G is pretty much a sure thing at this point.
The SEC gets Oklahoma and the team they need ..... West Virginia.
Yep, Texas to the ACC and Notre Dame comes in too!

Wish you had posted this earlier. It would have saved us all a lot of keyboarding and strategery.

Nothing like choice sarcasm!

(01-05-2019 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With the PAC lagging significantly financially and with California bleeding middle class families and growing in illegal aliens, the best case could be made for the Big 10 getting to Texas through Colorado. Both are AAU both bring larger more affluent markets and while Colorado loves their West Coast exposure this would be the best time for the Big 10 to push in that direction. The lure of the revenue and an impressive academic consortium might be enough given the issues of the PAC.

If the Big 10 could pull of Colorado / Texas the SEC could be satisfied with Oklahoma / Kansas. The Aggies are happy, the SEC gets a larger slice of the DFW market and two national brands one of which is AAU. The Big 10 compromises nothing and gains not only stellar academic members but two major demographic grabs, inclusion into a recruiting hotbed, and does so economically. Plus the contiguity is closer than skipping Kansas to get to Oklahoma.

IMO this is the only win/win for the Big 10 and SEC.

WVU goes to the ACC we move to a champ only P4, and N.D. goes all in with the ACC giving them the content boost they need. If the PAC wants to replace Colorado they have Texas Tech or T.C.U. to choose from. (BTW: TCU main campus is governed by church polity and is academically free. Their seminary is governed separately.)

Very intriguing idea. The issues I see are the geographical stretch and the issue of more old rivalries that would be disrupted. Disney also may have to back up the Brinks truck to smooth the Eers into the ACC ecosystem. According to ACC lifers here, WVU may have trouble gaining acceptance. I would think Louisville getting in broke the mold a bit but their recent troubles may have strengthened the hand of the snobs in the medium term.

The other thing is that Austin may well be the Ann Arbor of the South, so it's not like its "weirdness" would be out of place in the Big Ten. However, the distance is what it is. Not much of an issue for football but definitely for the other sports. The Big Ten may have to go back to eight games to accommodate OOC games like keeping the RRR, renewing the A&M game, the games vs that Indiana Catholic school, USC, etc..

Colorado's geography is interesting in that part of that state's rivers flow towards the Atlantic and the other part to the Pacific. Denver is East of the Rockies but is located in the West. Overall, I think it can work but may take some convincing to turn back East after years of hesitating before joining the PAC.

Speaking of the PAC, they may look to a few MWC programs in the immediate vicinity but I think they'd stick to eleven members. They may try to get a scheduling agreement with the ACC in order to not risk losing those two games against that Indiana Catholic school if consolidation among the power group comes.

With Kansas it's much simpler: beggars can't be choosers and should make the best move regardless of geography, tradition or opinions about "cultural fit" or whatever term the snobs may use.

(01-06-2019 09:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With the PAC lagging significantly financially and with California bleeding middle class families and growing in illegal aliens, the best case could be made for the Big 10 getting to Texas through Colorado. Both are AAU both bring larger more affluent markets and while Colorado loves their West Coast exposure this would be the best time for the Big 10 to push in that direction. The lure of the revenue and an impressive academic consortium might be enough given the issues of the PAC.

If the Big 10 could pull of Colorado / Texas the SEC could be satisfied with Oklahoma / Kansas. The Aggies are happy, the SEC gets a larger slice of the DFW market and two national brands one of which is AAU. The Big 10 compromises nothing and gains not only stellar academic members but two major demographic grabs, inclusion into a recruiting hotbed, and does so economically. Plus the contiguity is closer than skipping Kansas to get to Oklahoma.

IMO this is the only win/win for the Big 10 and SEC.

WVU goes to the ACC we move to a champ only P4, and N.D. goes all in with the ACC giving them the content boost they need. If the PAC wants to replace Colorado they have Texas Tech or T.C.U. to choose from. (BTW: TCU main campus is governed by church polity and is academically free. Their seminary is governed separately.)

Very intriguing idea. The issues I see are the geographical stretch and the issue of more old rivalries that would be disrupted. Disney also may have to back up the Brinks truck to smooth the Eers into the ACC ecosystem. According to ACC lifers here, WVU may have trouble gaining acceptance. I would think Louisville getting in broke the mold a bit but their recent troubles may have strengthened the hand of the snobs in the medium term.

The other thing is that Austin may well be the Ann Arbor of the South, so it's not like its "weirdness" would be out of place in the Big Ten. However, the distance is what it is. Not much of an issue for football but definitely for the other sports. The Big Ten may have to go back to eight games to accommodate OOC games like keeping the RRR, renewing the A&M game, the games vs that Indiana Catholic school, USC, etc..

Colorado's geography is interesting in that part of that state's rivers flow towards the Atlantic and the other part to the Pacific. Denver is East of the Rockies but is located in the West. Overall, I think it can work but may take some convincing to turn back East after years of hesitating before joining the PAC.

Speaking of the PAC, they may look to a few MWC programs in the immediate vicinity but I think they'd stick to eleven members. They may try to get a scheduling agreement with the ACC in order to not risk losing those two games against that Indiana Catholic school if consolidation among the power group comes.

With Kansas it's much simpler: beggars can't be choosers and should make the best move regardless of geography, tradition or opinions about "cultural fit" or whatever term the snobs may use.

It would be just like ESPN to renege on their deal to move Texas to the ACC for something of more value.
What would the mouse do for a slice of the B1G?
Could the "selling off" of B1G equity over the last several years put FOX in a position to sell a portion of the BTN to ESPN in exchange for the biggest realignment prize of all.....Texas?
The compensation for the ACC would be the continuation of the ACCN regardless of cord clippers or less than perfect distribution.
Delany's attempt to allow conferences to go without divisions could be a way to insure Texas that they could pick and choose their own schedule within the B1G, without having to play in Piscataway or Minneapolis.
JR's suggestion may have merit. The ACC at 15 with West Virginia would still have Notre Dame at 5 games (provided the irish would never have to play in Morgantown).
The ACC could settle their alignment problems once and for all with:
BC, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville
UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami/Florida State
VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State/Miami

1) The chance to sell BTN to Disney was when Disney was already buying up 21st Century Fox assets. Either: a) Disney saw no value in BTN; or b) Fox intended to keep BTN for whatever reason. It's kinda late in the process to, all of a sudden, contemplate selling off BTN to Disney now. Besides, any interest Disney has in the Big Ten would be about showing the marquee teams in the early afternoon hours. They may be content allowing Fox to handle the 3rd-tier content to concentrate on perfecting the Deep South strategy.

2) I'm sure a lot of Big Ten lifers would love a schedule where they only play the big dogs and nearby rivals, then skip the rest. The problem is that's not how the Big Ten operates and won't start that with UT. They may set up a schedule where teams have protected games against opponents they care about more, go back to 8 games to make space for marquee games out of conference, but not a schedule where certain conference teams are avoided in perpetuity. That would be an old-Big East-type move and create the type of resentment and mistrust that helped break up that conference. I won't speak for the ACC side of things but I would think they'd do well to avoid making that type of mistake as well.

(01-05-2019 10:39 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 04:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 03:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 02:30 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.

I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.

Most of the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 are "baggage" as well. Half the SEC is "baggage."

You're right if we are talking about the quality of the athletic programs. My thoughts about the Big 12 breaking up are based on the value of the media content. ESPN dreams of a day when they can sell ads in North Carolina without paying four P5 schools in the bargain. Same is probably true in Indiana (3 P5's). I think they can drive a financial wedge between TX/OK and their bretheren. They still want to sell ads in Kansas, West Virginia, etc. but they would rather buy the content at G5 prices.

I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion. Chatting about it is so much simpler than arriving at agreements among muliple parties with different interests and motives. But who can say that these moves aren't already in the works? ...or not.

Correct. Especially now that we are moving toward a content driven pay model and the cable footprint subscription fee model will only be operative for T3 conference networks.

ESPN needs 3 schools to control the ad rates for a region (Texas and Oklahoma) of 32 bumping 33 million. They are currently paying 7 P5 salaries for what they control by owning the rights to A&M, Oklahoma, and Texas. Ideally they would be crazy not to try for that trio. Realistically they might be willing to accomodate 4 instead of 7, and would probably be more resistant to 5.

Not only do they efficiently land the region with those three but all 3 are all content multipliers as well. It's the equivalent of cutting 42% of your overhead and tripling your profit.

And at a time when recruits are becoming less available nationally it elevates the brands of those three schools in their region, and places them even more in the national eye.

It might not be popular, but it would be a synergistic move for all involved and for the network that lands them. Should Oklahoma ever commit to the SEC it may be the only move Texas could make to preserve their scheduling model and to keep from suffering a brand disadvantage.

On a side note which two do you think that ESPN or another conference would prefer from North Carolina? Would it be the two state schools which conferences might prefer, or would it be UNC & Duke as Cunningham once sought to protect?

As for the Carolina Quartet, maybe only UNC survives as an ACC member and the others, especially Duke, will have to earn their keep as Big East basketball teams.

Just for context since I have no idea how you feel about all of your conference brethren:

2018 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 1.108 million viewers
2017 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 2.468 million viewers
2016 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - SECN, not metered
2015 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 0.930 million viewers
2014 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 5.160 million viewers (finally an SEC flavor)
2013 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 1.640 million viewers

2017-18 - Duke vs UNC - 3.37 million viewers
2017-18 - Duke vs UNC - 2.43 million viewers
2016-17 - Duke vs UNC - 4.06 million viewers
2016-17 - Duke vs UNC - 3.08 million viewers
2015-16 - Duke vs UNC - 3.2 million viewers
2015-16 - Duke vs UNC - 2.9 million viewers
2014-15 - Duke vs UNC - 4.24 million viewers
2014-15 - Duke vs UNC - 4.14 million viewers
2013-14 - Duke vs UNC - 3.50 million viewers
2013-14 - Duke vs UNC - 2.29 million viewers (game had to be rescheduled due to weather)
2012-13 - Duke vs UNC - 2.79 million viewers
2012-13 - Duke vs UNC - 2.35 million viewers
2011-12 - Duke vs UNC - 4.25 million viewers
2011-12 - Duke vs UNC - 3.12 million viewers
2010-11 - Duke vs UNC - 4.61 million viewers
2010-11 - Duke vs UNC - 2.37 million viewers
2009-10 - Duke vs UNC - 2.50 million viewers
2009-10 - Duke vs UNC - 2.27 million viewers
2008-09 - Duke vs UNC - 4.63 million viewers
2008-09 - Duke vs UNC - 2.27 million viewers

Darn, still no 5.160 million viewers like the best Ole Miss/Bulldogs game listed above. OH WAIT!!!

2007-08 - Duke vs UNC - 5.61 million viewers
2007-08 - Duke vs UNC - 2.63 million viewers

Well, I suppose I should be fair. It's not as though I have that much data on the Egg Bowl rivalry. I am sure some of their fans will though.

Eleven seasons, 22 regular season games, an average of 3.345 million viewers per game. And those are just the regular season numbers, not including any ACC tourney game match-ups.

Also I realize that Duke-UNC is the zenith of college basketball and that sport basically only accounts for 20% of the TV contract. But still that zenith is probably worth to TV and advertisers more than 45% of the SEC's total 192 conference games from 2013-2017. Still data mining 2018.

Anyhow, my main point is that any commissioner that thinks it is in their conference's best interest to get one of them and not both is not thinking clearly, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-06-2019 07:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  1) The chance to sell BTN to Disney was when Disney was already buying up 21st Century Fox assets. Either: a) Disney saw no value in BTN; or b) Fox intended to keep BTN for whatever reason. It's kinda late in the process to, all of a sudden, contemplate selling off BTN to Disney now. Besides, any interest Disney has in the Big Ten would be about showing the marquee teams in the early afternoon hours. They may be content allowing Fox to handle the 3rd-tier content to concentrate on perfecting the Deep South strategy.

2) I'm sure a lot of Big Ten lifers would love a schedule where they only play the big dogs and nearby rivals, then skip the rest. The problem is that's not how the Big Ten operates and won't start that with UT. They may set up a schedule where teams have protected games against opponents they care about more, go back to 8 games to make space for marquee games out of conference, but not a schedule where certain conference teams are avoided in perpetuity. That would be an old-Big East-type move and create the type of resentment and mistrust that helped break up that conference. I won't speak for the ACC side of things but I would think they'd do well to avoid making that type of mistake as well.

For clarification, I believe from the beginning FOX made FOX News, FOX Sports and FS1 untouchable. Never read anything specifically about BTN, but since the Big Ten is such a huge part of FOX Sports and FS1, I wouldn't think they would want to hand that over to Disney. And they couldn't unload the FOX broadcast network since Disney already owns ABC and because they needed a broadcast channel to televise all of the sports they have beyond college athletics. FOX did want to get rid of all the regional sports networks though but will likely have to buy them back since the government is making Disney unload them.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-06-2019 07:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  1) The chance to sell BTN to Disney was when Disney was already buying up 21st Century Fox assets. Either: a) Disney saw no value in BTN; or b) Fox intended to keep BTN for whatever reason. It's kinda late in the process to, all of a sudden, contemplate selling off BTN to Disney now. Besides, any interest Disney has in the Big Ten would be about showing the marquee teams in the early afternoon hours. They may be content allowing Fox to handle the 3rd-tier content to concentrate on perfecting the Deep South strategy.

2) I'm sure a lot of Big Ten lifers would love a schedule where they only play the big dogs and nearby rivals, then skip the rest. The problem is that's not how the Big Ten operates and won't start that with UT. They may set up a schedule where teams have protected games against opponents they care about more, go back to 8 games to make space for marquee games out of conference, but not a schedule where certain conference teams are avoided in perpetuity. That would be an old-Big East-type move and create the type of resentment and mistrust that helped break up that conference. I won't speak for the ACC side of things but I would think they'd do well to avoid making that type of mistake as well.

If realignment from the Big 12 occurs a few years from now the world of college football could turn upside down.

The two most prominent conferences and the two most involved media companies must find a compromise or all hell is gonna break loose.

Texas and Oklahoma will see an intense courtship from all corners. Media companies will exert their influence and money to direct the outcome they need. The consequences will be significant if one conference sweeps both Big 12 heavyweights.

The action will be multidirectional with conferences negotiating with schools as well as media companies and the prized programs soliciting bids from all.

What we know about "how the Big Ten operates" won't necessarily matter. What we believe about Texas ego and their control fetish will become meaningless. If a media company can deliver TX and OK to the SEC or the B1G, then that media company will make demands of the conference which would be unthinkable today. Weekday games?? Impossible you say? It's only a question of price. Scheduling imbalances?? There is a dollar amout at which it could happen. The Longhorn Network?? Disappears into thin air with a short paragraph on the bottom of a media contract. We have no idea what madness the FAANGs might cause should they choose to engage.

Or maybe the Big 12 adds two and moves forward. Wouldn't that be a bore?

(01-07-2019 12:50 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 07:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  1) The chance to sell BTN to Disney was when Disney was already buying up 21st Century Fox assets. Either: a) Disney saw no value in BTN; or b) Fox intended to keep BTN for whatever reason. It's kinda late in the process to, all of a sudden, contemplate selling off BTN to Disney now. Besides, any interest Disney has in the Big Ten would be about showing the marquee teams in the early afternoon hours. They may be content allowing Fox to handle the 3rd-tier content to concentrate on perfecting the Deep South strategy.

2) I'm sure a lot of Big Ten lifers would love a schedule where they only play the big dogs and nearby rivals, then skip the rest. The problem is that's not how the Big Ten operates and won't start that with UT. They may set up a schedule where teams have protected games against opponents they care about more, go back to 8 games to make space for marquee games out of conference, but not a schedule where certain conference teams are avoided in perpetuity. That would be an old-Big East-type move and create the type of resentment and mistrust that helped break up that conference. I won't speak for the ACC side of things but I would think they'd do well to avoid making that type of mistake as well.

If realignment from the Big 12 occurs a few years from now the world of college football could turn upside down.

The two most prominent conferences and the two most involved media companies must find a compromise or all hell is gonna break loose.

Texas and Oklahoma will see an intense courtship from all corners. Media companies will exert their influence and money to direct the outcome they need. The consequences will be significant if one conference sweeps both Big 12 heavyweights.

The action will be multidirectional with conferences negotiating with schools as well as media companies and the prized programs soliciting bids from all.

What we know about "how the Big Ten operates" won't necessarily matter. What we believe about Texas ego and their control fetish will become meaningless. If a media company can deliver TX and OK to the SEC or the B1G, then that media company will make demands of the conference which would be unthinkable today. Weekday games?? Impossible you say? It's only a question of price. Scheduling imbalances?? There is a dollar amout at which it could happen. The Longhorn Network?? Disappears into thin air with a short paragraph on the bottom of a media contract. We have no idea what madness the FAANGs might cause should they choose to engage.

Or maybe the Big 12 adds two and moves forward. Wouldn't that be a bore?

FOX and ESPN have a symbiotic relationship now that FOX holds so much Disney stock. They could surreptitiously work to broker out acceptable additions to the Big 10 and SEC, and broker other key schools within the Big 12. By working together they could hold the explosive nature of the event into more of a controlled explosion as the Big 12 as we know it come to an end. If they act early, it gives them the ability to renegotiate existing contracts with the Big 10, SEC and possibly the ACC and in so doing extend the contracts for another decade thereby sidestepping the FAANG emergence in 2023-4. I think 9 conference games or just 10P games could be that price you are talking about. They can't demand too much at once because it would cost them too much and the conferences don't like to give too much at once.

At this point I'm not sure the PAC is relevant to any of these potential actions. FOX and ESPN control all of the rights between the SEC/B10/ACC except for T1 rights in the SEC, and some basketball rights in the Big 10 that belong to CBS. Mitigating damages in the Big 12 GOR would be easily accomplished and exit fees could be the primary cash outlay by the moving schools.

I look for 2021-3 to be the window for getting things done. There's nothing to keep them from moving now, but negotiating all of this if it were to occur will take a bit longer and waiting until nearer the end of the GOR seems pragmatic.

If things bust wide open it's more likely to come as a result of the Alston decision. We should know soon enough on that.

(01-07-2019 01:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  FOX and ESPN have a symbiotic relationship now that FOX holds so much Disney stock.

To be precise, the new Fox corporation won't hold any Disney stock. The Murdochs would, if you put their shares together, be both the largest Fox shareholder and the largest Disney shareholder, though even as the largest Disney shareholder (as a group) they will still hold less than 15%. At Disney, they will only control one or at most two seats on the board. At Fox they will still practically have control of everything.

A good guess is that means that Fox might possibly avoid making decisions that would hurt Disney's stock price, but the converse isn't true, i.e., Disney isn't going to make business decisions based on whether they would help Fox.

(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...ssion=true

They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Your second sentance gave me a seizure.

Comparing message board theories to a supposed journalist is cute.

(01-07-2019 04:12 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...ssion=true

They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Your second sentance gave me a seizure.

Comparing message board theories to a supposed journalist is cute.

Point was that at this time, ANY bizarro world theory is no less or more accurate than any other.

Until we see ACTUAL movement, message board theories pretty much = supposed journalist theories which pretty much = "insider" theories.

(12-06-2018 02:08 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...ssion=true

They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Except it is crazy. Texas needs to be in control of their conference. In the Big Ten, they'll be just another school. Their conference options are ACC or PAC but only if major concessions are involved. More likely to go the ND route with guaranteed games vs OK, TT, TCU, Baylor, etc.

I went to KU. Texas has "Control Problems"- the reason the Big 12 broke up is UT.

I do not believe that it will do the Big 10 any good to take in the 2 worst control freak Schools in the Big 12. I think it would be a better fit to get Kansas and Missouri or Iowa State. KU has a new very successful coach now and is planning to spend $215,000 on upgrading old Memorial and adding 20,000 new seats. Mizzou would love the chance to play in the Big 10. I cannot think of 2 better travel partners-and instant Rivals. Kansas Legislature is now looking into the stupid law that chains KU to KSU. Kansas fits the footprint of the BIG. Texas and Oklahoma will never go to a conference not directly controlled by them.

(01-06-2019 11:28 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Just for context since I have no idea how you feel about all of your conference brethren:

2018 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 1.108 million viewers
2017 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 2.468 million viewers
2016 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - SECN, not metered
2015 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 0.930 million viewers
2014 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 5.160 million viewers (finally an SEC flavor)
2013 - Ole Miss vs Miss State - 1.640 million viewers

2017-18 - Duke vs UNC - 3.37 million viewers
2017-18 - Duke vs UNC - 2.43 million viewers
2016-17 - Duke vs UNC - 4.06 million viewers
2016-17 - Duke vs UNC - 3.08 million viewers
2015-16 - Duke vs UNC - 3.2 million viewers
2015-16 - Duke vs UNC - 2.9 million viewers
2014-15 - Duke vs UNC - 4.24 million viewers
2014-15 - Duke vs UNC - 4.14 million viewers
2013-14 - Duke vs UNC - 3.50 million viewers
2013-14 - Duke vs UNC - 2.29 million viewers (game had to be rescheduled due to weather)
2012-13 - Duke vs UNC - 2.79 million viewers
2012-13 - Duke vs UNC - 2.35 million viewers
2011-12 - Duke vs UNC - 4.25 million viewers
2011-12 - Duke vs UNC - 3.12 million viewers
2010-11 - Duke vs UNC - 4.61 million viewers
2010-11 - Duke vs UNC - 2.37 million viewers
2009-10 - Duke vs UNC - 2.50 million viewers
2009-10 - Duke vs UNC - 2.27 million viewers
2008-09 - Duke vs UNC - 4.63 million viewers
2008-09 - Duke vs UNC - 2.27 million viewers

Darn, still no 5.160 million viewers like the best Ole Miss/Bulldogs game listed above. OH WAIT!!!

2007-08 - Duke vs UNC - 5.61 million viewers
2007-08 - Duke vs UNC - 2.63 million viewers

Well, I suppose I should be fair. It's not as though I have that much data on the Egg Bowl rivalry. I am sure some of their fans will though.

Eleven seasons, 22 regular season games, an average of 3.345 million viewers per game. And those are just the regular season numbers, not including any ACC tourney game match-ups.

Also I realize that Duke-UNC is the zenith of college basketball and that sport basically only accounts for 20% of the TV contract. But still that zenith is probably worth to TV and advertisers more than 45% of the SEC's total 192 conference games from 2013-2017. Still data mining 2018.

Anyhow, my main point is that any commissioner that thinks it is in their conference's best interest to get one of them and not both is not thinking clearly, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

There aren't very many brands in college basketball that move the needle, but Duke and UNC are two of them. Kansas is another.

Add to that the reality that college basketball is a big investment for ESPN as it fills up loads of otherwise empty air time. ESPN needs to sell ads during basketball season too and airing college teams every night on multiple channels is a lot cheaper than airing NBA games. That and they need content for ventures like ESPN+.

That's why I think ESPN would pay top dollar for schools like these in another league. The average basketball program is not worth as much as the average football program, this is well established, but I think ratings giants are worth a lot of money in the right context.

This is one of the reasons I don't discount at all the notion that ESPN might be interested in putting a school like Kansas in the SEC.

(01-10-2019 03:05 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 02:08 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 01:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...ssion=true

They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Except it is crazy. Texas needs to be in control of their conference. In the Big Ten, they'll be just another school. Their conference options are ACC or PAC but only if major concessions are involved. More likely to go the ND route with guaranteed games vs OK, TT, TCU, Baylor, etc.

I went to KU. Texas has "Control Problems"- the reason the Big 12 broke up is UT.

KU, KSU, ISU, MU and NU have control problems and inferiority complexes. They had a little club and thought they could still run it the same way, ignoring the Oklahoma schools and Colorado as well as the new members.

NU got a good offer and left. CU got to align with the left coasters like they had wanted for years. A&M got to align with the Gulf Coasters like they had wanted for years. MU figured out they had limited value so jumped when A&M created a slot in the SEC.

(01-10-2019 03:21 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  I do not believe that it will do the Big 10 any good to take in the 2 worst control freak Schools in the Big 12. I think it would be a better fit to get Kansas and Missouri or Iowa State. KU has a new very successful coach now and is planning to spend $215,000 on upgrading old Memorial and adding 20,000 new seats. Mizzou would love the chance to play in the Big 10. I cannot think of 2 better travel partners-and instant Rivals. Kansas Legislature is now looking into the stupid law that chains KU to KSU. Kansas fits the footprint of the BIG. Texas and Oklahoma will never go to a conference not directly controlled by them.

What "stupid law" are you referring to in your post (Kansas Statutes Annotated citation please)...and "who" in the legislature is "looking into" it?