There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I foresee schools playing more than one P5 opponent in non-conference in the near future. Some of the schools in the East with annual ACC opponents are already doing it. I think that creates some flexibility.

Assuming this is the sort of thing that defines the next round of media contracts then I think it will more or less have to work that way. For example, Texas and Oklahoma already have some games scheduled with SEC schools over the next decade or so.

If an arrangement could be put together then I think we could see everyone playing 10 Power schools soon...8 league games and 2 non-conference match-ups. That leaves a couple of extra slots for cupcake games to fill out home schedules. That basically gives everyone 7 home games excluding the schools that have an annual game at a neutral site.

(06-25-2019 11:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I foresee schools playing more than one P5 opponent in non-conference in the near future. Some of the schools in the East with annual ACC opponents are already doing it. I think that creates some flexibility.

Assuming this is the sort of thing that defines the next round of media contracts then I think it will more or less have to work that way. For example, Texas and Oklahoma already have some games scheduled with SEC schools over the next decade or so.

If an arrangement could be put together then I think we could see everyone playing 10 Power schools soon...8 league games and 2 non-conference match-ups. That leaves a couple of extra slots for cupcake games to fill out home schedules. That basically gives everyone 7 home games excluding the schools that have an annual game at a neutral site.

I don't disagree, but that will happen for the next contract period after this one. This one will be marked by either additions or something like the shared contract you're talking about. That may include a 9th P game as a guarantee. But we won't jump to 10 now when we can wait and use that as bargaining chip for a raise in the contract renewal after this one, unless it is part of a massive contract with CBS.

(06-25-2019 11:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I foresee schools playing more than one P5 opponent in non-conference in the near future. Some of the schools in the East with annual ACC opponents are already doing it. I think that creates some flexibility.

Assuming this is the sort of thing that defines the next round of media contracts then I think it will more or less have to work that way. For example, Texas and Oklahoma already have some games scheduled with SEC schools over the next decade or so.

If an arrangement could be put together then I think we could see everyone playing 10 Power schools soon...8 league games and 2 non-conference match-ups. That leaves a couple of extra slots for cupcake games to fill out home schedules. That basically gives everyone 7 home games excluding the schools that have an annual game at a neutral site.

I don't disagree, but that will happen for the next contract period after this one. This one will be marked by either additions or something like the shared contract you're talking about. That may include a 9th P game as a guarantee. But we won't jump to 10 now when we can wait and use that as bargaining chip for a raise in the contract renewal after this one, unless it is part of a massive contract with CBS.

If the SEC & Big 12 were going to do this, why not figure out an acceptable final number of power football teams whether its 60 or 64 and all of CFB negotiate as one. Although, if there is enough desire for content by networks, tech companies, 72 wouldn't be a bad number.

Teams at the top of the list to consider dropping would be WF, OSU, WSU, OSU and maybe Baylor and probably in that order if you look at attendance and content. BYU deserves to be included IMO.

Then only schedule games within power league teams and that content would be pretty compelling. The sport could also combine to 4 power leagues then and have a true playoff with the 4 conference champs and the conference championships could be decided by having conference semi-finals.

(06-26-2019 12:17 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I foresee schools playing more than one P5 opponent in non-conference in the near future. Some of the schools in the East with annual ACC opponents are already doing it. I think that creates some flexibility.

Assuming this is the sort of thing that defines the next round of media contracts then I think it will more or less have to work that way. For example, Texas and Oklahoma already have some games scheduled with SEC schools over the next decade or so.

If an arrangement could be put together then I think we could see everyone playing 10 Power schools soon...8 league games and 2 non-conference match-ups. That leaves a couple of extra slots for cupcake games to fill out home schedules. That basically gives everyone 7 home games excluding the schools that have an annual game at a neutral site.

I don't disagree, but that will happen for the next contract period after this one. This one will be marked by either additions or something like the shared contract you're talking about. That may include a 9th P game as a guarantee. But we won't jump to 10 now when we can wait and use that as bargaining chip for a raise in the contract renewal after this one, unless it is part of a massive contract with CBS.

If the SEC & Big 12 were going to do this, why not figure out an acceptable final number of power football teams whether its 60 or 64 and all of CFB negotiate as one. Although, if there is enough desire for content by networks, tech companies, 72 wouldn't be a bad number.

Teams at the top of the list to consider dropping would be WF, OSU, WSU, OSU and maybe Baylor and probably in that order if you look at attendance and content. BYU deserves to be included IMO.

Then only schedule games within power league teams and that content would be pretty compelling. The sport could also combine to 4 power leagues then and have a true playoff with the 4 conference champs and the conference championships could be decided by having conference semi-finals.

We could easily do this except for 1 prohibitive obstacle. We are in the age of athletic departments being set up independently from the academic part of the school, but the egghead academics still somehow feel violated if their school plays in a sports league with a school that is not an academic peer. The absurdity of this is that academic associations are wholly independent of athletics. But as long as the PAC and Big 10 continue to confuse the two we will have the mess we have.

Taking the top 72 earners and forming 4 conferences of 3 divisions each with 6 schools to a division and having conference semis consisting of the 3 division winners and the best at large and playing it off for a national champion should have been done already.

If you want to be exclusive make it the top 64 or 48.

But as long as we operate with fake amateurism, think of the university's academic mission impacting athletics, and vice versa, the illogical bog we are in presently will continue. And as for B.Y.U. if we are a country of tolerance we should be able to accept people who have a different value system and respect that as long as they don't demand our value system to change. Tolerance goes both ways, but right now the most intolerant of all conferences is the Whacky PAC.

(06-26-2019 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 12:17 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I foresee schools playing more than one P5 opponent in non-conference in the near future. Some of the schools in the East with annual ACC opponents are already doing it. I think that creates some flexibility.

Assuming this is the sort of thing that defines the next round of media contracts then I think it will more or less have to work that way. For example, Texas and Oklahoma already have some games scheduled with SEC schools over the next decade or so.

If an arrangement could be put together then I think we could see everyone playing 10 Power schools soon...8 league games and 2 non-conference match-ups. That leaves a couple of extra slots for cupcake games to fill out home schedules. That basically gives everyone 7 home games excluding the schools that have an annual game at a neutral site.

I don't disagree, but that will happen for the next contract period after this one. This one will be marked by either additions or something like the shared contract you're talking about. That may include a 9th P game as a guarantee. But we won't jump to 10 now when we can wait and use that as bargaining chip for a raise in the contract renewal after this one, unless it is part of a massive contract with CBS.

If the SEC & Big 12 were going to do this, why not figure out an acceptable final number of power football teams whether its 60 or 64 and all of CFB negotiate as one. Although, if there is enough desire for content by networks, tech companies, 72 wouldn't be a bad number.

Teams at the top of the list to consider dropping would be WF, OSU, WSU, OSU and maybe Baylor and probably in that order if you look at attendance and content. BYU deserves to be included IMO.

Then only schedule games within power league teams and that content would be pretty compelling. The sport could also combine to 4 power leagues then and have a true playoff with the 4 conference champs and the conference championships could be decided by having conference semi-finals.

We could easily do this except for 1 prohibitive obstacle. We are in the age of athletic departments being set up independently from the academic part of the school, but the egghead academics still somehow feel violated if their school plays in a sports league with a school that is not an academic peer. The absurdity of this is that academic associations are wholly independent of athletics. But as long as the PAC and Big 10 continue to confuse the two we will have the mess we have.

Taking the top 72 earners and forming 4 conferences of 3 divisions each with 6 schools to a division and having conference semis consisting of the 3 division winners and the best at large and playing it off for a national champion should have been done already.

If you want to be exclusive make it the top 64 or 48.

But as long as we operate with fake amateurism, think of the university's academic mission impacting athletics, and vice versa, the illogical bog we are in presently will continue. And as for B.Y.U. if we are a country of tolerance we should be able to accept people who have a different value system and respect that as long as they don't demand our value system to change. Tolerance goes both ways, but right now the most intolerant of all conferences is the Whacky PAC.

Your right about attitudes towards BYU. CFB would be so much better if we got his done.

The biggest obstacle to this is ESPN owns your rights into the 2030's and the Big 12 has theirs split between ESPN and Fox and are up for renegotiation in 2024 or 2025. The PAc 10, Big 10, and Big 12 all share their rights between Fox and ESPN. The SEC and ACC are ESPN only shops.

(06-26-2019 09:40 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  The biggest obstacle to this is ESPN owns your rights into the 2030's and the Big 12 has theirs split between ESPN and Fox and are up for renegotiation in 2024 or 2025. The PAc 10, Big 10, and Big 12 all share their rights between Fox and ESPN. The SEC and ACC are ESPN only shops.

Nope, The SEC's T1 rights are held by CBS and they renew prior to 2024. BTW: ESPN has been locking up more of the Big 12's rights and because their GOR expires in 2025 they are free to move if they don't renew. Ditto for the PAC. I doubt anyone leaves the Big 10 but theirs is up in 2023.

I didn't explicitly state this earlier, but what I meant was that this really only works if ESPN is the primary rights holder. And we certainly couldn't do it in the next couple of years, but once we near 2024 and the expiration of the current contracts then it's very feasible.

Being that ESPN owns the 2nd and 3rd tier rights of the SEC, they would be in a position to renegotiate the whole package should the SEC and Big 12 decide to team up in 2024.

It wouldn't be quite as lucrative as taking the combined package to an open market at the exact same time, but given the anticipated value of our 1st tier and the flexibility of the Big 12's rights once they expire, that's still a lot of leverage. That and I think ESPN would be interested in having virtually complete control of the Big 12. If the 1st tier rights of both leagues are on CBS, for example, then ESPN gains quite a bit by controlling the majority of inventory of both leagues. That's especially true when you consider all the cross-conference games.

Also, it gives ESPN an opportunity to rework the LHN deal. The SEC is signed up until 2035 and Texas is on the hook until 2031, I believe.

I'm not suggesting ESPN will renew the LHN, but they could take the opportunity to give it more flexibility. Texas keeps a special 3rd tier package, they don't have to leave the Big 12, and the Big 12 still gets a prime rate for 1st and 2nd tier rights. It's probably a Longhorn's dream.

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I didn't see the comment about 10 shares and 14 shares about shared games until now. How could a league afford to take 40% of the revenue of games they field 50% of the participation?

If two power leagues were pooling all their content I could see that but I don't see anyone taking less than half of the revenue of the games they are involved in.

(06-27-2019 11:42 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's been scuttlebutt about the idea of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 combining their media rights to form a more advantageous deal. Seems plausible enough and it would be interesting, but I have to believe if there's a serious potentiality here that the SEC or the Big Ten would respond in some fashion.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out there...

What if the SEC proposed a combined media rights deal with the Big 12?

The two leagues already partner on other matters and this sort of deal strikes me as both profitable and safe.

I'd like to hone in on that last part. College administrators are notorious for being slow to change and risk averse. Well, expansion is anything but safe. It involves risk and it certainly involves change. Especially if we're dealing with the prospect of adding schools like Texas and Oklahoma, the change might well be significant and the risks grow as opposed to all the more recent additions we've made.

But safety has a price tag, right? If you can make a lot more money with minimal change then there's a good chance that's the avenue you take. If status quo brings static rewards then maybe you're more willing to go outside your comfort zone.

So anyway, the SEC's Tier 1 deal will expire with CBS in 2024. The entirety of Big 12 rights will expire with their GOR in 2025. It's a convenient time to make a splash.

Let me offer examples of the sort of structure you might see or what might be required if this sort of deal every were to occur.

1. I think we'd need to re-establish lost rivalries on an annual or virtually annual basis. The Texas and Texas A&M game needs to come back. The Kansas and Missouri game needs to come back. There are other match-ups like Arkansas and TCU or Kentucky and West Virginia that make a ton of sense. In addition to games like that, we'd need to see regular bouts between the heavyweights of each conference. At the very least, we would need some sort of cycle whereby schools played each other not necessarily on rotation, but in a fashion that ensured interesting match-ups were regular.

2. I think we'd have to stick with 8 conference games and require that each school play one Big 12 game every season unless we're talking about the schools that already have annual non-conference games like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. We'd certainly need them in the rotation at times, but maybe not every season. 14 and 10 don't match-up perfectly anyway.

Piggybacking on that, I think the Big 12 would have to drop down to 8 league games to make room. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that. Perhaps they expand by 2 so they can split into divisions? It makes their conference championship more valuable and it also offers more opportunities for combined games that increase the inventory of the shared package.

3. I think it would require broader distribution of the SEC Network into states where Big 12 teams reside. That means we have full penetration into TX as well as a presence in OK, KS, IA, and WV. Having WV in the fold would also give us some subs in Western PA along with the DC metro area.

We would need to have a combined package to market on ESPN+ as well. A lot of games would be available for that platform and that would be valuable as well.

----------------------------------------

All in all, this is a way to acquire value from the Big 12 without going to the trouble of taking any of their schools.

I'd also add that I think any windfall we receive from a new media deal would make us more attractive to the ACC schools we might want. I think another perk of this arrangement is that the ACC schools would fall a little further behind monetarily, and thus be more inclined to move. Their integration, however, would be much more seamless should we expand in that direction.

There's still a lot of value to be had over there if we were to add Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. I think we'd have far less headaches with that group than with any bloc that was centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

One last perk is that we wouldn't have to worry about the Big Ten snagging any members of the Big 12 and padding their bottom line. As long as we have that sort of tight nit alliance with the Big 12 then the powers that be should be happy. We would be more profitable.

Thoughts?

If the PAC can't sign one with the Big 12 they'll probably open up discussions with the Big 10 again.

Since Kentucky has Louisville for a 9th P game Tennessee could easily fill the bill for WVU.

So if the SEC signs this, and rivalry renewals are a must, I think it works. To divide the extra revenue the Big 12 should get 10 shares of the contracted revenue for the shared rights and the SEC 14. And that's for the shared games only.

Since there are only 4 SEC schools with year end rivalries against the ACC we actually do match up with the Big 12 perfectly.

Should the PAC sign one with the Big 10 then I think it clearly puts the ACC back in 5th place.

It's certainly workable and stands to be profitable, but only if the big rivalries return.

I didn't see the comment about 10 shares and 14 shares about shared games until now. How could a league afford to take 40% of the revenue of games they field 50% of the participation?

If two power leagues were pooling all their content I could see that but I don't see anyone taking less than half of the revenue of the games they are involved in.

It depends upon whether you enter a revenue sharing effort like the sale of your combined rights (hence 40/60) or just sell the games. If just selling 10 games then of course it would be 50/50. But if you are combining your markets for coverage, ad rate increase, etc. then 40/60 would be in line and it would give the Big 12 significantly more than they could get any other way and at a little expense to the SEC even though the combined leverage would benefit us a well. But if you think of it school by school rather than conference vs conference the shares would be equal.

This is a bad idea. Because unless the schools are distributing the games themselves, any broadcaster buying these right will immediately want to tinker with the schedule in order to get more favorable match-ups for the B12 teams. I just cannot see the benefit for the SEC.

(06-27-2019 02:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This is a bad idea. Because unless the schools are distributing the games themselves, any broadcaster buying these right will immediately want to tinker with the schedule in order to get more favorable match-ups for the B12 teams. I just cannot see the benefit for the SEC.

We were looking at it as a contingency should Texas try to piece together this kind of arrangement with another conference. My initial feeling was the same as yours. I would still prefer to simply add the schools we want and hold everything in house.

Sometimes it's better to let an idea run and see where it ends up. That way you discover things about your targets of interest, and your competition. Both will lay more cards on the table than they normally would when pursuing something like this and that intelligence is advantageous, as long as we don't do the same.

We can talk about anything, but acting upon it is quite another matter.

I get the spitballing as even bad ideas could lead to actual plans. But seeing as how Texas won't do anything without consulting ESPN first (LHN), I think both the SEC and ACC will be well informed of which way the Longhorns lean and what kind of concessions they are looking for.

(06-27-2019 03:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I get the spitballing as even bad ideas could lead to actual plans. But seeing as how Texas won't do anything without consulting ESPN first (LHN), I think both the SEC and ACC will be well informed of which way the Longhorns lean and what kind of concessions they are looking for.

True, but knowing where Oklahoma stands, and Kansas, might still be quite informative. Texas won't make any shifts away from ESPN until after 2031. Oklahoma and Kansas are free after 2025.

If the SEC is going to pool rights, why go with the weakest league with the smallest fan base?

What benefit is that to the SEC to think so small?

IMO the logical choice is the ACC

It allows both leagues to compliment their strengths and downplay their weaknesses. combines the ACCs untapped population giant with the SEC’s unparalleled drawing power. SEC football and ACC basketball (and good Lord the combined baseball!) plus half of us are going to play them each year anyway.

Kick the L10 out of the Sugar Bowl and bring in the ACC

Kick the B10 out of the ACC challenge and bring us in

It just makes sense

(06-28-2019 10:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the SEC is going to pool rights, why go with the weakest league with the smallest fan base?

What benefit is that to the SEC to think so small?

IMO the logical choice is the ACC

It allows both leagues to compliment their strengths and downplay their weaknesses. combines the ACCs untapped population giant with the SEC’s unparalleled drawing power. SEC football and ACC basketball (and good Lord the combined baseball!) plus half of us are going to play them each year anyway.

Kick the L10 out of the Sugar Bowl and bring in the ACC

Kick the B10 out of the ACC challenge and bring us in

It just makes sense

Go to the numbers and read them 10th. The ACC is the weakest. They earn less, they lack the content for the new pay models, their two brands are weaker overall than the Big 12's two brands, and they have the fewest actual viewers % wise for the size of their population. Hell they are 8 million behind the Big 12 now in just media rights and that doesn't even take into account the T3 for the Big 12.

You personal prejudice blinds you to these facts which is why I'm so dismissive of much of what you say.

The ones for us to go to would be the Big 10. That pairing would make an even bigger killing if they became media partners. Obviously the obstacle would be the that they have two different network sponsors, but that is up for the Big 10 in 2023 just as is the SEC's T1. And quite frankly it is only T1 rights that need be shared.

But I'm dead serious. I post those numbers at the top of the page annually because that is all that matters. It's a business and there is no room in business for animus.

The SEC is #1 in attendance, #1 in gross total revenue, #1 in % of actual viewers to potential viewers, and is only temporarily #2 in TV revenue. The Big 10 is #2 solidly in every category except temporarily TV revenue.

The Big 12 is more than solidly #3 in every category while the PAC and ACC lag so closely together that they have the only positions on that ladder that fluctuate but in the last 5 years the ACC has been 5th in every metric but one of them and furthermore because they are solely in ESPN's possession it will be deuce difficult to monetize that relationship appropriately. The SEC will be far far better off with a media partnership with either the Big 12 or Big 10. We play the only 4 schools we want to play from the ACC at the end of every season and ESPN sucks up to the ACC in everyone one of them just as their suckwind announcers did during the CWS even though they didn't make the finals.

In fairness, I don't think it should be Plan A. It's not optimal by any means, but I don't think that makes it bad. I think that makes it Plan C or D...something of that nature.

We're best served by taking Oklahoma and Texas then maybe waiting for a few ACC schools to be freed up. I'm just not sure we can count on it working that smoothly. It never seems to.

If it's a matter of partnering with the Big 12 or status quo then I think we're better served by partnering with the Big 12. At the very least, I think working closely with Texas and Oklahoma would make it more likely they come our way even if it's at a later time.

I get it’s business but the only number the networks care about is the number of eyeballs you can reach which, being the case, one of the biggest in CFB (the East Coast) is clearly the bigger market than the Prairie. The SEC can’t make the L10’s foot print any bigger or deeper, it’s maxed out as is. The ACC is the opposite where they have almost nowhere to go but up if their content is strengthened by an alliance with us.

However I do agree both are minnows compared to the mega deal a SEC/B1G deal would create.

My concern there is that half is us are already tied to the ACC and those games are important and create scheduling issues for doing other alliances.

There’s no similar tie to the B1G and maybe the whole north vs south dynamic would get folks to tune in, but I can’t help but wonder how much people would care about any match up that wasn’t the two of us lucky enough to draw Ohio State or Michigan