(06-29-2022 01:15 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: (06-29-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (06-29-2022 08:32 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: There are probably no two posters on this board whose intellect, wordsmithing skills and knowledge of the "business and structure" of college sports rival those of JRsec and Frank the Tank.
Both make strong points about the topic of realignment: Frank feels UT and OU to the SEC was the "end game" — and no major additional changes loom (at least for many years). In contrast, JRsec feels the Texas/Oklahoma league switch was simply the beginning. As much as I respect Frank (if anything, he and I cheer for DePaul), I strongly side with JRsec on this matter. Admittedly, I have minimal feel (likely no feel) for the topic of realignment. But reading the tea leaves ... it simply seems massive change is coming. And sooner rather than later.
To be sure, I don't dispute that there could be massive change on the horizon as an overall matter. In the next few years, the NCAA could be gone, the P5 (or P4) could split off, and a whole host of "massive change" could certainly occur. I wouldn't be surprised if any or all of those things could happen.
However, my argument is that I don't think such massive change is coming through conference realignment specifically as we have seen over the past 20 years. JRsec's argument is that consolidation is the name of the game... and I actually agree with him. I just see it as the consolidation as being complete: the schools that are in the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC *are* the consolidated set of power schools. We could argue that there's a random Wake Forest or Mississippi State here or there that might be propped up right now in the current conference alignments, but the point is that there isn't anyone in the Big 12 or G5 leagues besides possibly Kansas that would *need* to be in that top level power group for the "P4" to cover the key institutions, states and markets for college football. The "fat" at the top level of college football is effectively gone now.
And yes, I'm skeptical of the economics of further expansion/consolidation within that P4 group. The NFL has 32 franchises. Are we really saying that we could see further consolidation within college sports - which has much more parochial and local fan bases even for the biggest king programs like Ohio State and Alabama compared to the top NFL franchises - that would essentially make the top power level about the size of the NFL or not much bigger? I think a lot of people are underestimating how much college fandom is much more dispersed among many more markets and geographies compared to the typical pro sports franchises. The consolidation being proposed/predicted is essentially thinking that you can have an entire system of *only* Dallas Cowboys-level brands... which is something that not even the NFL itself can achieve.
I also believe that a lot of people are simultaneously overestimating the place of college sports within the entire media landscape. While it's important in the sense that any live sports overall is important right now, it's also not something that media executives are thinking about beyond how many viewers that a league can generate. That's why I generally refer to "Disney" in these discussions instead of "ESPN" because it's important that college sports are really just a pretty small cog for Disney in the entire scheme of things. Believe me that Disney executives spend tens of thousands of hours per year trying to deal with the ramifications of the Spider-Man rights that aren't under their control than they do about the thought of ACC teams in the SEC. Disney is spending $32 billion in content this year where everything in the company is about content for Disney+ and other streaming platforms. This isn't a secret - every Disney investor meeting spends virtually the entire time talking about how Disney+ is the center of the company's universe. Even within the sports category, ESPN's current NBA contract (much less its NFL contract) is more than all of its college sports rights fees COMBINED... and that figure is likely going to go up by many multiples when the NBA negotiates new TV contracts next year. College sports are certainly important for Disney/ESPN... but they're FAR from anywhere close to the focus of that company.
I know that many of us want to subscribe to these pentaverate/illuminati-type conspiracy theories about how much Disney/ESPN wants to control college sports because we have a preternatural human need to believe that the major events that happen in the world (whether it's sports, politics or anything else) are part of some sort of coordinated grand plan from above as opposed to a lot of different individual actors making a lot of different individual decisions based on their own separate individual self-interests.
And look - even if we were to say that Disney/ESPN is all-powerful with total control, why on Earth would be they be actively devaluing the ACC contract that they have at an absolute complete bargain for essentially the next 15 years (with enough content for an entire conference network along with at least 2 to 3 high profile Notre Dame games per year plus a bunch of existing ACC/SEC rivalries)? This isn't a charity - as much as Disney/ESPN wants to maximize the value of their SEC contract, they also have ZERO economic self-interest in turning the SEC into an NFL-like entity with industry-wide pricing power. The UT/OU expansion was great for ESPN because it took schools where they didn't have 100% control over the rights and they're being integrated into an *existing* SEC contract. That's quite different than moving ACC schools where ESPN already has 100% control over the rights at a bargain long-term price to the SEC where ESPN risks creating an NFL-like monster to the network's long-term detriment.
I just fundamentally disagree that Disney/ESPN actually *wants* consolidation in college sports. That makes absolutely no sense for anyone looking at this from a rational economic perspective (as opposed to trying to shoehorn a vision as to how leagues like the SEC and Big Ten can gain even more power). It behooves Disney/ESPN, FOX or any other media company to have as many power players in the market as possible in order to keep rights fees down. I get that there's some value in creating more Clemson/FSU vs. Alabama/Texas matchups, but not to the point where ESPN would actively try to aid the SEC to get monopoly/duopoly pricing power (as whatever gains ESPN would get during the current SEC contract would turn into a horrible NFL-style bidding war whenever the SEC goes to market again). None of these media companies actually *likes* paying the NFL, NBA, Big Ten and/or SEC any of these high rights fees. It's just a cost of doing business for them - they'd certainly rather pay less if they could.
If your prediction is proved correct, Frank (and it very well might be), it might be largely due to the above point you make.
And I would counter that outside stresses on revenue coupled with a downturn in demand for many bachelor's degrees outside of STEM, and inflation, higher interest on student loans, and a shrinking middle class from whence most students are drawn, will necessitate further consolidation. Pressure drives demand and ESPN can accommodate in ways still profitable to them and in ways which will improve viewership.
While I don't see the SEC really raiding the Big 10, I do see presidents realizing that more schools sharing the overhead of administration means less of a share to support it and therefore more profit.
Any future consolidation will do so regionally and in part for the elimination of duplicated overhead conference expenses, and in part to segregate held rights by value which is incentive for networks.
And should there be a breakaway 2 leagues of larger regional conferences works nicely whether those are conferences of 10 or 20 each yielding a field of 40-80 total schools. Harkening to a 32 team NFL model is hyperbole.
After studying each school's total revenue for years an upper tier of ~72 would work nicely. Those are your largest earners of which the bottom is the least subsidized, and it includes schools in areas most likely to grow. Some will say expanding the P5 by 7 isn't consolidation. It's not. But shrinking the FBS to 72 is massive consolidation. The hoops field would likely be 30% larger.
If external demographic and financial factors were not just beginning to impact us, and there is much more to come financially, and demographic accelerated pressure is natural and will not abate, I might concur with Frank. But we are in the squall line of a category 5 financial storm which is being intensified by a once a century demographic whipsaw and complicated by a manipulated stock market which has not been permitted to deflate naturally. In other words, a perfect storm. This much change and pain will not just trickle down, it will cascade. And that's if the pressures don't lead to war. In the last 20 years we have witnessed mass migrations of people in search of basic necessities. Such occurrences have always happened just ahead of large regional conflicts or world wars.
It isn't about conferences and networks only. Conferences and Networks will be reacting as we all will be to these things. IMO, this is why Texas sought stronger peers. Less stress on them to prop up others, a higher profile than the Big 12, and a stronger supporting group. The SEC may become their home, but right now we are a safe Harbor, and I hold no expectations of permanence until the storm has passed.
And I believe those who don't think these circumstances and Texas and Oklahoma's moves will impact other top brand schools to respond similarly are simply in denial.
Frank was shocked at UT and OU's movement. Sportswise we all were. Against the backdrop of the global financial and geo-political situation and synchronized to the demographic earthquake which the passing of the world's baby boom will be, I expected it, just not this soon.
When the outside stressors settle down again, then we will see an end to this. Until then I recommend hip waders 'cause we're in for some deep smelly waters.
/
If you were running the SEC, what’s the next move?
