(08-12-2022 12:40 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 04:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "Does it make sense for ESPN to sign the PAC 10, then dismantle the Big 12?"

If by "dismantle" you mean, "to have the ACC and SEC poach a few schools", then yes, I think it does.

Having the SEC add Kansas, and the ACC add Cin, WV, UCF (and USF and Memphis), pretty much takes what inventory espn might want, and strengthens the ACC. As we've said elsewhere, the next move would be to move Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, to the SEC (facilitated by an ACC vote, which espn likely would have to up the ACC's media deal, to get).

And the B12's backfil options would be quite reduced. Probably SMU, and either Rice and/or Tulane, or schools from the MWC.

And once this is all done, if espn did later decide they wanted this new B12, they could likely get it much more cheaply.

So here's your hypothesis:

1. Add a bunch of lower value schools to the ACC but pay everybody like the new schools are Clemson/FSU/Miami. I don't know what the value change of the ACC would be with the changes you listed, but at a guess I'd say it would be $7-8 less value per school. $7.5m x 16 schools x 14 years = $1.68b
2. Give Clemson/FSU/Miami an extra $40-50m per year for 14 years each. $45m per year x 3 schools x 14 years = $1.89b

So, ESPN is going to pay around $3.5b to keep broadcasting the same schools, plus a few more that don't get many eyeballs, over a 14 year period. This seems highly unlikely.

Oh, and the SEC isn't taking Kansas, unless MAYBE if we go to 24+ teams. And even then I'd want every other team in the old big 12 plus probably half the ACC, so...no.

Ok, to try to take your responses in order:

1.) This is similar to the B12 plan of lose 2, add 4. This is lose 2 (or 3) and add 5.

And all 5 were either picked by the B12, or publicly stated to be on the shortlist for the next expansion. The B12 would likely invite the other two from the shortlist (SMU and Boise state) for backfill.

Part of this is also the taking or keeping of schools (content), and denying others of this content.

1a.) The PAC suggested they are looking for roughly $40M per school, and most agree the ACC is currently underpaid. So that's a decent starting point. Suggesting $50M wouldn't be a bad idea either.

2.) and espn is paying for more than "a few more" schools. They're paying for stability, and keeping schools in house. going to 40/50M means NC, VA, and others (ND!) stay and don't decide to go to greener pastures.

There are other "intangibles" as well.

2a.) Taking Kansas in-house to the SEC is a smart move for several reasons. It takes the option away from the B10 - which is not unimportant.

It also restores the KS/MO rivalry. Which should help quell concerns that MO is considering the B10. Say what you want about MO, but it is centrally-located content. Better to keep them in-house.

And removing Kansas and those other teams from the B12 means their media rights deal would be quite a bit lower - which means espn gets the remainders cheaper, or can skip them altogether, and just go for the PAC

2b.) SEC doesn't need more texas teams, but if they did go to 24, OK state and maybe 1 more Texas school are all that are likely potentials, after Kansas.

(08-12-2022 03:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 04:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "Does it make sense for ESPN to sign the PAC 10, then dismantle the Big 12?"

If by "dismantle" you mean, "to have the ACC and SEC poach a few schools", then yes, I think it does.

Having the SEC add Kansas, and the ACC add Cin, WV, UCF (and USF and Memphis), pretty much takes what inventory espn might want, and strengthens the ACC. As we've said elsewhere, the next move would be to move Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, to the SEC (facilitated by an ACC vote, which espn likely would have to up the ACC's media deal, to get).

And the B12's backfill options would be quite reduced. Probably SMU, and either Rice and/or Tulane, or schools from the MWC.

And once this is all done, if espn did later decide they wanted this new B12, they could likely get it much more cheaply.

This outcome sounds plausible. Most schools in the B12 want to move elsewhere. Pressures overall favor consolidation. It makes sense that PAC/ACC under siege would in find the middle of the country resources to restabilize their leagues.

Five is an awkward number. Why did so many people ten years ago fantasize about four 16-team leagues? It's very neat for playoff purposes. A 4-team playoff needs no selection committee. Win your league and you're in.

Some of the same benefits can be had in a Super 2 landscape if the next layer has a duple identity. Champions can get automatic CFP bids, etc.

5 just seemed logical.

(14+ND) - (3) + (5) = (16 + ND)

Really just adding 2 teams to the total.

I didn't understand what you meant concerning "duple".

(08-12-2022 04:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I didn't understand what you meant concerning "duple".

League 1
2 conferences: Fox & Mouse

League 2
2 conferences: Acc & Pac

A conference = 20-24 schools

Each league has a duple (two-part) structure.
No 5s, no 3s, no odd ones out.

I will say of all the crazy ideas I see posted here, this at least superficially has some logic to it. You could plausibly lock in a good amount of schools, while also taking away potential programming from your rivals.

Ultimately, I don't think the money works out, which is likely the major issue. Also, as pointed out, ESPN is not picking and choosing schools. They can just offer money and then let the schools/conferences decide. You basically need to offer the PAC enough to entice Big 12 schools to leave. Which will be tough. You then need the PAC to invite said schools and for said schools to say yes. And then there's the practical question of how much benefit ESPN would get from all that content.

But let's say ESPN says the PAC is worth X amount of dollars as is. And then, nudge nudge wink wink, it's worth this amount with say 4 additional schools (you probably only need Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and say Kansas), then you could throw it out there. I don't think ESPN cares that much about West Virginia or Cincinnati. And at that point the Big 12 is just a glorified G5 conference. They can become the new AAC. but there's a lot of ifs involved and the money likely doesn't make sense for what it would probably take.

(08-12-2022 12:32 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

In support of your viewpoint, had ESPN and Fox not told the Big 12 what it would have been worth in 2 years, it would have disentegrated in 2010. They worked very hard to stop the Pac 16. What likely would have happened would be CU, Texas, OU, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Kansas to the Pac, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and Nebraska to the Big 10. ISU, KSU and Baylor then join the Big East.

A&M had agreed to go to the Pac with the others you listed except Kansas, then at the last second (well last 30 minutes at least) Dodds and Scott couldn't agree on what to do about the LHN and the whole thing got called off. Nebraska heard about it and bolted for the B1G. Colorado went to the Pac anyway. Then the rest was history.

No. A&M said they weren't going. They wanted to go to the SEC. Kansas was A&M's replacement. LHN was mostly irrelevant. And Nebraska had already heard about it. Texas agreed to stay if 11 of the 12 stayed, but Nebraska decided they had a better deal in the Big 10, got a commitment from the Big 10 and signed it. CU had already decided they were going Pac10 alone or with others.

(08-12-2022 09:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 12:32 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

In support of your viewpoint, had ESPN and Fox not told the Big 12 what it would have been worth in 2 years, it would have disentegrated in 2010. They worked very hard to stop the Pac 16. What likely would have happened would be CU, Texas, OU, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Kansas to the Pac, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and Nebraska to the Big 10. ISU, KSU and Baylor then join the Big East.

A&M had agreed to go to the Pac with the others you listed except Kansas, then at the last second (well last 30 minutes at least) Dodds and Scott couldn't agree on what to do about the LHN and the whole thing got called off. Nebraska heard about it and bolted for the B1G. Colorado went to the Pac anyway. Then the rest was history.

No. A&M said they weren't going. They wanted to go to the SEC. Kansas was A&M's replacement. LHN was mostly irrelevant. And Nebraska had already heard about it. Texas agreed to stay if 11 of the 12 stayed, but Nebraska decided they had a better deal in the Big 10, got a commitment from the Big 10 and signed it. CU had already decided they were going Pac10 alone or with others.

This is what I know to be true. A&M had looked seriously at the SEC since '90-92's talks and just needed an opening to move, which they got in 2011.

(08-12-2022 10:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 12:32 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

In support of your viewpoint, had ESPN and Fox not told the Big 12 what it would have been worth in 2 years, it would have disentegrated in 2010. They worked very hard to stop the Pac 16. What likely would have happened would be CU, Texas, OU, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Kansas to the Pac, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and Nebraska to the Big 10. ISU, KSU and Baylor then join the Big East.

A&M had agreed to go to the Pac with the others you listed except Kansas, then at the last second (well last 30 minutes at least) Dodds and Scott couldn't agree on what to do about the LHN and the whole thing got called off. Nebraska heard about it and bolted for the B1G. Colorado went to the Pac anyway. Then the rest was history.

No. A&M said they weren't going. They wanted to go to the SEC. Kansas was A&M's replacement. LHN was mostly irrelevant. And Nebraska had already heard about it. Texas agreed to stay if 11 of the 12 stayed, but Nebraska decided they had a better deal in the Big 10, got a commitment from the Big 10 and signed it. CU had already decided they were going Pac10 alone or with others.

This is what I know to be true. A&M had looked seriously at the SEC since '90-92's talks and just needed an opening to move, which they got in 2011.

It was pretty generally accepted in June 2010 that Larry Scott's plane landed in Lawrence, Kansas because A&M had said no. (yes, people watched flight tracker in those days). Tech, Okie St., Oklahoma and Texas all had board meetings scheduled to approve the deal when the Texas President pulled the plug.

(08-11-2022 07:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just tossing ideas out here:

ESPN already has the SEC and ACC locked up and the PAC 10 and Big 12 rights are up for negotiation, with the PAC 10 up first.

In an effort to grab content and keep it from their competitors, would it make sense to sign the PAC 10 to an exclusive deal, push them to add 6 Big 12 schools, then push the ACC to take Cincinnati and WVU, leaving 4 schools behind and very little content for FOX/CBS/NBC to pick up to compliment their Big 10 deals—essentially sending the message that it’s fine if they want the Big 10, but that’s all they are going to get.

1. It may make sense for both FOX and ESPN to split rights to a major conference that supplies more Central to Pacific time zone schools rather the both competing for two such conferences.

2. Right now, ESPN has ten schools in the central time zone, and FOX has six with two in the Pacific.

3. The question is: if that's what they prefer, will that conference be the Pac 12 or the Big 12? In other words, would the networks have a preference over which conference survives?

4. We've seen the TV and attendance numbers and people trying to spin those figures. But what really matters is what the TV networks have done. We've seen FOX decline to bid for Pac 12 rights and ESPN offer $250M per year.

5. If FOX and ESPN really wanted the Pac 12 to raid the Big 12, you'd think they would try a little harder than that. And you'd think that the Big 12 commissioner would be bitching to the media like Bowlsby did when the American was threatening the Big 12's existence.

6. Instead, you've got the Pac 12 commissioner bitching to the media. And not about the Big 10, but the Big 12.

7. The only reasonable conclusions are that 1) ESPN is willing to take advantage of the Pac 12's wounds and pick up Pac 12 content on the cheap, and 2) if ESPN and FOX were to prefer a single power league in the Western half of the US that league is the Big 12.

8. If so, this may be true because the Big 12 programs have played at a much higher level in football and basketball over the last several years. For example, the future Big 12 programs sans UT/OU average Massey Composite rank last year was 38.85 in football and 46.89 in basketball (both tops among all conferences). Compare the Pac 12 sans LA at 69.45 in football and 102.05 in basketball.

(08-12-2022 11:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  ... in June 2010 that Larry Scott's plane landed in Lawrence, Kansas because A&M had said no. (yes, people watched flight tracker in those days).

Yes, we were. His pilot filed the flight plan, but, IIARC, changed the plan and went back west.

fox and espn will not be working together on anything college related

What would it have been assuming A&M Mizzou still went to SEC?

PAC 8 + OUT, TTech, OSU, KU, CO ASU, AU?

However, if they got rid of the LHN, perhaps A&M would have wanted to remain with UT, hence KU would have been out. I'm not sure the SEC would have added anyone. We'd have ended up with a BE looking like:

USF, ECU, UCF, UC, WVU, Houston, Memphis, KU, KSU, Mizzou, ISU, TCU, UConn, ND/Navy

Rutgers Maryland UL probably end up where they're at. Utah still in the MWC. I'm not sure if Temple had already been added at the time.

(08-13-2022 07:23 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What would it have been assuming A&M Mizzou still went to SEC?

PAC 8 + OUT, TTech, OSU, KU, CO ASU, AU?

However, if they got rid of the LHN, perhaps A&M would have wanted to remain with UT, hence KU would have been out. I'm not sure the SEC would have added anyone. We'd have ended up with a BE looking like:

USF, ECU, UCF, UC, WVU, Houston, Memphis, KU, KSU, Mizzou, ISU, TCU, UConn, ND/Navy

Rutgers Maryland UL probably end up where they're at. Utah still in the MWC. I'm not sure if Temple had already been added at the time.

Once again, Texas didn't have the LHN in 2010. It wasn't operating yet in 2011 when A&M left. And the LHN really had zero to do with A&M leaving. It was just a tool to whip up the fan base for something the President had already decided to do in 2010 whenever the time was right. Fact is, Texas offered A&M a chance to split a "Lone Sta Network" during the startup phase, but A&M's AD was not interested.

I think ESPN’s best strategy would to offer Pac10 less than they did a week or so ago ($245MM/yr).

PAC would say “no”, until they realize no one is going to offer more.

ESPN then should say, “too late, Pac10”, and save its money for the upcoming tv contracts for Notre Dame and CFP. Thus bypassing both PAC10 and Big12.

ESPN can get its western content by effectively making MWC, AAC’s western sibling. PAC and Big12 would be so cash strapped, MW and AAC could easily surpass both on the field of play. ACC could be passed by MW and AAC, even.

If ESPN just wants to secure west coast content at a cheap price they are better off just signing them as is.

If their goal is to secure the content and deprive Fox of any additional meaningful college football programming, they give the PAC 10 a better offer should they add 6 or 8 Big 12 schools. If the scheme works, they end up with the SEC, ACC, and Pac 16 all locked up and the Big 12 is left in really rough shape.

Cincinnati and WVU are naturally then going to call the ACC and when the ACC asks ESPN what to do they could toss them a little cash for adding the pair. Boom—It’s a P2 M2 world you ESPN owns 3 of the 4.

As far as I know, there is no rule that says if the SEC finds a way to expand to 24 schools that the Big Ten must also expand to 24.

I could easily see the SEC being interested in adding 7 ACC schools (UVa, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU and Miami) plus Kansas to get to 24. That could occur either before or after the Big Ten adds Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal to stop at 20.

ESPN's role would be to put the remaining 24 P5 teams into a conference paid high enough for them to allow them all agree to sign on without taking legal action to stop it. That leaves either one 24 team conference or two 12 team conferences that include:

Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, BYU, Washington St, Oregon St
Colorado, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Iowa St, Texas Tech, Baylor

Houston, TCU, UCF, Virginia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU

***************************************************************

One possible organization for a 24 team SEC could be:

Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy
Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas
Clemson, FSU, South Carolina, Miami, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVa

That set up would call for three protected in-conference rivalries (Florida-FSU, Georgia-Ga Tech and Ole Miss-Mississippi St) and six OOC P3 rivalries (Kentucky-Louisville, Oklahoma-OK State, Kansas-Kansas St, UNC-NC State, Duke-Wake Forest and UVa-Virginia Tech).

(08-12-2022 11:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just tossing ideas out here:

ESPN already has the SEC and ACC locked up and the PAC 10 and Big 12 rights are up for negotiation, with the PAC 10 up first.

In an effort to grab content and keep it from their competitors, would it make sense to sign the PAC 10 to an exclusive deal, push them to add 6 Big 12 schools, then push the ACC to take Cincinnati and WVU, leaving 4 schools behind and very little content for FOX/CBS/NBC to pick up to compliment their Big 10 deals—essentially sending the message that it’s fine if they want the Big 10, but that’s all they are going to get.

1. It may make sense for both FOX and ESPN to split rights to a major conference that supplies more Central to Pacific time zone schools rather the both competing for two such conferences.

2. Right now, ESPN has ten schools in the central time zone, and FOX has six with two in the Pacific.

3. The question is: if that's what they prefer, will that conference be the Pac 12 or the Big 12? In other words, would the networks have a preference over which conference survives?

4. We've seen the TV and attendance numbers and people trying to spin those figures. But what really matters is what the TV networks have done. We've seen FOX decline to bid for Pac 12 rights and ESPN offer $250M per year.

5. If FOX and ESPN really wanted the Pac 12 to raid the Big 12, you'd think they would try a little harder than that. And you'd think that the Big 12 commissioner would be bitching to the media like Bowlsby did when the American was threatening the Big 12's existence.

6. Instead, you've got the Pac 12 commissioner bitching to the media. And not about the Big 10, but the Big 12.

7. The only reasonable conclusions are that 1) ESPN is willing to take advantage of the Pac 12's wounds and pick up Pac 12 content on the cheap, and 2) if ESPN and FOX were to prefer a single power league in the Western half of the US that league is the Big 12.

8. If so, this may be true because the Big 12 programs have played at a much higher level in football and basketball over the last several years. For example, the future Big 12 programs sans UT/OU average Massey Composite rank last year was 38.85 in football and 46.89 in basketball (both tops among all conferences). Compare the Pac 12 sans LA at 69.45 in football and 102.05 in basketball.

Good points. I would add one key point---with the loss of ALL Big-10 content---ESPN has lost a substantial amount of P5 content (something like 27 P5 games). The incoming SEC CBS package will cover some of that loss, but that would still have ESPN inventory down roughly 10-15 games worth of content from one of the two top P5 conferences. They already own 50% of both the Pac12 and Big12---so they would actually need to do a little better than hold court to make up those P5 inventory losses. From simply a quantity stand point, when it comes to the Pac12/Big12----I would think ESPN needs to win all of one of those two conferences and half of the other to replace all the lost P5 Big10 content.

(08-11-2022 07:42 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just tossing ideas out here:

Could see the Pac10 expanding with 6 B-12 schools down the road if it stays together and proves it is solvent after Texas and OK leave. Won't happen until the B-12 schools divvy up the TEX/OK departure fees though. The ACC isn't expanding with anyone especially WV and Cinn until the current GOR's is over and the ACC gets picked apart by the SEC and B-10.

That is a big thing people keep forgetting, if B12 was blown up the legacy schools would be walking away from a lot of money, 150 million in exit fees if memory is correct. Add to that GOR money. and if current schools leave B12 the same happens to them. So schools leaving would be walking away from close to 19 mil each plus GOR$ if TEX OK leave early, and have to pay 75 mil plus GOR. That isnt happening unless Big or SEC calls, and that is all but impossible.

(08-11-2022 07:55 AM)hk25 Wrote:  ESPN is not paying to move any schools. They will simply offer a price for a conference lineup & it will be up to the schools & conferences to decide if they want to pay the exit fees themselves to get to such conference & payday.

With the exit fees involved, one would think that conference payout would have to be $70M+ for a B12 team to consider paying their exit fees to move & I don’t believe they are worth anywhere near that.

ESPN would be better off keeping them separate & paying them $30M each which appears to be closer to their market value.

But I don’t think ESPN has enough time slots for both, so I think ESPN ultimately offers the PAC something like the following options since they better fit the late time slot needs :

10 teams - $300M
12 teams - $350M
14 teams - $390M

Then the PAC decides if they want to stay at 10 with each team getting $30M or expand with new teams getting 50% payouts (as only G5’s will join) & the legacy team’s payouts increasing.

The expansion price are a premium to what the new teams bring, but I believe ESPN will offer that for the combination of increase inventory & helping the PAC stabilize over the short term.

There are those who see some Big12 going to PAC or some Pac going to Big12 as a wash as far as added value goes. So! What if espn, in there wanting western time slots, and!, more available free cash to bid on Notre Dame and the next CFP contract, decided to lowball both PAC and Big12, then instead!, add a 3rd 7-team western division of the AAC with the 7 best MW schools?

Pay all 21 a little more per member than what all 21 currently get per year in tv revenue, and, VOILA! ESPN has a coast to coast conference that overachieves on the field and beats ACC, Big12 and PAC schools more and more regularly with each passing year! All, on the (relative) cheap for espn, and the (relative) bonus for the AAC-21 members. AND! More available cash to bid for Notre Dame and CFP.

BOOM!!!