Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
Author Message
CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 05:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 11:05 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the B1G is being very deliberative but will add some combination (or all) of Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington by the end of the year.

The B1G needs to finish its now long delayed media deal, in part to establish a baseline media value per team. Based on the speculation, that would be about $90 million per team.

After wrapping that up, the B1G can plot a course to maximize the value of the 4 PAC teams by adding a fourth (Pacific Coast) timeslot game and opening up the bidding on it (Hello again, ESPN). Extracting a little bit more for each of the three earlier timezones for the enhanced matchups they bring will get the B1G more, plus Fox gets any leftover games on the west coast to promote BTN carriage out west. I think that approach gets the BIG close to 90% of the $360 million needed to give the PAC 4 a full share.

With real $ numbers for the PAC 4 values in hand, Warren can approach them and let them know, if necessary, how much of a reduced share they must take and for how long, with a guarantee of full shares when the next media deal comes along. Even a $75 million payout is twice what they would make in the PAC.

Warren said he will be aggressive in expanding the B1G and I don't see him or the B1G twiddling their thumbs and waiting when they can bring the best of the PAC brands onboard.

If the B1G was adding anyone else, they would have done so before conducting negotiations on their new contract.

That wasn't possible.

If you remember the timeline, the B1G was going to announce their new media deal by the end of May. That got postponed unexpectedly, but the reason was clear by the end of June when USC and UCLA joined. The B1G then went back to their media partners and told them to resubmit bids based on a 16 team conference with the two new members. Shortly after the USC/UCLA announcement, the B1G got inquiries from the other PAC schools.

After having pushed back the timeline and then at the 11th hour asked their potential media partners to go back to square 1 on their bids, there was no way the B1G could then possibly go back to them a second time after getting inquiries from the other PAC schools and ask for theoretical bids that also included some or all of them, depending on which ones the B1G ultimately might pick to join the conference. That approach would have resulted in a complete clusterfk of a media negotiation.

That's why the better approach is to finalize the media deal with 16 teams first, to establish a baseline value, and then come up with a strategy to add the 4 PAC teams and update the media deal later.
08-17-2022 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 06:35 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 05:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 11:05 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the B1G is being very deliberative but will add some combination (or all) of Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington by the end of the year.

The B1G needs to finish its now long delayed media deal, in part to establish a baseline media value per team. Based on the speculation, that would be about $90 million per team.

After wrapping that up, the B1G can plot a course to maximize the value of the 4 PAC teams by adding a fourth (Pacific Coast) timeslot game and opening up the bidding on it (Hello again, ESPN). Extracting a little bit more for each of the three earlier timezones for the enhanced matchups they bring will get the B1G more, plus Fox gets any leftover games on the west coast to promote BTN carriage out west. I think that approach gets the BIG close to 90% of the $360 million needed to give the PAC 4 a full share.

With real $ numbers for the PAC 4 values in hand, Warren can approach them and let them know, if necessary, how much of a reduced share they must take and for how long, with a guarantee of full shares when the next media deal comes along. Even a $75 million payout is twice what they would make in the PAC.

Warren said he will be aggressive in expanding the B1G and I don't see him or the B1G twiddling their thumbs and waiting when they can bring the best of the PAC brands onboard.

If the B1G was adding anyone else, they would have done so before conducting negotiations on their new contract.

That wasn't possible.

If you remember the timeline, the B1G was going to announce their new media deal by the end of May. That got postponed unexpectedly, but the reason was clear by the end of June when USC and UCLA joined. The B1G then went back to their media partners and told them to resubmit bids based on a 16 team conference with the two new members. Shortly after the USC/UCLA announcement, the B1G got inquiries from the other PAC schools.

After having pushed back the timeline and then at the 11th hour asked their potential media partners to go back to square 1 on their bids, there was no way the B1G could then possibly go back to them a second time after getting inquiries from the other PAC schools and ask for theoretical bids that also included some or all of them, depending on which ones the B1G ultimately might pick to join the conference. That approach would have resulted in a complete clusterfk of a media negotiation.

That's why the better approach is to finalize the media deal with 16 teams first, to establish a baseline value, and then come up with a strategy to add the 4 PAC teams and update the media deal later.

A month ago, there were media reports(leaks) that USC and UCLA would get a full share of Big Ten revenue from the start.

The distinct timing of Step #1 - add USC + UCLA and Step #2 - add other Pacific schools, sets up the scenario nicely where the Big Ten can require other new schools to buy in or phase in to Big Ten membership with partial payments for a number of years. This timing and buy in may be the very situation that is needed to justify the addition of more Pacific schools.
08-17-2022 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 06:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 06:35 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 05:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 11:05 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the B1G is being very deliberative but will add some combination (or all) of Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington by the end of the year.

The B1G needs to finish its now long delayed media deal, in part to establish a baseline media value per team. Based on the speculation, that would be about $90 million per team.

After wrapping that up, the B1G can plot a course to maximize the value of the 4 PAC teams by adding a fourth (Pacific Coast) timeslot game and opening up the bidding on it (Hello again, ESPN). Extracting a little bit more for each of the three earlier timezones for the enhanced matchups they bring will get the B1G more, plus Fox gets any leftover games on the west coast to promote BTN carriage out west. I think that approach gets the BIG close to 90% of the $360 million needed to give the PAC 4 a full share.

With real $ numbers for the PAC 4 values in hand, Warren can approach them and let them know, if necessary, how much of a reduced share they must take and for how long, with a guarantee of full shares when the next media deal comes along. Even a $75 million payout is twice what they would make in the PAC.

Warren said he will be aggressive in expanding the B1G and I don't see him or the B1G twiddling their thumbs and waiting when they can bring the best of the PAC brands onboard.

If the B1G was adding anyone else, they would have done so before conducting negotiations on their new contract.

That wasn't possible.

If you remember the timeline, the B1G was going to announce their new media deal by the end of May. That got postponed unexpectedly, but the reason was clear by the end of June when USC and UCLA joined. The B1G then went back to their media partners and told them to resubmit bids based on a 16 team conference with the two new members. Shortly after the USC/UCLA announcement, the B1G got inquiries from the other PAC schools.

After having pushed back the timeline and then at the 11th hour asked their potential media partners to go back to square 1 on their bids, there was no way the B1G could then possibly go back to them a second time after getting inquiries from the other PAC schools and ask for theoretical bids that also included some or all of them, depending on which ones the B1G ultimately might pick to join the conference. That approach would have resulted in a complete clusterfk of a media negotiation.

That's why the better approach is to finalize the media deal with 16 teams first, to establish a baseline value, and then come up with a strategy to add the 4 PAC teams and update the media deal later.

A month ago, there were media reports(leaks) that USC and UCLA would get a full share of Big Ten revenue from the start.

The distinct timing of Step #1 - add USC + UCLA and Step #2 - add other Pacific schools, sets up the scenario nicely where the Big Ten can require other new schools to buy in or phase in to Big Ten membership with partial payments for a number of years. This timing and buy in may be the very situation that is needed to justify the addition of more Pacific schools.

With a media deal in place and a baseline value for media payouts per B1G team established, it also enables the B1G to obtain market driven data establishing the relative value of the 4 PAC teams - data that can be shared with them to justify a less than full share payout and demonstrate the B1G's fairness in coming up with the numbers.
08-17-2022 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,437
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 72
I Root For: TTU, USA,
Location: Texas
Post: #44
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
I wonder if these contingency payout for potential teams are named. Proof that pac teams are willing to join has already been demonstrated with usc/ucla.

So the B1G already knows how much more they would make with Stanford or Oregon or Washington
08-17-2022 07:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 07:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  I wonder if these contingency payout for potential teams are named. Proof that pac teams are willing to join has already been demonstrated with usc/ucla.

So the B1G already knows how much more they would make with Stanford or Oregon or Washington

I think the B1G has an educated guess on that but they won't really know until the bids come in from their media partners.

And the total value also depends on how the B1G goes forward. If all the B1G does is ask it's media partners to pony up more money, that number may not be high. On the other hand, if the B1G were to create a fourth timeslot for B1G games on the west coast and offer it out for bids, ESPN and Fox would probably both bid on it and that would generate far more cash. Remember that ESPN gave the PAC a lowball offer equivalent to $30 million per team when the PAC tried to reopen media negotiations. ESPN would pay far more for games that included USC/UCLA and were guaranteed matchups between the top 6 PAC brands.

There are too many unknowns at this point for the B1G to have an accurate figure for how much they might make with the other PAC teams on board.
08-17-2022 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 07:29 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 07:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  I wonder if these contingency payout for potential teams are named. Proof that pac teams are willing to join has already been demonstrated with usc/ucla.

So the B1G already knows how much more they would make with Stanford or Oregon or Washington

I think the B1G has an educated guess on that but they won't really know until the bids come in from their media partners.

And the total value also depends on how the B1G goes forward. If all the B1G does is ask it's media partners to pony up more money, that number may not be high. On the other hand, if the B1G were to create a fourth timeslot for B1G games on the west coast and offer it out for bids, ESPN and Fox would probably both bid on it and that would generate far more cash. Remember that ESPN gave the PAC a lowball offer equivalent to $30 million per team when the PAC tried to reopen media negotiations. ESPN would pay far more for games that included USC/UCLA and were guaranteed matchups between the top 6 PAC brands.

There are too many unknowns at this point for the B1G to have an accurate figure for how much they might make with the other PAC teams on board.

I don't see how anyone other than Notre Dame adds any measurable value to the CBS and NBC packages. They still get the same number of games and those slots won't be used for the newbies very often. It might create a very minor uptick in ratings because UW or Stanford is in the same conference. So value would have to come from the Fox package and different time slots.
08-17-2022 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 08:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 07:29 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 07:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  I wonder if these contingency payout for potential teams are named. Proof that pac teams are willing to join has already been demonstrated with usc/ucla.

So the B1G already knows how much more they would make with Stanford or Oregon or Washington

I think the B1G has an educated guess on that but they won't really know until the bids come in from their media partners.

And the total value also depends on how the B1G goes forward. If all the B1G does is ask it's media partners to pony up more money, that number may not be high. On the other hand, if the B1G were to create a fourth timeslot for B1G games on the west coast and offer it out for bids, ESPN and Fox would probably both bid on it and that would generate far more cash. Remember that ESPN gave the PAC a lowball offer equivalent to $30 million per team when the PAC tried to reopen media negotiations. ESPN would pay far more for games that included USC/UCLA and were guaranteed matchups between the top 6 PAC brands.

There are too many unknowns at this point for the B1G to have an accurate figure for how much they might make with the other PAC teams on board.

I don't see how anyone other than Notre Dame adds any measurable value to the CBS and NBC packages. They still get the same number of games and those slots won't be used for the newbies very often. It might create a very minor uptick in ratings because UW or Stanford is in the same conference. So value would have to come from the Fox package and different time slots.

The PAC teams aren't Notre Dame, but any USC or Oregon game against a quality B1G opponent, like the Oregon/OSU game last year, will draw big numbers. The other PAC schools provide better matchups as well. The second or third game could be Stanford v. Michigan State rather than Maryland v. Michigan State if the PAC teams join.

The media partners are rumored to be paying $350 million each for the three other slots. Even if the PAC schools enhance the value of those slots by only 10%, that translates into another $105 million for the B1G.

Adding the 4th time slot will bring much more. If ESPN was willing to pay $30 million per team to the PAC for lesser games, which would be another $120 million to the B1G for 4 teams, my guess is they would pay $180-$200 million for a package focused on the top 6 PAC brands.

Then throw in some more money from Fox, which would get about 15 more football games from the leftover west coast slots. Even a low price of $3 million a game would add $45 million more.

Add it all up and the B1G generates $325-$345 million per year from the PAC additions, or roughly $80-$85 million per new school. That's very close to the $90 million per school full share that the rest of the B1G teams are likely to get under the new media deal.
08-17-2022 10:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 12,816
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1307
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #48
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 06:35 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 05:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 11:05 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the B1G is being very deliberative but will add some combination (or all) of Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington by the end of the year.

The B1G needs to finish its now long delayed media deal, in part to establish a baseline media value per team. Based on the speculation, that would be about $90 million per team.

After wrapping that up, the B1G can plot a course to maximize the value of the 4 PAC teams by adding a fourth (Pacific Coast) timeslot game and opening up the bidding on it (Hello again, ESPN). Extracting a little bit more for each of the three earlier timezones for the enhanced matchups they bring will get the B1G more, plus Fox gets any leftover games on the west coast to promote BTN carriage out west. I think that approach gets the BIG close to 90% of the $360 million needed to give the PAC 4 a full share.

With real $ numbers for the PAC 4 values in hand, Warren can approach them and let them know, if necessary, how much of a reduced share they must take and for how long, with a guarantee of full shares when the next media deal comes along. Even a $75 million payout is twice what they would make in the PAC.

Warren said he will be aggressive in expanding the B1G and I don't see him or the B1G twiddling their thumbs and waiting when they can bring the best of the PAC brands onboard.

If the B1G was adding anyone else, they would have done so before conducting negotiations on their new contract.

That wasn't possible.

If you remember the timeline, the B1G was going to announce their new media deal by the end of May. That got postponed unexpectedly, but the reason was clear by the end of June when USC and UCLA joined. The B1G then went back to their media partners and told them to resubmit bids based on a 16 team conference with the two new members. Shortly after the USC/UCLA announcement, the B1G got inquiries from the other PAC schools.

After having pushed back the timeline and then at the 11th hour asked their potential media partners to go back to square 1 on their bids, there was no way the B1G could then possibly go back to them a second time after getting inquiries from the other PAC schools and ask for theoretical bids that also included some or all of them, depending on which ones the B1G ultimately might pick to join the conference. That approach would have resulted in a complete clusterfk of a media negotiation.

That's why the better approach is to finalize the media deal with 16 teams first, to establish a baseline value, and then come up with a strategy to add the 4 PAC teams and update the media deal later.

You're the B1G. The media partners would be there regardless of the timing.
08-17-2022 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,576
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 640
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #49
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
(08-17-2022 10:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 08:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 07:29 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2022 07:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  I wonder if these contingency payout for potential teams are named. Proof that pac teams are willing to join has already been demonstrated with usc/ucla.

So the B1G already knows how much more they would make with Stanford or Oregon or Washington

I think the B1G has an educated guess on that but they won't really know until the bids come in from their media partners.

And the total value also depends on how the B1G goes forward. If all the B1G does is ask it's media partners to pony up more money, that number may not be high. On the other hand, if the B1G were to create a fourth timeslot for B1G games on the west coast and offer it out for bids, ESPN and Fox would probably both bid on it and that would generate far more cash. Remember that ESPN gave the PAC a lowball offer equivalent to $30 million per team when the PAC tried to reopen media negotiations. ESPN would pay far more for games that included USC/UCLA and were guaranteed matchups between the top 6 PAC brands.

There are too many unknowns at this point for the B1G to have an accurate figure for how much they might make with the other PAC teams on board.

I don't see how anyone other than Notre Dame adds any measurable value to the CBS and NBC packages. They still get the same number of games and those slots won't be used for the newbies very often. It might create a very minor uptick in ratings because UW or Stanford is in the same conference. So value would have to come from the Fox package and different time slots.

The PAC teams aren't Notre Dame, but any USC or Oregon game against a quality B1G opponent, like the Oregon/OSU game last year, will draw big numbers. The other PAC schools provide better matchups as well. The second or third game could be Stanford v. Michigan State rather than Maryland v. Michigan State if the PAC teams join.

The media partners are rumored to be paying $350 million each for the three other slots. Even if the PAC schools enhance the value of those slots by only 10%, that translates into another $105 million for the B1G.

Adding the 4th time slot will bring much more. If ESPN was willing to pay $30 million per team to the PAC for lesser games, which would be another $120 million to the B1G for 4 teams, my guess is they would pay $180-$200 million for a package focused on the top 6 PAC brands.

Then throw in some more money from Fox, which would get about 15 more football games from the leftover west coast slots. Even a low price of $3 million a game would add $45 million more.

Add it all up and the B1G generates $325-$345 million per year from the PAC additions, or roughly $80-$85 million per new school. That's very close to the $90 million per school full share that the rest of the B1G teams are likely to get under the new media deal.

You're forgetting a late night slot has value when the two teams are in the Pacific Time Zone. The percentage of Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, or even Penn State, Ohio State, or Michigan fans willing to stay up for games until 2am ET isn't the same as Oregon, Washington, or California (the state, not the university) watching games in "prime time" for them. Now of course if the Big 10 adds more West Coast teams to UCLA and USC they might have enough West Coast games to make regular "late night" games worth it to a broadcaster. But don't think that all of a sudden Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State will be playing games at 10:30pm ET. You think Oklahoma hated playing at noon ET? And why would ESPN, FOX, or anyone else waste one of the Big Three in a late night slot when they can use them earlier in the day and get more viewers? So why would ESPN pay four times as much for the "Big Ten" in the late night slot when they're at best getting West Coast games anyway or the lesser Big Ten schools that they don't care about forced to play UCLA and USC late at night and most of their fans will be asleep.
08-18-2022 06:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,264
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1205
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #50
RE: Is the Big Ten preparing to add more schools, including possibly TCU?
You don’t think they’ve run the numbers on these other schools? It’s not there. The hole has been dug, the Big Ten benefits from a west coast outpost. Time will tell if this works for USC/UCLA.

TCU has a 0% chance at Big Ten membership.
08-18-2022 06:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.