And why the ACC shouldn't have an issue with just moving on.

When expansion to an 8-school playoff was first discussed the 3 billion more figure was tossed around. At 16 schools, and not because of the initial figure, some are now estimating an upper tier of brands consolidated to make possible the greatest number of games which cross the 5 million viewer threshold, and a 16-school playoff could be worth 6 billion more.

Let's make a few basic and reasonable assumptions. First, the networks would pay for the value added for brand consolidation, and indeed have already done so in the Big 10 contract, which contains an additional 2 billion for further additions, which works out to the new contract payout plus 4 new schools pro rata. The contract contains a separate clause for the addition of Notre Dame.

Second, let's assume the networks split the value of the 16 school playoff. That's 1.5 billion each for ESPN and FOX. Should we initially have the SEC, the Big 10, and a compilation third conference that would be 1 billion each for them. Why would the SEC and B1G agree to this? They each will be earning ~80 million per school in media money. Each school in the 24 member B1G and SEC would NET another 40 million for each school annually from 1 billion (counting the conference share).

The compilation conference of 24 schools would also NET another 40 million.

So why would the Networks want to do this? If they paid the up charge to promote 8 schools to the B1G and 8 schools to the SEC at ~40 million each, then each Network spends an additional 320 million dollars. If they moved the PAC 4 corners to the New B12 and the remnant ACC schools to the same and paid each 5 million more than they make now (think 42 million) they have each spent in this 24-member conference, another 60 to 65 million each, if the split it. So, for a NET cost of 385 million each they NET 1.15 billion in profit and the get the high yield viewership revenue for the SEC and B1G that the 24 games per week at 5 million plus viewers yields.

Now, unlike what Frank claims about making everyone happy, would Wake Forest, B.C. and Pitt, etc. enjoy making 82 million a year with playoff money even if everyone else makes 120 million? Or would they rather moan and cry and be out completely in 14 years. They may still be out in 14 years with this transitional model, but with 680 million more for their trouble.

It's about making everyone whole financially for the contracted period, not about making them happy per se.

Now worst-case scenario, half it all but keep the initial overhead and the Networks make 365 million more plus advertising upgrades, the B1G and SEC get 100 million per member and the consolation conference gets 62 million per member, and it's all paid for by consolidation and expanded playoffs. And it doesn't include the huge reduction in conference duplicated overhead.

Now give me a logical reason to oppose the change?

(08-25-2022 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And why the ACC shouldn't have an issue with just moving on.

When expansion to an 8-school playoff was first discussed the 3 billion more figure was tossed around. At 16 schools, and not because of the initial figure, some are now estimating an upper tier of brands consolidated to make possible the greatest number of games which cross the 5 million viewer threshold, and a 16-school playoff could be worth 6 billion more.

Let's make a few basic and reasonable assumptions. First, the networks would pay for the value added for brand consolidation, and indeed have already done so in the Big 10 contract, which contains an additional 2 billion for further additions, which works out to the new contract payout plus 4 new schools pro rata. The contract contains a separate clause for the addition of Notre Dame.

Second, let's assume the networks split the value of the 16 school playoff. That's 1.5 billion each for ESPN and FOX. Should we initially have the SEC, the Big 10, and a compilation third conference that would be 1 billion each for them. Why would the SEC and B1G agree to this? They each will be earning ~80 million per school in media money. Each school in the 24 member B1G and SEC would NET another 40 million for each school annually from 1 billion (counting the conference share).

The compilation conference of 24 schools would also NET another 40 million.

So why would the Networks want to do this? If they paid the up charge to promote 8 schools to the B1G and 8 schools to the SEC at ~40 million each, then each Network spends an additional 320 million dollars. If they moved the PAC 4 corners to the New B12 and the remnant ACC schools to the same and paid each 5 million more than they make now (think 42 million) they have each spent in this 24-member conference, another 60 to 65 million each, if the split it. So, for a NET cost of 385 million each they NET 1.15 billion in profit and the get the high yield viewership revenue for the SEC and B1G that the 24 games per week at 5 million plus viewers yields.

Now, unlike what Frank claims about making everyone happy, would Wake Forest, B.C. and Pitt, etc. enjoy making 82 million a year with playoff money even if everyone else makes 120 million? Or would they rather moan and cry and be out completely in 14 years. They may still be out in 14 years with this transitional model, but with 680 million more for their trouble.

It's about making everyone whole financially for the contracted period, not about making them happy per se.

Now worst-case scenario, half it all but keep the initial overhead and the Networks make 365 million more plus advertising upgrades, the B1G and SEC get 100 million per member and the consolation conference gets 62 million per member, and it's all paid for by consolidation and expanded playoffs. And it doesn't include the huge reduction in conference duplicated overhead.

Now give me a logical reason to oppose the change?

In a word, symmetry. Four smaller conferences make more sense than three larger ones. 1) there aren't a lot of worthy candidates left for elevation to the exalted realms of the P2, and 2) whether a four or eight game championship series, it makes more sense to start with an even number of major conference champions in the queue.

Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

(08-25-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

Really? Did you read the B10 contract? What you are talking about is primarily social media hearsay. SBJ's John Ourand is quoted saying Notre Dame is the only B10 non-member mentioned in their contract with specific increases if they were to join, and the contracts don’t assign a dollar figure to any other school, or group of schools, that may join the conference according to "several sources," and therefore doesn't assign a dollar amount to any other additions. In other words, if there are additions other than ND, there is no guaranteed increased amount.

LMFAO, you have a very unscientific definition of "proof." And coming on to a conference's specific message board demanding everyone agree that it should dissolve as soon as possible is just bizarre.

Here's what I know with absolute certainty; absolutely no institution is going to voluntarily expedite their relegation to a de facto second tier. And it doesn't matter what kind of convoluted, back of the napkin math anyone comes up with on a fan message board. My lord, all of these convoluted scenarios continually thrown at the wall don't even deserve a response to be completely honest.

It is also pretty obvious that fans of conferences that stand to gain the most with another conference's demise apparently can't contain themselves from from posting on fan boards as if they expect their manifestos to have some impact on real world business decisions. It might behoove people to actually listen to what sports business people, not bloggers and sports writers with no sports business background, actually have to say, especially when the people talking are in control of the media rights.

(08-25-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

Somewhat common sense. For example, the FTC is the US government agency that reviews whether proposed mergers (consolidations) will limit competition.

Conference expansion by one or two schools is not a big deal…Fox benefits with a B1G expansion & ESPN wins with SEC expansion. But a major restructuring from 5 to 3 power conferences is a different level of change. Not suggesting that the government would oppose, just that media companies would be leery of facilitating this magnitude of merging content providers.

(08-25-2022 09:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

Really? Did you read the B10 contract? What you are talking about is primarily social media hearsay. SBJ's John Ourand is quoted saying Notre Dame is the only B10 non-member mentioned in their contract with specific increases if they were to join, and the contracts don’t assign a dollar figure to any other school, or group of schools, that may join the conference according to "several sources," and therefore doesn't assign a dollar amount to any other additions. In other words, if there are additions other than ND, there is no guaranteed increased amount.

LMFAO, you have a very unscientific definition of "proof." And coming on to a conference's specific message board demanding everyone agree that it should dissolve as soon as possible is just bizarre.

Here's what I know with absolute certainty, absolutely no institution is going to voluntarily relegate themselves to a de facto second tier. And it doesn't matter what kind of convoluted, back of the napkin math anyone comes up with on a fan message board.

It is also pretty obvious that fans of conferences that stand to gain the most with another conference's demise apparently can't contain themselves from from posting on fan boards as if they expect their manifestos to have some impact on real world business decisions. It might behoove people to actually listen to what sports business people, not bloggers and sports writers with no sports business background, actually have to say, especially when the people talking are in control of the media rights.

Pro rata doesn't increase the amounts. And do you mean sports businesspeople like a plethora of AD's including Swarbrick? Head coaches? Commissioner's remarks? And I guess Wilner has no sports background, or Dan Patrick, or McMurphy?

And while people don't relegate themselves to second tier status, once relegated I bet they choose the best financial option forward.

And this time Paco at least most of this forum's posters are no longer drinking Kool-Aid. It's sobering this time and most people are seeing things as they are, napkin math or not.

(08-25-2022 09:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

Somewhat common sense. For example, the FTC is the US government agency that reviews whether proposed mergers (consolidations) will limit competition.

Conference expansion by one or two schools is not a big deal…Fox benefits with a B1G expansion & ESPN wins with SEC expansion. But a major restructuring from 5 to 3 power conferences is a different level of change. Not suggesting that the government would oppose, just that media companies would be leery of facilitating this magnitude of merging content providers.

Publicly? I agree. Financial backing? Tells quite a different story and always has.

The differences this time are the SCOTUS rulings, and with some yet to come which have compelled some of this change, I'd bet on a much wider latitude for restructuring for those moving to comply and separating themselves to do so efficiently.

(08-25-2022 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 09:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

Really? Did you read the B10 contract? What you are talking about is primarily social media hearsay. SBJ's John Ourand is quoted saying Notre Dame is the only B10 non-member mentioned in their contract with specific increases if they were to join, and the contracts don’t assign a dollar figure to any other school, or group of schools, that may join the conference according to "several sources," and therefore doesn't assign a dollar amount to any other additions. In other words, if there are additions other than ND, there is no guaranteed increased amount.

LMFAO, you have a very unscientific definition of "proof." And coming on to a conference's specific message board demanding everyone agree that it should dissolve as soon as possible is just bizarre.

Here's what I know with absolute certainty, absolutely no institution is going to voluntarily relegate themselves to a de facto second tier. And it doesn't matter what kind of convoluted, back of the napkin math anyone comes up with on a fan message board.

It is also pretty obvious that fans of conferences that stand to gain the most with another conference's demise apparently can't contain themselves from from posting on fan boards as if they expect their manifestos to have some impact on real world business decisions. It might behoove people to actually listen to what sports business people, not bloggers and sports writers with no sports business background, actually have to say, especially when the people talking are in control of the media rights.

Pro rata doesn't increase the amounts. And do you mean sports businesspeople like a plethora of AD's including Swarbrick? Head coaches? Commissioner's remarks? And I guess Wilner has no sports background, or Dan Patrick, or McMurphy?

And while people don't relegate themselves to second tier status, once relegated I bet they choose the best financial option forward.

And this time Paco at least most of this forum's posters are no longer drinking Kool-Aid. It's sobering this time and most people are seeing things as they are, napkin math or not.

Wilner is actually one who has reported about there not being guaranteed money for additions.

I'll quote him (although he relied almost entirely on SBJ's reporting):

"The networks have agreed to have good-faith conversations with the conference about opening their deals and adjusting their rights fees. But the specific increases are not spelled out in the contract language."

"In fact, the networks haven’t committed to paying the Big Ten anything for [additions]"

Thus, if you believe SBJ and Wilner, no guaranteed pro rata.

Dan Patrick? LOL. If you are relying on Patrick, well bless your heart.

You state no one relegates themselves, but the entire basis of your post is that they "just move on". Not happening, but how convenient of a proposition for fans of other conferences.

Nor does it appear that ESPN would be on board, at least according to ESPN's president of programing. There also appears to be a somewhat different set of criteria in how ESPN measures value vs Fox.

ACC may or may not be around in 2037. But it is more likely that it is going to be around for a while longer than fans of conference who think they would benefit from its demise would wish. And BC and Syracuse and Wake aren't going to expedite any demise. The idea that they would do anything other is what is completely absurd.

(08-25-2022 10:39 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 09:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 05:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Media companies don’t want consolidation. Fewer conferences likely reduces media company leverage.

For example, ESPN has a very favorable deal with the ACC. As compared to the B1G’s new contract, even the SEC contract seems ESPN friendly. I don’t know that ESPN wants to risk its lucrative ACC and ACCN relationships. This proposal may be empowering the true content providers.

From the perspective of college athletic departments, this does seem to be direction of power programs.

Prove it! FOX set aside 2 Billion in the B1G contract for further additions, which means 4 at pro rata x 7 years. There's my proof. Where's yours?

Really? Did you read the B10 contract? What you are talking about is primarily social media hearsay. SBJ's John Ourand is quoted saying Notre Dame is the only B10 non-member mentioned in their contract with specific increases if they were to join, and the contracts don’t assign a dollar figure to any other school, or group of schools, that may join the conference according to "several sources," and therefore doesn't assign a dollar amount to any other additions. In other words, if there are additions other than ND, there is no guaranteed increased amount.

LMFAO, you have a very unscientific definition of "proof." And coming on to a conference's specific message board demanding everyone agree that it should dissolve as soon as possible is just bizarre.

Here's what I know with absolute certainty, absolutely no institution is going to voluntarily relegate themselves to a de facto second tier. And it doesn't matter what kind of convoluted, back of the napkin math anyone comes up with on a fan message board.

It is also pretty obvious that fans of conferences that stand to gain the most with another conference's demise apparently can't contain themselves from from posting on fan boards as if they expect their manifestos to have some impact on real world business decisions. It might behoove people to actually listen to what sports business people, not bloggers and sports writers with no sports business background, actually have to say, especially when the people talking are in control of the media rights.

Pro rata doesn't increase the amounts. And do you mean sports businesspeople like a plethora of AD's including Swarbrick? Head coaches? Commissioner's remarks? And I guess Wilner has no sports background, or Dan Patrick, or McMurphy?

And while people don't relegate themselves to second tier status, once relegated I bet they choose the best financial option forward.

And this time Paco at least most of this forum's posters are no longer drinking Kool-Aid. It's sobering this time and most people are seeing things as they are, napkin math or not.

Wilner is actually one who has reported about there not being guaranteed money for additions.

I'll quote him (although he relied almost entirely on SBJ's reporting):

"The networks have agreed to have good-faith conversations with the conference about opening their deals and adjusting their rights fees. But the specific increases are not spelled out in the contract language."

"In fact, the networks haven’t committed to paying the Big Ten anything for [additions]"

Thus, if you believe SBJ and Wilner, no guaranteed pro rata.

Dan Patrick? LOL. If you are relying on Patrick, well bless your heart.

You state no one relegates themselves, but the entire basis of your post is that they "just move on". Not happening, but how convenient of a proposition for fans of other conferences.

Nor does it appear that ESPN would be on board, at least according to ESPN's president of programing. There also appears to be a somewhat different set of criteria in how ESPN measures value vs Fox.

ACC may or may not be around in 2037. But it is more likely that it is going to be around for a while longer than fans of conference who think they would benefit from its demise would wish. And BC and Syracuse and Wake aren't going to expedite any demise. The idea that they would do anything other is what is completely absurd.

1. Wilner is saying a P3 with the Big 12 as a compilation conference. I said that a year ago because its logical.

2. Relegating self: You can hold everyone up and destroy relations and leave with nothing in 2036. Or you can accept the compilation conference, realize your fate, bank a lot more money, and take 14 years to transition. I know which outcome I'd bet on. That's one helluva severance arrangement. It costs the SEC and B1G a larger share of playoff money so not so much the networks who do pay ~5 million more to each school over what the media payouts are now so 120 million split 2 ways. But the SEC and B1G make more, the networks make more, and those who would be relegated do as well and have 3 academic cycles and a pair of years to plot their transition.

I don't know many people or entities choose scorched earth and hardship over severance and time to plan when the outcome is likely inevitable.

3. What ESPN says and what they do are constrained by liability avoidance. So, count me as dubious as to the consistency in word and deed.