(09-15-2022 09:03 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

The ACC championship game was out-viewed by American.

The casual viewer already knows the ACC isn’t relevant

That's a pretty unfair comparison if you're just looking at 2021. Several ACC CCGs rated extremely well in the CFP era.

The top 4 playoff of the CFP era has driven ratings toward the specific games that impact the top 4 playoff, which makes sense. I think what has alarmed the Powers That Be is that it essentially did that so much that it devalued virtually ALL games that weren't involved the playoff race. This drove CFP expansion more than everything else.

Thus, the dynamics are going to change with the 12-team playoff because every CCG is going to have a playoff impact. The SEC and Big Ten CCGs are probably always going to be the highest-rated, but all of the rest of the P5 are going to get a bump, too.

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

I'm not sure NBC is 100% done. They very well might be. But just looking at what platforms they have to fill time on, what they might be in the market for:
--half-dozen OTA 3:00 Eastern games when Notre Dame is on the road.
--USA network has NASCAR Xfinity on Saturdays, if they keep that contract, room for one college football game, if not then two games.
NASCAR seems to wrap up the first weekend in November, so maybe USA network doubleheaders the last 2-3 Saturdays in November?
--games on Peacock.

How attractive is that to the PAC, how much money is NBC going lay out for that, is a different question.

(09-15-2022 08:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  Live view of Pete the Chop. Poor guy. Enjoy the next 14 seasons of ACC bawl!!!

Meanwhile in Greensboro, we've got (from left) John Swofford, Jim Phillips and an unidentified ESPN exec fine-tuning the ACC's public relations strategy

(09-15-2022 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

I'm not sure NBC is 100% done. They very well might be. But just looking at what platforms they have to fill time on, what they might be in the market for:
--half-dozen OTA 3:00 Eastern games when Notre Dame is on the road.
--USA network has NASCAR Xfinity on Saturdays, if they keep that contract, room for one college football game, if not then two games.
NASCAR seems to wrap up the first weekend in November, so maybe USA network doubleheaders the last 2-3 Saturdays in November?
--games on Peacock.

How attractive is that to the PAC, how much money is NBC going lay out for that, is a different question.

NBC hasn't finalized their Notre Dame deal.

I doubt they entertain other bids till that one is final.

(09-15-2022 09:14 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

I'm not sure NBC is 100% done. They very well might be. But just looking at what platforms they have to fill time on, what they might be in the market for:
--half-dozen OTA 3:00 Eastern games when Notre Dame is on the road.
--USA network has NASCAR Xfinity on Saturdays, if they keep that contract, room for one college football game, if not then two games.
NASCAR seems to wrap up the first weekend in November, so maybe USA network doubleheaders the last 2-3 Saturdays in November?
--games on Peacock.

How attractive is that to the PAC, how much money is NBC going lay out for that, is a different question.

NBC hasn't finalized their Notre Dame deal.

I doubt they entertain other bids till that one is final.

Of course. Notre Dame >> PAC-10, no question. But I think the outlines of the NBC Notre Dame deal are pretty clear.

If we can sketch out plans in a notebook, I'm sure the executives at NBC UNiversal Comcast can do the same. The question is whether being in the P5-but-not-P2/ND college football business is a good one to be in.

IT applies just as much to the Big 12 as to the PAC.

There's even a scenario where ESPN sells NBC a half-dozen ACC / Big 12 / PAC games to fill those Saturday afternoons where Notre Dame is on the road. Based on the Notre Dame contract, the going rate is $10M for a mediocre OTA game. So $60M a year for ESPN, NBC fills airtime.

(09-15-2022 08:54 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:30 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Simple question..

What is more important to college football fans..
Making the playoffs or making the most money?
In the ACC, Clemson will be a playoff favorite yearly. In the SEC, most years they will be fighting to finish 3rd or 4th behind Bama, UGA, and whatever other schools are good in a given year. The SEC road is even tougher for FSU and Miami than it is for Clemson. Same thing would apply to schools like Washington and Oregon whose fans want them in the B1G. It would create scenarios of these schools actually being pretty good, but finishing 6th or 7th in a 20 school B1G or SEC and having no real shot of making a 12 team playoff more years than not.

It's not like fans get a cut of increased conference revenue. Banners don't get hung for most profitable athletic departments.. The bottom feeders in the SEC and B1G already make a lot more money that Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC schools, but that doesn't translate to better results than the upper tier schools in the less valuable conferences.

I just don't get the desire to move to the B1G or SEC so you can win less..

That's extreme recency bias in terms of the teams you list. The SEC is tougher for everyone in the conference. Miami would have dominated the SEC in the early 00's. FSU would have been the best program in the SEC in the 90's (with UF and UTn being the runner-ups). In 5-10 years...Bama could very well hit a slump. Seems hard to imagine now...but was easy to see from 1980-2009...the Tide was not an elite program for that stretch of 3 decades, save a season or two. UGA struggled for decades and finally got it right lately. Texas...will eventually get it right. It's not just going to be Bama-UGA into eternity. There are several teams that have the resources and support to be the next heir to the throne. And then there will be another.

No, not recency bias, just a knowledge of the SEC..
Since 1963, only 6 SEC have won SEC championships.

Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee

Ole Miss in 1963 was the last to win it outside of these 6 schools. Those same 6 schools have also all won National Titles in the last 25 years. In over 70 combined seasons, none of the 4 SEC newcomers(TAMU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri) have won a conference title.

I have just witnessed how hard it is to have success in the SEC through the years. Clemson, FSU, and Miami all have much easier paths to the playoffs or a National Title in the ACC than they will in the SEC..

I don't understand an FSU, Clemson, or Miami fan actually thinking the SEC will improve their chances of success..Way more likely those schools come in and realize that looking up at those top 6 year in and year out isn't much fun...But Yay Money!!

(09-15-2022 09:03 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

The ACC championship game was out-viewed by American.

The casual viewer already knows the ACC isn’t relevant

Did the American feature an undefeated Cinderella vying for a playoff spot?

Did the ACC feature arguably the smallest conference fanbase in a game in which neither team was vying for a playoff spot?


Context matters, but you don't seem to understand that as you persist in referencing a one-off, quite rare situation.

(09-15-2022 09:10 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  Live view of Pete the Chop. Poor guy. Enjoy the next 14 seasons of ACC bawl!!!

Meanwhile in Greensboro, we've got (from left) John Swofford, Jim Phillips and an unidentified ESPN exec fine-tuning the ACC's public relations strategy

Pictured left to right: Swofford, Sankey, and Warren

Not pictured: Jim Phillips, Ph.D, purportedly fetching Prime Minister Swofford's celebratory whisky.

(09-15-2022 09:59 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 09:03 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

The ACC championship game was out-viewed by American.

The casual viewer already knows the ACC isn’t relevant

Did the American feature an undefeated Cinderella vying for a playoff spot?

Did the ACC feature arguably the smallest conference fanbase in a game in which neither team was vying for a playoff spot?


Context matters, but you don't seem to understand that as you persist in referencing a one-off, quite rare situation.

Context like whether it was an important game. The ACC title game not being important enough to avoid being pathetic in ratings is very telling.


Why are you bringing up school fan base size? We’re talking about casual viewers- those outside the school fanbase-which had no interest in the ACC game.

That’s the thing about the P2 conferences- they are the P2 because they already pull the casual viewer much better than other conferences. A top SEC or BIG game will do well in ratings just because it’s a top BIG or SEC game.

That will only increase going forward, and the increase won’t be linear. Every year perception of these being the two top conferences will increase, backed by results and exposure. The ACC already is only important in a limited context, it will be even less so in 10 years

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

There is a down side for the PAC if they reject ESPN.........remember what happened to Big East football?

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

NBC is looking to sign Notre Dame. But CBS might be willing to add more content. I haven't heard anything indicating they have any interest in the Pac 12, but I haven't heard anything saying they will do Big 10 and playoffs and nothing else.

(09-15-2022 09:47 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:54 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:30 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Simple question..

What is more important to college football fans..
Making the playoffs or making the most money?
In the ACC, Clemson will be a playoff favorite yearly. In the SEC, most years they will be fighting to finish 3rd or 4th behind Bama, UGA, and whatever other schools are good in a given year. The SEC road is even tougher for FSU and Miami than it is for Clemson. Same thing would apply to schools like Washington and Oregon whose fans want them in the B1G. It would create scenarios of these schools actually being pretty good, but finishing 6th or 7th in a 20 school B1G or SEC and having no real shot of making a 12 team playoff more years than not.

It's not like fans get a cut of increased conference revenue. Banners don't get hung for most profitable athletic departments.. The bottom feeders in the SEC and B1G already make a lot more money that Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC schools, but that doesn't translate to better results than the upper tier schools in the less valuable conferences.

I just don't get the desire to move to the B1G or SEC so you can win less..

That's extreme recency bias in terms of the teams you list. The SEC is tougher for everyone in the conference. Miami would have dominated the SEC in the early 00's. FSU would have been the best program in the SEC in the 90's (with UF and UTn being the runner-ups). In 5-10 years...Bama could very well hit a slump. Seems hard to imagine now...but was easy to see from 1980-2009...the Tide was not an elite program for that stretch of 3 decades, save a season or two. UGA struggled for decades and finally got it right lately. Texas...will eventually get it right. It's not just going to be Bama-UGA into eternity. There are several teams that have the resources and support to be the next heir to the throne. And then there will be another.

No, not recency bias, just a knowledge of the SEC..
Since 1963, only 6 SEC have won SEC championships.

Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee

Ole Miss in 1963 was the last to win it outside of these 6 schools. Those same 6 schools have also all won National Titles in the last 25 years. In over 70 combined seasons, none of the 4 SEC newcomers(TAMU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri) have won a conference title.

I have just witnessed how hard it is to have success in the SEC through the years. Clemson, FSU, and Miami all have much easier paths to the playoffs or a National Title in the ACC than they will in the SEC..

I don't understand an FSU, Clemson, or Miami fan actually thinking the SEC will improve their chances of success..Way more likely those schools come in and realize that looking up at those top 6 year in and year out isn't much fun...But Yay Money!!

Those are outright titles. Kentucky shared 1976 and 1977.

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal?

Um, when John Swofford negotiated for the ACC...?



BTW, this just in: Elon Musk and I are "hundreds of millions of dollars apart".
That's all.

While fans may relish championship opportunities I believe university presidents would choose steady money every time.

(09-15-2022 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

NBC is looking to sign Notre Dame. But CBS might be willing to add more content. I haven't heard anything indicating they have any interest in the Pac 12, but I haven't heard anything saying they will do Big 10 and playoffs and nothing else.

So much of the focus of the fans is on OTA, but the reality is that beyond the Big Ten and SEC along with ABC/ESPN's existing commitments to the ACC, both the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals are likely going to be driven much more by the streaming components. NBC and CBS have long been pretty super-brand conscious about the games that they put on OTA and that's just not the strength of either the Pac-12 or Big 12.

On the other hand, Comcast/NBC seems to be positioning Peacock to be more sports-oriented compared to the other major streaming services (outside of ESPN+). So, maybe they'll be more interested in getting some Pac-12 and/or Big 12 games, albeit they need to be streaming exclusive games in order to garner much in the form of rights fees.

As of now, the Big Ten and entities like the NFL can look at linear/OTA television as the driving force of their rights deals while having streaming as a complement. It's probably going to need to be the other way around for the Pac-12 and Big 12 - they likely need the streaming portion to be the focus with the linear/OTA television component being the complement (e.g. NBC is willing to put 4 or 5 Pac-12 games on OTA annually if Peacock is getting an exclusive Pac-12 game every week).

(09-15-2022 10:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal?

Um, when John Swofford negotiated for the ACC...?



BTW, this just in: Elon Musk and I are "hundreds of millions of dollars apart".
That's all.

Ah yes - you've proved my point there. ESPN is *not* your friend during an exclusive negotiating window.

(09-15-2022 09:47 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:54 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:30 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Simple question..

What is more important to college football fans..
Making the playoffs or making the most money?
In the ACC, Clemson will be a playoff favorite yearly. In the SEC, most years they will be fighting to finish 3rd or 4th behind Bama, UGA, and whatever other schools are good in a given year. The SEC road is even tougher for FSU and Miami than it is for Clemson. Same thing would apply to schools like Washington and Oregon whose fans want them in the B1G. It would create scenarios of these schools actually being pretty good, but finishing 6th or 7th in a 20 school B1G or SEC and having no real shot of making a 12 team playoff more years than not.

It's not like fans get a cut of increased conference revenue. Banners don't get hung for most profitable athletic departments.. The bottom feeders in the SEC and B1G already make a lot more money that Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC schools, but that doesn't translate to better results than the upper tier schools in the less valuable conferences.

I just don't get the desire to move to the B1G or SEC so you can win less..

That's extreme recency bias in terms of the teams you list. The SEC is tougher for everyone in the conference. Miami would have dominated the SEC in the early 00's. FSU would have been the best program in the SEC in the 90's (with UF and UTn being the runner-ups). In 5-10 years...Bama could very well hit a slump. Seems hard to imagine now...but was easy to see from 1980-2009...the Tide was not an elite program for that stretch of 3 decades, save a season or two. UGA struggled for decades and finally got it right lately. Texas...will eventually get it right. It's not just going to be Bama-UGA into eternity. There are several teams that have the resources and support to be the next heir to the throne. And then there will be another.

No, not recency bias, just a knowledge of the SEC..
Since 1963, only 6 SEC have won SEC championships.

Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee

Ole Miss in 1963 was the last to win it outside of these 6 schools. Those same 6 schools have also all won National Titles in the last 25 years. In over 70 combined seasons, none of the 4 SEC newcomers(TAMU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri) have won a conference title.

I have just witnessed how hard it is to have success in the SEC through the years. Clemson, FSU, and Miami all have much easier paths to the playoffs or a National Title in the ACC than they will in the SEC..

I don't understand an FSU, Clemson, or Miami fan actually thinking the SEC will improve their chances of success..Way more likely those schools come in and realize that looking up at those top 6 year in and year out isn't much fun...But Yay Money!!

I agree with you to an extent. FSU, Clemson and Miami are more likely to have success in the ACC than in the SEC. And it is a little odd that fans of these schools seem to want this money that they'll personally never see a dime of, rather than have success in the ACC.

But the schools themselves really only care about money (it's a lot easier to understand why the schools care about money than why the fans of the schools do), which is why they'll leave the ACC in 2036.

(09-15-2022 08:30 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Simple question..

What is more important to college football fans..
Making the playoffs or making the most money?
In the ACC, Clemson will be a playoff favorite yearly. In the SEC, most years they will be fighting to finish 3rd or 4th behind Bama, UGA, and whatever other schools are good in a given year. The SEC road is even tougher for FSU and Miami than it is for Clemson. Same thing would apply to schools like Washington and Oregon whose fans want them in the B1G. It would create scenarios of these schools actually being pretty good, but finishing 6th or 7th in a 20 school B1G or SEC and having no real shot of making a 12 team playoff more years than not.

It's not like fans get a cut of increased conference revenue. Banners don't get hung for most profitable athletic departments.. The bottom feeders in the SEC and B1G already make a lot more money that Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC schools, but that doesn't translate to better results than the upper tier schools in the less valuable conferences.

I just don't get the desire to move to the B1G or SEC so you can win less..

THIS right here.

Unfortunately conferences and school administrators want the money to line their pockets. They don't give two ***** about the fans until they stop buying tickets. Hell we've had a 4 team invitational since 2015 and the BCS before that. They don't care, they just want the 6 elites to still be in the championship and that's all that matters to them.

(09-15-2022 09:14 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

I'm not sure NBC is 100% done. They very well might be. But just looking at what platforms they have to fill time on, what they might be in the market for:
--half-dozen OTA 3:00 Eastern games when Notre Dame is on the road.
--USA network has NASCAR Xfinity on Saturdays, if they keep that contract, room for one college football game, if not then two games.
NASCAR seems to wrap up the first weekend in November, so maybe USA network doubleheaders the last 2-3 Saturdays in November?
--games on Peacock.

How attractive is that to the PAC, how much money is NBC going lay out for that, is a different question.

NBC hasn't finalized their Notre Dame deal.

I doubt they entertain other bids till that one is final.

Down with Noder Dumb!!!!

Sorry I couldn't resist.

(09-15-2022 10:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal?

Um, when John Swofford negotiated for the ACC...?



BTW, this just in: Elon Musk and I are "hundreds of millions of dollars apart".
That's all.

Back in the day when all of the realignment stuff was on the Big East board on this site, Omni Carrier (Neil) was surprised (and probably disappointed) when Swofford signed the contract with ESPN in that it was for several millions more than had been projected. Which was at a time when the Big East folks thought they had a good chance to poach Maryland from the ACC.