(09-20-2022 08:39 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  I don't see any conference going all-streaming right now unless the payout is LIV Golf-esque; you're just giving up so much in terms of exposure. ...

However, a conference could go to a two-tier model with a broadcast first tier partner and streaming second tier partner ... especially a conference that has a seriously underperforming conference network and ownership of the program production infrastructure.

If the PAC was smart, they’d put most of their eggs in the Amazon basket.


Let’s say that Amazon owns 60% of the PAC’s inventory, and only 30% of the Big 10’s inventory. Why, then, would Amazon pay extra for the Big 10 to add Oregon and Washington? Amazon wouldn’t want to pay to have less of Oregon and Washington’s inventory.


And I suspect that Oregon and Washington would vote against a PAC-Amazon deal for that reason. I guess we’ll see if the rest of the conference outvotes them.

(09-20-2022 09:08 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:39 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 06:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Another Dennis Dodd posting, basically speculating about Pac’s further defection to the BIG.

I am sure that the Pac is talking with Amazon as ESPN lowballed and Fox is not interested in the Pac media deal. But why should the BIG reconsider Amazon and Pac 12 schools now? They must have crunched the numbers multiple times before signing the media deal and decided Amazon / Oregon / Washington were not valuable enough (in terms of money and/or exposure).

Another way to say that is “why should Amazon hugely overpay for PN4 in the B1G when they can pay less for them in the PAC”. I don’t want to say that they’re the favorites to land the PAC now, but they might be. And if they like the pac, they must really be interested in the big 12.

I’m getting dangerously close to forecasting both pac and big 12 keep their current roster this cycle with payouts like:

PAC $37.5m all Amazon
Big12 $42.5m, ESPN and Fox

That won’t be much fun for us bc we won’t have as much to talk about, but it would be a huge win for both of those conferences.

I don't see any conference going all-streaming right now unless the payout is LIV Golf-esque; you're just giving up so much in terms of exposure. I also don't see the Big 12 schools getting $5M/year more than the Pac schools. There's a lot of value in the late night time slot and eventually I think ESPN will pay a premium for that.

You haven’t been paying attention in that case. The pac needs every penny to (hopefully) stop some or all of the 4C from defecting. Streaming is the coming wave, Amazon already has Thursday night NFL and they bid on the B1G. If the pac doesn’t get streaming they’re currently looking at less than $30m per school and a possible disintegration of the conference. The only surprising thing to me would be if the conference didn’t suffer any more defections and also didn’t go at least in part on streaming.

I think the Pac will definitely go partially streaming, along with ESPN who will want the late night time slot. We don't really know what the Pac 12 or Big 12 are looking at for their next TV deals, unless you believe Jason Scheer (which you shouldn't). Assuming the Big Ten doesn't raid again in the short term, the Pac-12 will easily have the two best brands of either conference in Oregon and Washington. And if Oregon and Washington are in the fold, why would the four corners schools bail? Yes, Oregon and Washington could defect in 2030-whatever, but the Big 12 could also get raided. In that event, the four corners would much rather remain aligned with Stanford and Cal and take their pick of Big 12 schools (i.e. not West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kansas State or UCF). Any Pac-12 president would be aghast at aligning their university with those aforementioned Big 12 schools; they'll only do it if the financial incentive is monumental.

Reasons some or all of the 4c could bail:

1. Better average payout per school in big 12
2. UO/UW demand unequal revenue sharing so payout to 4c better in big 12
3. Lock in membership of big 12 now as they’re better positioned long term than pac to survive future rounds of realignment
4. Much better recruiting in tx and Midwest than in pac footprint

And that’s all assuming that the b1G is done for now and possibly forever with the pac.

(09-20-2022 07:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  ... In fact, the PAC10 option would be a lot cheaper for them and provide 4-5 games of content per week.

But it cannot provide the cross-over West Coast / northern CTZ/ETZ interest in the games.

Also, an Amazon Friday Night Football package wouldn't have to be restricted to West Coast home games. While there are schools in Friday Night Lights territory that might be able to insist on being left out of that pool -- at least for their home games -- there may be some schools that would opt in to a certain number of Friday night games if it helped to make for a higher conference payout ... especially if their opt-in was not through to Thanksgiving, but closed out sometime early in November.

All of the simple answers when you look at only one dimension turn out to be different than the simple answers you get when you only look at another dimension ... it shouldn't be surprising that the Big Ten itself, which will be pushed to look at all sides of the question, may take a bit of time to work through the process.

(09-20-2022 09:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:08 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:39 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Another way to say that is “why should Amazon hugely overpay for PN4 in the B1G when they can pay less for them in the PAC”. I don’t want to say that they’re the favorites to land the PAC now, but they might be. And if they like the pac, they must really be interested in the big 12.

I’m getting dangerously close to forecasting both pac and big 12 keep their current roster this cycle with payouts like:

PAC $37.5m all Amazon
Big12 $42.5m, ESPN and Fox

That won’t be much fun for us bc we won’t have as much to talk about, but it would be a huge win for both of those conferences.

I don't see any conference going all-streaming right now unless the payout is LIV Golf-esque; you're just giving up so much in terms of exposure. I also don't see the Big 12 schools getting $5M/year more than the Pac schools. There's a lot of value in the late night time slot and eventually I think ESPN will pay a premium for that.

You haven’t been paying attention in that case. The pac needs every penny to (hopefully) stop some or all of the 4C from defecting. Streaming is the coming wave, Amazon already has Thursday night NFL and they bid on the B1G. If the pac doesn’t get streaming they’re currently looking at less than $30m per school and a possible disintegration of the conference. The only surprising thing to me would be if the conference didn’t suffer any more defections and also didn’t go at least in part on streaming.

I think the Pac will definitely go partially streaming, along with ESPN who will want the late night time slot. We don't really know what the Pac 12 or Big 12 are looking at for their next TV deals, unless you believe Jason Scheer (which you shouldn't). Assuming the Big Ten doesn't raid again in the short term, the Pac-12 will easily have the two best brands of either conference in Oregon and Washington. And if Oregon and Washington are in the fold, why would the four corners schools bail? Yes, Oregon and Washington could defect in 2030-whatever, but the Big 12 could also get raided. In that event, the four corners would much rather remain aligned with Stanford and Cal and take their pick of Big 12 schools (i.e. not West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kansas State or UCF). Any Pac-12 president would be aghast at aligning their university with those aforementioned Big 12 schools; they'll only do it if the financial incentive is monumental.

Reasons some or all of the 4c could bail:

1. Better average payout per school in big 12 Do we have any credible source saying that the Big 12 is looking at a substantially higher payout per school in their new deal than the Pac, or just some Arizona blogger with an obvious agenda?
2. UO/UW demand unequal revenue sharing so payout to 4c better in big 12 UO/UW may get an unequal revenue share (or it may be determined by on-field performance), but to my point above has a credible source indicated that the Big 12 payout per school would be significantly better than the Pac?
3. Lock in membership of big 12 now as they’re better positioned long term than pac to survive future rounds of realignment Things can change pretty fast. This statement wasn't true as recently as a few months ago. The only reason the Big 12 is purporting to operate from a position of power now relative to the Pac 12 is because a grand total of zero Big 12 schools have a shot at ever getting a B10/SEC invite (ah, maaaaybe Kansas but it's a really long shot). There's a reason for that.
4. Much better recruiting in tx and Midwest than in pac footprint The Pac already recruits Texas pretty well. Also, what Midwest state would the Pac want to recruit heavily that's currently in the Big 12 footprint...Oklahoma? Kansas? Iowa? Those three states all have pretty meager in-state talent

And that’s all assuming that the b1G is done for now and possibly forever with the pac. If they wanted Oregon and Washington they could've taken them in June, last month, or last week. They haven't. As we get closer to the ACC GOR expiration some potentially more attractive expansion candidates for the Big 10 begin to come into the picture - UNC, Miami, UVA, Va Tech, and of course ND.

(09-20-2022 10:27 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:08 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:39 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  I don't see any conference going all-streaming right now unless the payout is LIV Golf-esque; you're just giving up so much in terms of exposure. I also don't see the Big 12 schools getting $5M/year more than the Pac schools. There's a lot of value in the late night time slot and eventually I think ESPN will pay a premium for that.

You haven’t been paying attention in that case. The pac needs every penny to (hopefully) stop some or all of the 4C from defecting. Streaming is the coming wave, Amazon already has Thursday night NFL and they bid on the B1G. If the pac doesn’t get streaming they’re currently looking at less than $30m per school and a possible disintegration of the conference. The only surprising thing to me would be if the conference didn’t suffer any more defections and also didn’t go at least in part on streaming.

I think the Pac will definitely go partially streaming, along with ESPN who will want the late night time slot. We don't really know what the Pac 12 or Big 12 are looking at for their next TV deals, unless you believe Jason Scheer (which you shouldn't). Assuming the Big Ten doesn't raid again in the short term, the Pac-12 will easily have the two best brands of either conference in Oregon and Washington. And if Oregon and Washington are in the fold, why would the four corners schools bail? Yes, Oregon and Washington could defect in 2030-whatever, but the Big 12 could also get raided. In that event, the four corners would much rather remain aligned with Stanford and Cal and take their pick of Big 12 schools (i.e. not West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kansas State or UCF). Any Pac-12 president would be aghast at aligning their university with those aforementioned Big 12 schools; they'll only do it if the financial incentive is monumental.

Reasons some or all of the 4c could bail:

1. Better average payout per school in big 12 Do we have any credible source saying that the Big 12 is looking at a substantially higher payout per school in their new deal than the Pac, or just some Arizona blogger with an obvious agenda?
2. UO/UW demand unequal revenue sharing so payout to 4c better in big 12 UO/UW may get an unequal revenue share (or it may be determined by on-field performance), but to my point above has a credible source indicated that the Big 12 payout per school would be significantly better than the Pac?
3. Lock in membership of big 12 now as they’re better positioned long term than pac to survive future rounds of realignment Things can change pretty fast. This statement wasn't true as recently as a few months ago. The only reason the Big 12 is purporting to operate from a position of power now relative to the Pac 12 is because a grand total of zero Big 12 schools have a shot at ever getting a B10/SEC invite (ah, maaaaybe Kansas but it's a really long shot). There's a reason for that.
4. Much better recruiting in tx and Midwest than in pac footprint The Pac already recruits Texas pretty well. Also, what Midwest state would the Pac want to recruit heavily that's currently in the Big 12 footprint...Oklahoma? Kansas? Iowa? Those three states all have pretty meager in-state talent

And that’s all assuming that the b1G is done for now and possibly forever with the pac. If they wanted Oregon and Washington they could've taken them in June, last month, or last week. They haven't. As we get closer to the ACC GOR expiration some potentially more attractive expansion candidates for the Big 10 begin to come into the picture - UNC, Miami, UVA, Va Tech, and of course ND.

I agree on all of this. I’m sure the Four Corners schools would bail to the Big XII if the B1G takes two or four of Washington, Oregon, Cal, and Stanford. Absent that, if the remaining ten schools agree stick together for another rights deal, even if it just matches the length of the B1G’s, I bet could get SMU and SDSU to immediately agree to join. That would get the league back into SoCal and into the Central Time Zone which could be useful.

(09-20-2022 08:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 06:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Another Dennis Dodd posting, basically speculating about Pac’s further defection to the BIG.

I am sure that the Pac is talking with Amazon as ESPN lowballed and Fox is not interested in the Pac media deal. But why should the BIG reconsider Amazon and Pac 12 schools now? They must have crunched the numbers multiple times before signing the media deal and decided Amazon / Oregon / Washington were not valuable enough (in terms of money and/or exposure).

Another way to say that is “why should Amazon hugely overpay for PN4 in the B1G when they can pay less for them in the PAC”. I don’t want to say that they’re the favorites to land the PAC now, but they might be. And if they like the pac, they must really be interested in the big 12.

I’m getting dangerously close to forecasting both pac and big 12 keep their current roster this cycle with payouts like:

PAC $37.5m all Amazon
Big12 $42.5m, ESPN and Fox

That won’t be much fun for us bc we won’t have as much to talk about, but it would be a huge win for both of those conferences.

The looking for lower costs and a bargain would be a type of calculation that that ESPN would make - they’re filling multiple networks with 24/7/365 sports content plus a dedicated sports streaming service. Sheer tonnage even if it’s not marquee content has value to them.

Amazon is playing in a very different space. This isn’t about being cost conscious for them. They’re looking for monster cultural touchstone content - the type of programs that Netflix and Disney+ have been better at doing up to this point - to drive Prime subscriptions.

Think of it this way: for any other streaming service, their revenue is largely the number of subscriptions times the subscription price. So, if a property can add 1 million subscribers for a $10 per month service like ESPN+, that’s $120 million in revenue per year.

The Amazon numbers are totally different. An additional 1 million Prime subscribers at $139 per year (the current price) means the revenue starts out at $139 million per year. However, the latest figures show that Prime subscribers spend $1400 per year on Amazon. That’s an *additional* $1.4 billion in top line revenue to Amazon that comes from those 1 million Prime subscribers. Now imagine if there’s programming that can draw 2 million, 3 million or 10 million more subscribers. That’s multiple billions of dollars more in top line revenue from that customer base.

So, my educated guess is that the “good and solid” sports leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12 really don’t get Amazon’s heart pumping. They need blockbusters: the NFL nationally, Yankees in the NYC market, Champions League in the UK market, etc. The only two college conferences that provide that blockbuster content are the Big Ten and SEC. (It’s in the entertainment space, too. Amazon is spending over $700 million for the first season of its Lord of the Rings show. That’s nearly three times the *combined* budget of the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.)

I don’t buy that any of the linear networks want more power conference consolidation, *especially* ESPN. I disagree with many others here on that point. However, Amazon is really the one entity that benefits from consolidation provided that they can get the rights. Amazon needs blockbuster sports content (not merely good enough content) because each additional subscriber isn’t just worth the Prime subscription price, but also another $1400 per year in additional Amazon purchases from that household. That makes the $10 per month ESPN has been making from cable subscriber fees look like chump change compared to the Amazon business model. Amazon is a company that’s built on scale (from product sales to cloud services), so it doesn’t surprise me they’re now looking for scale in their Prime programming.

Dennis Dodd = Jon Wilzano of the Big XII.

Dodd carries Yormark's water just as Wilner and Canzano do for Kliavkoff in the Pac-1210

Anything that causes uneasiness or destabilization out West plays into the hands of both Warren and Yormark

(09-20-2022 10:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 07:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  ... In fact, the PAC10 option would be a lot cheaper for them and provide 4-5 games of content per week.

But it cannot provide the cross-over West Coast / northern CTZ/ETZ interest in the games.

Also, an Amazon Friday Night Football package wouldn't have to be restricted to West Coast home games. While there are schools in Friday Night Lights territory that might be able to insist on being left out of that pool -- at least for their home games -- there may be some schools that would opt in to a certain number of Friday night games if it helped to make for a higher conference payout ... especially if their opt-in was not through to Thanksgiving, but closed out sometime early in November.

All of the simple answers when you look at only one dimension turn out to be different than the simple answers you get when you only look at another dimension ... it shouldn't be surprising that the Big Ten itself, which will be pushed to look at all sides of the question, may take a bit of time to work through the process.

I've already addressed this earlier, but AMZN would be down to the 3rd or 4th best B1G game of the week. And as you say, UM and OSU at home may be off limits. Even if that's not the case, it typically means those schools are out right off the bat. The real value in adding additional west coast teams the B1G are two games with one as an exclusive late night window either on Friday or Saturday. Thursday night may also be possible if the NFL kicks off a bit earlier. Therefore AMZN needs to bid on two B1G games to make additional expansion out west viable.

(09-20-2022 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is actually pretty interesting.

Essentially, Dodd is saying that Amazon is still speaking to the Big Ten, which wouldn't be happening unless there were at least the potential of expansion occurring. At the same time, he reiterated what I've seen elsewhere from John Ourand and other sports media reporters: Amazon actually offered *more* money than both CBS and NBC to the Big Ten but the league turned it down.

If the Big Ten can expand to create enough desirable inventory where Amazon is offering more money than either NBC or CBS for another game of the week package (think Friday nights), then that *might* address any concerns from current Big Ten members that expansion would reduce per school revenue.

I'm still skeptical that the Big Ten would pull the trigger on a 20-team league this year, but the prospect of Amazon still talking to the league (more so than the linear TV providers) at least addresses where a legitimately larger pot of money could potentially be coming from (as opposed to relying upon an argument that size for the sake of size creates value).

What part of my saying further expansion would be inventory driven more than individual value added did you guys not grasp? Add shares of expanded CFP money and 20, and really 24 (for the added inventory) are within easy reach of reality Frank.

All that is needed to make the sizzle is the pop of a third conference with access and a modest bump to clear the way. There're still some pots simmering to the East as well. I still like the chances it will be worked out by 2024. We'll see. Until then all commissioners will be sticking to the "Things are fine like they are." talking points. S.O.P. until it's not.

(09-20-2022 11:06 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Dennis Dodd = Jon Wilzano of the Big XII.

Dodd carries Yormark's water just as Wilner and Canzano do for Kliavkoff in the Pac-1210

Anything that causes uneasiness or destabilization out West plays into the hands of both Warren and Yormark

I am with you on this. Maybe what he reported is true but I became skeptical of his reportings on the conference realignment matters.

(09-20-2022 11:06 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Dennis Dodd = Jon Wilzano of the Big XII.

Dodd carries Yormark's water just as Wilner and Canzano do for Kliavkoff in the Pac-1210

Anything that causes uneasiness or destabilization out West plays into the hands of both Warren and Yormark

Dodd is a Mizzou grad who is known for trolling the big 12. You just don’t like his reporting. He is about the last one to be carrying water for the big 12

(09-20-2022 05:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is actually pretty interesting.

Essentially, Dodd is saying that Amazon is still speaking to the Big Ten, which wouldn't be happening unless there were at least the potential of expansion occurring. At the same time, he reiterated what I've seen elsewhere from John Ourand and other sports media reporters: Amazon actually offered *more* money than both CBS and NBC to the Big Ten but the league turned it down.

If the Big Ten can expand to create enough desirable inventory where Amazon is offering more money than either NBC or CBS for another game of the week package (think Friday nights), then that *might* address any concerns from current Big Ten members that expansion would reduce per school revenue.

I'm still skeptical that the Big Ten would pull the trigger on a 20-team league this year, but the prospect of Amazon still talking to the league (more so than the linear TV providers) at least addresses where a legitimately larger pot of money could potentially be coming from (as opposed to relying upon an argument that size for the sake of size creates value).

ESPN has also expressed interest in talking to the B1G if they add some/all of the PN4, setting us up for a potential bidding war... Which is probably what any combination of the PN4 will need to get the rest of the B1G Presidents into the "Yes" column.

I don’t think so. ESPN has already proven they won’t over pay for the bottom tier left over Big10 games—-which is why there hasn’t been another Pac12 team added—-it wouldn’t add enough revenue to pay for 2 more teams. But if Amazon was willing to overpay for a package—-expansion might be back on the table. ESPN can pass and pick up what it needs by grabbing all or part of the expanded nBig16. They can get a lot more P5 inventory for the same or less money than they would with the Big10 4th selection package.

None of the PAC 12 and USC and UCLA is valuable to the Big 10. All it will do is make football very week, and not watchable anymore.

(09-20-2022 07:55 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 05:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is actually pretty interesting.

Essentially, Dodd is saying that Amazon is still speaking to the Big Ten, which wouldn't be happening unless there were at least the potential of expansion occurring. At the same time, he reiterated what I've seen elsewhere from John Ourand and other sports media reporters: Amazon actually offered *more* money than both CBS and NBC to the Big Ten but the league turned it down.

If the Big Ten can expand to create enough desirable inventory where Amazon is offering more money than either NBC or CBS for another game of the week package (think Friday nights), then that *might* address any concerns from current Big Ten members that expansion would reduce per school revenue.

I'm still skeptical that the Big Ten would pull the trigger on a 20-team league this year, but the prospect of Amazon still talking to the league (more so than the linear TV providers) at least addresses where a legitimately larger pot of money could potentially be coming from (as opposed to relying upon an argument that size for the sake of size creates value).

Going to 20 now means they have to go beyond 20 when Notre Dame becomes interested. Now they could be short-sighted and just ignore that possibility, but I would think they would stop at 18.

Some ND fans on here say they’d pick the SEC over the Big Ten if they’re forced to join a conference. I’m not joking.

Who? I have seen and said myself I like the SEC, but we would join the Big Ten. Terry wouldn't say that. So who are these ND fans saying this?

(09-21-2022 12:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is actually pretty interesting.

Essentially, Dodd is saying that Amazon is still speaking to the Big Ten, which wouldn't be happening unless there were at least the potential of expansion occurring. At the same time, he reiterated what I've seen elsewhere from John Ourand and other sports media reporters: Amazon actually offered *more* money than both CBS and NBC to the Big Ten but the league turned it down.

If the Big Ten can expand to create enough desirable inventory where Amazon is offering more money than either NBC or CBS for another game of the week package (think Friday nights), then that *might* address any concerns from current Big Ten members that expansion would reduce per school revenue.

I'm still skeptical that the Big Ten would pull the trigger on a 20-team league this year, but the prospect of Amazon still talking to the league (more so than the linear TV providers) at least addresses where a legitimately larger pot of money could potentially be coming from (as opposed to relying upon an argument that size for the sake of size creates value).

What part of my saying further expansion would be inventory driven more than individual value added did you guys not grasp? Add shares of expanded CFP money and 20, and really 24 (for the added inventory) are within easy reach of reality Frank.

All that is needed to make the sizzle is the pop of a third conference with access and a modest bump to clear the way. There're still some pots simmering to the East as well. I still like the chances it will be worked out by 2024. We'll see. Until then all commissioners will be sticking to the "Things are fine like they are." talking points. S.O.P. until it's not.

There has to be an actor that *legitimately* would benefit from consolidation - and I’m not talking in a “We want to be a controlling world builder” way, but truly a pure dollars and sense economic way.

Amazon has a hypothetical business case for it as I’ve explained above because of their singularly unique economic model, but that’s still also only if a consolidated league is actually willing to grant higher quality games to Amazon for higher levels of money from them. The Big Ten and everyone else would love to put their worst games on Amazon yet get paid like the prime time game of the week, but that’s also not what Amazon is opening up its checkbook for here. Inventory in and of itself isn’t what’s valuable to Amazon - it still needs to be a certain level of high quality inventory.

In any event, Amazon’s interests are much different from the linear networks like ESPN and FOX. The linear networks have legit budget constraints (*especially* ESPN with the scrutiny from Wall Street on Disney right now).

So, my analysis isn’t different. The Big Ten absolutely has to make more media money from expansion on a per school basis for it to happen. They are NOT basing expansion on increased money from an expanded and/or hypothetical close-ended playoff (as you’ve suggested). The Big Ten financial standards for expansion are exactly the same as every other expansion since 2010.

At the same time, the networks have to actually have an interest in paying more. Amazon has a hypothetical interest in paying more because they’re trying to get new blockbuster content that they don’t currently have at all for a fast-growing service that generates more than $1500 in total revenue per new subscriber (combining Prime subscription costs with increased spending on Amazon). This is a unique case with a specific company with the ability to pay huge sums of money with a legit business case for spending it (Amazon) that is dealing with a league (the Big Ten) that has freedom to both make additional TV deals at this point in time and add schools of potential value that aren’t subject to a GOR.

That doesn’t apply to ESPN - they’re a declining revenue business with a parent company that has Wall Street scrutinizing every new sports rights deal and they *already* have all of the SEC and ACC content until the mid-2030s at under market value prices. Add the ACC GOR on top of it and there are no rational economic incentives for ESPN to want anything to do with ACC schools leaving the league for the SEC, which is what would be required for full scale consolidation into a P3 (which has been your vision).

(09-20-2022 11:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 07:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  ... In fact, the PAC10 option would be a lot cheaper for them and provide 4-5 games of content per week.

But it cannot provide the cross-over West Coast / northern CTZ/ETZ interest in the games.

Also, an Amazon Friday Night Football package wouldn't have to be restricted to West Coast home games. While there are schools in Friday Night Lights territory that might be able to insist on being left out of that pool -- at least for their home games -- there may be some schools that would opt in to a certain number of Friday night games if it helped to make for a higher conference payout ... especially if their opt-in was not through to Thanksgiving, but closed out sometime early in November. ...

I've already addressed this earlier, but AMZN would be down to the 3rd or 4th best B1G game of the week. And as you say, UM and OSU at home may be off limits. Even if that's not the case, it typically means those schools are out right off the bat. The real value in adding additional west coast teams the B1G are two games with one as an exclusive late night window either on Friday or Saturday.

A Saturday game or a Thursday game would have to be a late night game. A Friday game does not have to be a late night game, it can be Prime Time.

We may be in the framing on CSNBBS of looking at the advantage of the West Coast teams as being "able to play in the after Prime Time slot", but a 7:30pm kickoff on Thursday night seems like the kind of scheduling that the more valuable schools in the PAC would hope to be moving out of, rather than moving into.

And "Prime Time" type content is what Amazon is aiming for, after all. So when we start from Amazon's perspective, a Prime Time Friday night slot is what they would be looking for.

With no more divisional scheduling, so USC/UCLA can alternate which has 4 Big Ten home games and which has 5, USC/UCLA gives 9 Big Ten home games and 1 P5 OOC home game in the inventory. A rule that schools other than OSU and That School Up North may be called on to host Friday Night in weeks 1-9 once every two years would add 6 more games a year, and only one game to "choose from" in weeks 10-13. 12 games in weeks 1-9 and 4 games in weeks 10-12 is not enough inventory for a Friday Night game.

Quote: Thursday night may also be possible if the NFL kicks off a bit earlier.

But if 80% of the US population is in the ETZ/CTZ, what are the prospective ratings on the night before a workday for a game kicking off at 10:30pm? I don't see how a Thursday late night game slot is generating the revenue increment for Amazon to be paying Big Ten rates for the inventory -- even given Amazon getting a bonus in sales revenue from each additional Prime membership sold.

(And I can put my hand up as being as guilty as the next person of helping drive that -- just today I am getting delivery of a bicycle that is "Prime" and was the cheapest bike of its class because the "cheaper" bikes had either a $60 or $100 delivery fee, and the Prime bike was free delivery.)

Quote: Therefore AMZN needs to bid on two B1G games to make additional expansion out west viable.

In my view, what Amazon "needs" is Prime Time, and one Prime Time slot has already been sold. The only Prime Time slot that could be be made available is a Friday Night prime time game, which needs a minimum of two more West Coast schools in order to provide 9 more "Friday Night Prime Time eligible" Big Ten home games and one more OOC P5 game. That gives 20 West Coast home games ... if some deal could be made to ensure 6 more ETZ/CTZ Friday night games (it doesn't have to be the one I said above), that is two games weekly that might be scheduled on Friday night, for Amazon to choose one.

However, that would also mean that Amazon would need to make a side-payment to the existing partners to pre-empt picks that empty the Friday Night Prime Time available games for the week. If they wanted to buy their way into second in the pick order weekly, that side payment would be even bigger. That side payment would not have to be as big if four West Coast schools were added, so that 10 West Coast Big Ten / OOC P5 home games are being expanded to 30 .. and if Amazon is getting the same or more value, then that is more money available to the Big Ten.

But from outside the negotiating room, it's not clear that that requires four additional West Coast schools. It could be that the Amazon money minus the slice that goes to the existing partners can more easily pay the freight for two more West Coast schools than a larger share of the Amazon money paying the freight for four more West Coast schools.
_______________

(09-21-2022 12:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What part of my saying further expansion would be inventory driven more than individual value added did you guys not grasp? Add shares of expanded CFP money and 20, and really 24 (for the added inventory) are within easy reach of reality Frank.

IMV, CFP money doesn't enter into Big Ten expansion plans until the ink is dry, and even then, some of the Big Ten Presidents may need to see it in action first before they add it in without a discount.

I have posted before I thought the PAC really needed Amazon to enter the picture for them.

I could see the PAC’s best TV payout being a combined deal with both Amazon & ESPN.

ESPN gets Friday & Saturday night games for their open inventory slots.

Amazon gets the rest & are primarily mid-day & afternoon Saturday games.

PAC gets the benefit of majority of their games not being pushed late night & a little bit of a price premium due to streaming having to pay that to break in to the market.

Amazon gets benefits of traditional Saturday college football & not relegated to novelty Friday evening football.

If ESPN gets the deal with PAC, that should cool some of the speculation on 4 corners jumping to B12 & the B12 deal greatly surpassing PAC. Which is all “if this, then that” speculation at moment anyway.

Of course this is all dependent on O&W knowing B1G isn’t sending invites until next TV contract, which I believe is the case.

(09-20-2022 11:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 06:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Another Dennis Dodd posting, basically speculating about Pac’s further defection to the BIG.

I am sure that the Pac is talking with Amazon as ESPN lowballed and Fox is not interested in the Pac media deal. But why should the BIG reconsider Amazon and Pac 12 schools now? They must have crunched the numbers multiple times before signing the media deal and decided Amazon / Oregon / Washington were not valuable enough (in terms of money and/or exposure).

Another way to say that is “why should Amazon hugely overpay for PN4 in the B1G when they can pay less for them in the PAC”. I don’t want to say that they’re the favorites to land the PAC now, but they might be. And if they like the pac, they must really be interested in the big 12.

I’m getting dangerously close to forecasting both pac and big 12 keep their current roster this cycle with payouts like:

PAC $37.5m all Amazon
Big12 $42.5m, ESPN and Fox

That won’t be much fun for us bc we won’t have as much to talk about, but it would be a huge win for both of those conferences.

The looking for lower costs and a bargain would be a type of calculation that that ESPN would make - they’re filling multiple networks with 24/7/365 sports content plus a dedicated sports streaming service. Sheer tonnage even if it’s not marquee content has value to them.

Amazon is playing in a very different space. This isn’t about being cost conscious for them. They’re looking for monster cultural touchstone content - the type of programs that Netflix and Disney+ have been better at doing up to this point - to drive Prime subscriptions.

Think of it this way: for any other streaming service, their revenue is largely the number of subscriptions times the subscription price. So, if a property can add 1 million subscribers for a $10 per month service like ESPN+, that’s $120 million in revenue per year.

The Amazon numbers are totally different. An additional 1 million Prime subscribers at $139 per year (the current price) means the revenue starts out at $139 million per year. However, the latest figures show that Prime subscribers spend $1400 per year on Amazon. That’s an *additional* $1.4 billion in top line revenue to Amazon that comes from those 1 million Prime subscribers. Now imagine if there’s programming that can draw 2 million, 3 million or 10 million more subscribers. That’s multiple billions of dollars more in top line revenue from that customer base.

So, my educated guess is that the “good and solid” sports leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12 really don’t get Amazon’s heart pumping. They need blockbusters: the NFL nationally, Yankees in the NYC market, Champions League in the UK market, etc. The only two college conferences that provide that blockbuster content are the Big Ten and SEC. (It’s in the entertainment space, too. Amazon is spending over $700 million for the first season of its Lord of the Rings show. That’s nearly three times the *combined* budget of the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.)

I don’t buy that any of the linear networks want more power conference consolidation, *especially* ESPN. I disagree with many others here on that point. However, Amazon is really the one entity that benefits from consolidation provided that they can get the rights. Amazon needs blockbuster sports content (not merely good enough content) because each additional subscriber isn’t just worth the Prime subscription price, but also another $1400 per year in additional Amazon purchases from that household. That makes the $10 per month ESPN has been making from cable subscriber fees look like chump change compared to the Amazon business model. Amazon is a company that’s built on scale (from product sales to cloud services), so it doesn’t surprise me they’re now looking for scale in their Prime programming.

If all that is true, wouldn't it be better from Amazon's perspective to just look at all 50 states, and cherry-pick 12-16 schools to create their own new power conference?

(09-21-2022 05:52 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 07:55 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 05:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is actually pretty interesting.

Essentially, Dodd is saying that Amazon is still speaking to the Big Ten, which wouldn't be happening unless there were at least the potential of expansion occurring. At the same time, he reiterated what I've seen elsewhere from John Ourand and other sports media reporters: Amazon actually offered *more* money than both CBS and NBC to the Big Ten but the league turned it down.

If the Big Ten can expand to create enough desirable inventory where Amazon is offering more money than either NBC or CBS for another game of the week package (think Friday nights), then that *might* address any concerns from current Big Ten members that expansion would reduce per school revenue.

I'm still skeptical that the Big Ten would pull the trigger on a 20-team league this year, but the prospect of Amazon still talking to the league (more so than the linear TV providers) at least addresses where a legitimately larger pot of money could potentially be coming from (as opposed to relying upon an argument that size for the sake of size creates value).

Going to 20 now means they have to go beyond 20 when Notre Dame becomes interested. Now they could be short-sighted and just ignore that possibility, but I would think they would stop at 18.

Some ND fans on here say they’d pick the SEC over the Big Ten if they’re forced to join a conference. I’m not joking.

Who? I have seen and said myself I like the SEC, but we would join the Big Ten. Terry wouldn't say that. So who are these ND fans saying this?

I said the other day in response to some poster saying that the Big Ten/Fox/ESPN should collude together to force ND into the Big Ten.

My response was that ND is not a potted plant and would react to such hostile, collusive efforts, perhaps foiling the Big Ten's evil intentions by threatening to join the SEC instead.

But, that was in response to a hypothetical scheming, hostile takeover type collusive attack by the Big Ten on ND's independence.