(08-18-2014 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I would say look for the PACN (if it sells a % of ownership to the networks to enhance their distribution) to attempt to garner both FOX and ESPN to broaden the exposure of the PAC to the nation. They essentially lease a similar amount of material to both FOX and ESPN now, if they go the route of network stakes in the PACN I think they will want to employ the same strategy for distribution. Plus each network has different strengths from which the PAC could draw.

Is there a current example of such a model in broadcasting- even outside of sports? It seems like it would be very tricky to balance interests with PAC/FOX/ESPN shared ownership.

(08-18-2014 06:14 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I would say look for the PACN (if it sells a % of ownership to the networks to enhance their distribution) to attempt to garner both FOX and ESPN to broaden the exposure of the PAC to the nation. They essentially lease a similar amount of material to both FOX and ESPN now, if they go the route of network stakes in the PACN I think they will want to employ the same strategy for distribution. Plus each network has different strengths from which the PAC could draw.

Is there a current example of such a model in broadcasting- even outside of sports? It seems like it would be very tricky to balance interests with PAC/FOX/ESPN shared ownership.

If the PAC retained 50% ownership and sold 25% interest to each of the other it might be tricky but you are buying a percentage of profit so it might encourage cooperation. While it may be unprecedented in an athletic conference it certainly is not in business.

(08-18-2014 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 06:14 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I would say look for the PACN (if it sells a % of ownership to the networks to enhance their distribution) to attempt to garner both FOX and ESPN to broaden the exposure of the PAC to the nation. They essentially lease a similar amount of material to both FOX and ESPN now, if they go the route of network stakes in the PACN I think they will want to employ the same strategy for distribution. Plus each network has different strengths from which the PAC could draw.

Is there a current example of such a model in broadcasting- even outside of sports? It seems like it would be very tricky to balance interests with PAC/FOX/ESPN shared ownership.

If the PAC retained 50% ownership and sold 25% interest to each of the other it might be tricky but you are buying a percentage of profit so it might encourage cooperation. While it may be unprecedented in an athletic conference it certainly is not in business.

Yes, e.g., in the movie business you often have several production companies and studios involved in a movie or series of movies. It's a common phenomenon. Businesses can easily sort these things out.

I don't understand why folks think it would be such a horrible thing for the ACC to allow in whom Texas would want to come with them. Baylor doesn't fit? Baylor fits in the ACC as much as it does the current Big 12 due to the amount of Institutions that are religious belief based, have a history of it or simply have a seminary with the school. Baylor has a strong athletic department across the board and just built a brand new football stadium. I don't see how Baylor isn't a strong addition for the ACC. I could see some folks disparaging TCU but TCU is stronger in football right now than most of the ACC and they too just updated their football stadium. It is located in DFW as well which is a pretty strong attribute going into the future.

People are acting as if this is such a bad deal for the ACC and I think that is based upon the ultra sensitivity and defensive nature of some folks. This is a good deal for the ACC. In the end though it really wont be their choice. It will come down to what ESPN offers. If ESPN likes the idea of using the State of Texas to help get an ACC Network on cable then you damn well better believe that the ACC will sign on for three Texas schools in order to get that ACC Network. Swofford has talked too much about it to risk ESPN saying no permanently.

1. I think people are underestimating the Longhorn Network. It is slowly gaining coverage, ESPN is paying them regardless, and UT has shown a clear commitment to it. Texas cannot save the LHN if they go to the ACC even as a partial. The rest of the major conferences have given their 3rd tier rights to the conference and the ACC will not allow Texas to keep their 3rd tier basketball and other rights even if they keep their football ones and the Longhorn Network needs those rights to survive.

2. Texas left left the Southwestern Conference because the revenue wasn't there. They wanted a conference with regional rivals, but one with more money. That's not the issue this time around. The Big 12 payments are strong and the Longhorn Network is guaranteeing them significant revenue that due to changes in rights, would no longer be possible to maintain in other conferences as a full member.

3. No way the ACC takes TCU and Baylor without getting Texas as a full member. A partial Texas membership is only, at most, 3 Texas football games. The ACC only will have the rights to the road games, just as it does with Notre Dame. Adding TCU and Baylor adds two schools who are very long road games in all sports, and who might well not bring in more than they cost even without that. It also creates a lot of new issues with divisions.

4. The PAC-12 Network is also being underrated. Remember that those big numbers for the BTN and SECN include a lot of areas outside the footprint which pay a much, much smaller rate. The PAC-12 Network is getting full rate in their territory and slowly getting there.

(08-13-2014 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A few counter points if I may:
1. Businessmen may have enemies but they seldom act on those emotions in a way contrary to their own profits.
2. I think what ESPN was doing was stockpiling targets of leverage before a hostile Jim Delany's T1 contract came up for bid. They knew they had to overcome bad blood and inventory that the Big 10 desires may be the best way to hold onto Big 10 rights.
3. If holding that inventory does not gain ESPN leverage it at least denies the Big 10 an opportunity to expand if Delany makes business personal.
4. CEO's always look for the options in all angles. ESPN's moves with the ACC did that for them. They knew Delany had eyes to the East so what did the Mouse do? Sheltered some of the most valuable Big East property in the only conference in college sports whose broadcast rights are owned solely by 1 network, ESPN. The ACC has been enhanced with every ESPN acquisition, but their income has remained inferior to the that of the Big 10 and SEC. The Big 10 and SEC both find more targets of interest in the ACC than in any other conference.

Oklahoma and Kansas come from either a small market state or a state in which the Big 10 already has a strong draw. Texas is Texas and everyone wants the Horns.

Also don't rule out the presence of FOX for also spurring ESPN's property grab and the ACC is unassailable to FOX so it's a great place to shelter schools.

5. So what I'm telling you is that the ACC is a product enhanced by ESPN in which the parts of that conference are worth more to the Mouse in other conference packages than they are as an unit. If U.N.C., Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse leverage a long term deal for the Big 10's T1 rights and Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech and N.C. State make the SECN even more profitable for ESPN then so be it. If either the Big 10 or SEC (the two most profitable conferences) balk then ESPN cuts off their independent expansion by holding onto the schools and markets they desire. And, ESPN will maximize the ACC in that case to the best of their abilities.

So what you have is a brilliant corporate move. ESPN has built the carrot conference (ACC) in hopes that the work mules of the Big 10 and SEC are enticed to pull together for the Mouse. The PAC which remains a sole proprietorship, is the cheese that stands alone until they sell out to the networks. What the ACC crowd doesn't grasp is that just as it was 3 years ago their parts are more valuable elsewhere and that they may have been fattened up to be the enticement for super long commitments out of the two biggest dogs. And if they don't bite, the ACC is shaping up nicely and will still be profitable to ESPN for a long time to come.

1. Does ESPiN really want the Big Ten, considering their editorial policy during their college sports shows?

2. How would the schools mentioned be convinced to end their current association, considering how united they've remained during the last cycle?

3. Why are the colleges not seeing the drawbacks of having one company control all of the marquee programs?

(08-18-2014 10:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  There are so many issues going past 16 schools that it's mind-boggling. Texas brining friends does that. I doubt Baylor could get the votes for political reasons. If Texas gets a friend, ND will want a friend. Next thing you know you are at 20 schools - just three shy of the old Southern Conference that had to split in 1933. I can see a path to 20 easier than I can to 18:

ACC

West:

Texas
TCU
Oklahoma
Tulane(Could be Kansas
FSU

North:

Notre Dame
Pitt
GT
Navy
Louisville

South:

Miami
Clemson
NCSU
Duke
Wake

East:

VT
UVa
UNC
Syracuse
BC

You play 4-3-2 Four in your division, three permaanet rivals, and 2 rotatings as so:

West: North: South: East:

FSU Louis Miami Syracuse
Texas ND Clemson UVa
OU GT Duke UNC
TCU Pitt NC State VT
Tulane Navy Wake BC

The four division champs play for the ACC title.

Highest two seeds host. Final played in Charlotte.

Texas would get Oklahoma, TCU, Tulane, FSU, Notre Dame, Clemson, and UVA each year plus 2 rotating
ND would get Navy, Pitt, GT, Louisville, Texas, Clemson, and UVa, each year plus 2 rotating
FSU would get Tulane, TCU, Oklahoma, FSU, Miami, Louisville, and Syracuse, each year plus 2 rotating

You see everyone else every six years.

Your likely playoff teams would be:

West: North: South: East:

FSU ND Clemson VT
Texas Louisville Miami UNC
OU GT
Pitt

LP4, If you move to 20 then likely the SEC and Big 10 are doing the same. So the probability of getting both Texas and OU go down. 18 with coordination with the SEC would get it done.

Let's say the goal is the absorption of the Big 12 between the ACC and SEC. All of the sudden cooperation becomes essential. If there was no subsequent swapping with the SEC then to make it work the ACC could not take West Virginia and all 4 of it's Big 12 schools would have to come from the West. Something like this:

Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State to the ACC for a conference that looks like this:

Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, *Miami, Oklahoma State, Texas (*they have to fly to most locations anyway) and it gives Texas an annual in to recruiting in Florida)

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest

Boston College, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech
*Notre Dame as an independent.

The three divisional champions and the best at large school receive the 4 slots for the Conference Championship Series.

The move gives the ACC two of the AAU members of the Big 12 while adding to the football profile. It also adds 35 million potential viewers to the ACC.

The SEC would add Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and West Virginia.

That gives the SEC one AAU school, two national brands (1 in basketball) and adds 8 million viewers and enhances the Texas numbers.

Eight is enough to dissolve the Big 12.

The better results for travel and regional grouping would involve the swap.

ACC:
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina

North: Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Wake Forest

*Notre Dame

SEC:
East: Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Viriginia

South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M



You get as much value with a well dispersed 18 as you do with 20.

(08-18-2014 10:37 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A few counter points if I may:
1. Businessmen may have enemies but they seldom act on those emotions in a way contrary to their own profits.
2. I think what ESPN was doing was stockpiling targets of leverage before a hostile Jim Delany's T1 contract came up for bid. They knew they had to overcome bad blood and inventory that the Big 10 desires may be the best way to hold onto Big 10 rights.
3. If holding that inventory does not gain ESPN leverage it at least denies the Big 10 an opportunity to expand if Delany makes business personal.
4. CEO's always look for the options in all angles. ESPN's moves with the ACC did that for them. They knew Delany had eyes to the East so what did the Mouse do? Sheltered some of the most valuable Big East property in the only conference in college sports whose broadcast rights are owned solely by 1 network, ESPN. The ACC has been enhanced with every ESPN acquisition, but their income has remained inferior to the that of the Big 10 and SEC. The Big 10 and SEC both find more targets of interest in the ACC than in any other conference.

Oklahoma and Kansas come from either a small market state or a state in which the Big 10 already has a strong draw. Texas is Texas and everyone wants the Horns.

Also don't rule out the presence of FOX for also spurring ESPN's property grab and the ACC is unassailable to FOX so it's a great place to shelter schools.

5. So what I'm telling you is that the ACC is a product enhanced by ESPN in which the parts of that conference are worth more to the Mouse in other conference packages than they are as an unit. If U.N.C., Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse leverage a long term deal for the Big 10's T1 rights and Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech and N.C. State make the SECN even more profitable for ESPN then so be it. If either the Big 10 or SEC (the two most profitable conferences) balk then ESPN cuts off their independent expansion by holding onto the schools and markets they desire. And, ESPN will maximize the ACC in that case to the best of their abilities.

So what you have is a brilliant corporate move. ESPN has built the carrot conference (ACC) in hopes that the work mules of the Big 10 and SEC are enticed to pull together for the Mouse. The PAC which remains a sole proprietorship, is the cheese that stands alone until they sell out to the networks. What the ACC crowd doesn't grasp is that just as it was 3 years ago their parts are more valuable elsewhere and that they may have been fattened up to be the enticement for super long commitments out of the two biggest dogs. And if they don't bite, the ACC is shaping up nicely and will still be profitable to ESPN for a long time to come.

1. Does ESPiN really want the Big Ten, considering their editorial policy during their college sports shows?

2. How would the schools mentioned be convinced to end their current association, considering how united they've remained during the last cycle?

3. Why are the colleges not seeing the drawbacks of having one company control all of the marquee programs?

#1 It remains to be seen but since they draw the second most eyeballs in the nation I would assume that ESPN would like to keep them.

#2 It would be for the money only.

#3 Because most of them think in terms of short term gains and then only of themselves.

(08-18-2014 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 10:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  There are so many issues going past 16 schools that it's mind-boggling. Texas brining friends does that. I doubt Baylor could get the votes for political reasons. If Texas gets a friend, ND will want a friend. Next thing you know you are at 20 schools - just three shy of the old Southern Conference that had to split in 1933. I can see a path to 20 easier than I can to 18:

ACC

West:

Texas
TCU
Oklahoma
Tulane(Could be Kansas
FSU

North:

Notre Dame
Pitt
GT
Navy
Louisville

South:

Miami
Clemson
NCSU
Duke
Wake

East:

VT
UVa
UNC
Syracuse
BC

You play 4-3-2 Four in your division, three permaanet rivals, and 2 rotatings as so:

West: North: South: East:

FSU Louis Miami Syracuse
Texas ND Clemson UVa
OU GT Duke UNC
TCU Pitt NC State VT
Tulane Navy Wake BC

The four division champs play for the ACC title.

Highest two seeds host. Final played in Charlotte.

Texas would get Oklahoma, TCU, Tulane, FSU, Notre Dame, Clemson, and UVA each year plus 2 rotating
ND would get Navy, Pitt, GT, Louisville, Texas, Clemson, and UVa, each year plus 2 rotating
FSU would get Tulane, TCU, Oklahoma, FSU, Miami, Louisville, and Syracuse, each year plus 2 rotating

You see everyone else every six years.

Your likely playoff teams would be:

West: North: South: East:

FSU ND Clemson VT
Texas Louisville Miami UNC
OU GT
Pitt

LP4, If you move to 20 then likely the SEC and Big 10 are doing the same. So the probability of getting both Texas and OU go down. 18 with coordination with the SEC would get it done.

Let's say the goal is the absorption of the Big 12 between the ACC and SEC. All of the sudden cooperation becomes essential. If there was no subsequent swapping with the SEC then to make it work the ACC could not take West Virginia and all 4 of it's Big 12 schools would have to come from the West. Something like this:

Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State to the ACC for a conference that looks like this:

Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, *Miami, Oklahoma State, Texas (*they have to fly to most locations anyway) and it gives Texas an annual in to recruiting in Florida)

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest

Boston College, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech
*Notre Dame as an independent.

The three divisional champions and the best at large school receive the 4 slots for the Conference Championship Series.

The move gives the ACC two of the AAU members of the Big 12 while adding to the football profile. It also adds 35 million potential viewers to the ACC.

The SEC would add Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and West Virginia.

That gives the SEC one AAU school, two national brands (1 in basketball) and adds 8 million viewers and enhances the Texas numbers.

Eight is enough to dissolve the Big 12.

The better results for travel and regional grouping would involve the swap.

ACC:
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina

North: Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Wake Forest

*Notre Dame

SEC:
East: Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Viriginia

South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M



You get as much value with a well dispersed 18 as you do with 20.

Here you go again.

(08-15-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 01:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was speaking solely to the quioxtic quest to send the bowls a packin' and think I rather effectively dealt while the bowls aren't going away despite not fitting the vision some of have of progress.

But you misapplied an entire post of mine and then started with an assertion that somehow my post was in error as a set up for your position and even after reading my explanation of your error did not apologize for the condescension or acknowledge the mistake. Instead you have aggrandized yourself further in your assessment of your assessment of the bowls. Uneffing believable! At this point I see it as either arrogance or vanity and neither is becoming.

JR I'm sorry to have offended you I think you have completely misunderstood the intent of my post for you to call it out in such a way.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-18-2014 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 01:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was speaking solely to the quioxtic quest to send the bowls a packin' and think I rather effectively dealt while the bowls aren't going away despite not fitting the vision some of have of progress.

But you misapplied an entire post of mine and then started with an assertion that somehow my post was in error as a set up for your position and even after reading my explanation of your error did not apologize for the condescension or acknowledge the mistake. Instead you have aggrandized yourself further in your assessment of your assessment of the bowls. Uneffing believable! At this point I see it as either arrogance or vanity and neither is becoming.

JR I'm sorry to have offended you I think you have completely misunderstood the intent of my post for you to call it out in such a way.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The complete quote cited came from post #70 in this thread which was an exchange between Lou C and myself about a certain realignment scenario. Wedge cropped it into the form that you quoted in order to reference the bowls as something that didn't get bypassed. In post 75 I dealt with Wedge's bowl insinuation and cropped quote with a comment on the bowls that essentially indicated the feelings I had about the bowls (which coincided with the sentiment expressed in your response which followed the opening line of "Sorry guys but you don't understand the bowls" (post #82). That reference which utilized a cropped quote from a post that wasn't even about bowls and which then gave an expanded version of my quip reply led to my post #88 where I explained the above by saying that you were usually much more thorough and that you must have had a bad night. When you responded again and didn't acknowledge the mistake but rather talked about your analysis having been accurate it flabbergasted me. To me you had refused to acknowledge that you had misapplied my original quote (that had nothing to do with bowls), then failed to acknowledge my similar but briefer feelings about the bowls, called me out as having not understood the implications of the bowl situation (which I took as condescension), ignored my attempt to acknowledge the mistake that you might have made in reading Wedge's post and quote cropping, and ignored my attempt to give you an out when I said that you needed to read the the whole thread more thoroughly or that perhaps you were simply having a bad night, and then to have you post to reiterate your total belief in your position without ever having acknowledged my previous attempt to clear up the matter,struck me as calloused and self centered. Since all of this was coming from someone I respect and acknowledge as a friend (as much as one can be one on a chat room forum), yes from my perspective it angered me. Subsequently, since this all played out publicly in the posts with no PM's involved by either you or me prior, I posted publicly my feelings based upon what I have just explained.

I think if you go back and read the whole thread from post 70 down to the post quoted by you at the top of this reply you will see and understand why I felt the way the I did and responded in the manner in which I did.

That said you are too good of a poster, too much a valued member of this board, and too much appreciated by me personally to stay away and of course I accept your apology.

I reread those several pages of the thread several times to see if I had misunderstood your responses. The best I can figure you were having a conversation with another poster that ran parallel in the thread with my conversation with Lou C, Xlance, and Wedge and must have missed the exchange I had with Xlance and only began reading with Wedge's cropped quote which you cited, and totally missed my point when I said that you has "misquoted, or misapplied" my quote.

Suffice it to say I'm sorry this happened, but I took the entire exchange as calloused indifference after I had explained the misunderstanding as best I could and offered you an out for the offense.

As far as I am concerned the matter between us over this is the past and is buried by the number of good to great exchanges we have had over better things to discuss. JR

(08-18-2014 10:37 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A few counter points if I may:
1. Businessmen may have enemies but they seldom act on those emotions in a way contrary to their own profits.
2. I think what ESPN was doing was stockpiling targets of leverage before a hostile Jim Delany's T1 contract came up for bid. They knew they had to overcome bad blood and inventory that the Big 10 desires may be the best way to hold onto Big 10 rights.
3. If holding that inventory does not gain ESPN leverage it at least denies the Big 10 an opportunity to expand if Delany makes business personal.
4. CEO's always look for the options in all angles. ESPN's moves with the ACC did that for them. They knew Delany had eyes to the East so what did the Mouse do? Sheltered some of the most valuable Big East property in the only conference in college sports whose broadcast rights are owned solely by 1 network, ESPN. The ACC has been enhanced with every ESPN acquisition, but their income has remained inferior to the that of the Big 10 and SEC. The Big 10 and SEC both find more targets of interest in the ACC than in any other conference.

Oklahoma and Kansas come from either a small market state or a state in which the Big 10 already has a strong draw. Texas is Texas and everyone wants the Horns.

Also don't rule out the presence of FOX for also spurring ESPN's property grab and the ACC is unassailable to FOX so it's a great place to shelter schools.

5. So what I'm telling you is that the ACC is a product enhanced by ESPN in which the parts of that conference are worth more to the Mouse in other conference packages than they are as an unit. If U.N.C., Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse leverage a long term deal for the Big 10's T1 rights and Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech and N.C. State make the SECN even more profitable for ESPN then so be it. If either the Big 10 or SEC (the two most profitable conferences) balk then ESPN cuts off their independent expansion by holding onto the schools and markets they desire. And, ESPN will maximize the ACC in that case to the best of their abilities.

So what you have is a brilliant corporate move. ESPN has built the carrot conference (ACC) in hopes that the work mules of the Big 10 and SEC are enticed to pull together for the Mouse. The PAC which remains a sole proprietorship, is the cheese that stands alone until they sell out to the networks. What the ACC crowd doesn't grasp is that just as it was 3 years ago their parts are more valuable elsewhere and that they may have been fattened up to be the enticement for super long commitments out of the two biggest dogs. And if they don't bite, the ACC is shaping up nicely and will still be profitable to ESPN for a long time to come.

1. Does ESPiN really want the Big Ten, considering their editorial policy during their college sports shows?

You're kidding, right? Do you really think ESPN would pass on making millions of $$$ a year with the B1G because a few talking heads don't like them?

Heck, ESPN already has a deal with the B1G!

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App