(06-01-2018 06:53 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I'm sorry that I can't and won't buy the idea that some bubba from flyover country had a business alternating deepthroatistic discussion with some high level tech mover/shaker. How anyone can buy shows the pure gullibility of some. I know it's the summer and there's not much else to talk about but come on.

I'm not saying changes won't occur. It is foolish and fool-hearty to think otherwise. I just can't buy how this story was reported. The WSJ, even the Big 12 loving DMN perhaps, but a lesser known Big 12 site ran by a guy with 150 Twitter followers? I just can't buy it.

What I see is a guy floating a made-up (remember he lists no source) story during while The Big 12 meetings are going on probably at the request of some one involved with the conference. This is floated ironically at the same time that ESPN is negotiating with possible new content partners.

No one else found the quote about "The Big 12 being the only beachfront property available" the least bit curious?
CJ

Pretty much the above quoted post.

Yes, technology, innovation and its players change at lighting speed, however, college football and its associations not so much. I don't discount the importance of the distribution, or pipes and plumbing needed for the product, however, the product itself is what's most important. The structure of the product at times takes decades to change, and those changes tend to be incremental changes with a short burst of activity, a few schools moving to new leagues/schedules, followed by years of crickets at the upper level/now P5 conferences (other than the relatively new off-season banter by message board posters). There are Conferences with schools that are contractually committed to the service provider(s) and its member schools well into the 2030s, and those schools will continue doing business in their current structure until such time as the contracts expire.

As for the next round of media rights negotiations, with the Big Ten's contract expiring with Fox/ESPN after FY2023, I for one am confident that the same 14 schools will negotiate new contracts as a Conference, in its entirety, and enter into a new long term deal for a period of 6-10 years, thus, continuing to exist and share under the same structure as today. The question is who the service provider is and I certainly wouldn't discount Fox/ESPN/other networks and even BTN taking a larger share of the pie.

(05-31-2018 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  From the same article

Most likley to make the 'Big Dog' list, (according to Top Programs by Value - WSJ ):

In order: Ohio State; Texas; Oklahoma; Alabama; Michigan; Notre Dame; Georgia; Tennessee; Auburn; Florida; Penn State; Texas A&M; Nebraska; South Carolina; Iowa; Arkansas; Wisconsin; Washington; Florida State; Oregon; Michigan State; Mississippi; Clemson; Southern California; Arizona State; UCLA.

IF these were the teams that end up in an Amazon power conference, it could be split easily into 5 divisions

North (5)
Ohio State, Mich, Iowa, Wisc, Mich St

West (5)
Wash, Ore, USC, Ariz St, UCLA

Central (5)
Tex, Ok, Tex A&M, Neb, Ark

South (5)
Bama, Ga, Tenn, Auburn, Florida

East (5)
Notre Dame, Penn St, S. Car, Flor St, Clem

(06-01-2018 10:11 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  From the same article

Most likley to make the 'Big Dog' list, (according to Top Programs by Value - WSJ ):

In order: Ohio State; Texas; Oklahoma; Alabama; Michigan; Notre Dame; Georgia; Tennessee; Auburn; Florida; Penn State; Texas A&M; Nebraska; South Carolina; Iowa; Arkansas; Wisconsin; Washington; Florida State; Oregon; Michigan State; Mississippi; Clemson; Southern California; Arizona State; UCLA.

IF these were the teams that end up in an Amazon power conference, it could be split easily into 5 divisions

North (5)
Ohio State, Mich, Iowa, Wisc, Mich St

West (5)
Wash, Ore, USC, Ariz St, UCLA

Central (5)
Tex, Ok, Tex A&M, Neb, Ark

South (5)
Bama, Ga, Tenn, Auburn, Florida

East (5)
Notre Dame, Penn St, S. Car, Flor St, Clem

LSU was around #5 in the WSJ valuation, but I guess they will find a soft landing in the Sun Belt Conference?

Only 115 schools were on the list, including Idaho. I dropped Idaho and gave the final 16 schools not on the list the same valuation as school #114 (after dropping Idaho) even though those schools are likely valued less than school #114.

16 schools hold more than 50% of the total value.
> Ohio St, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Penn St, Texas A&M, Nebraska, South Carolina, Iowa

26 schools hold more than 2/3 of the total value.
> Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Florida St, Oregon, Michigan St, Mississippi, Clemson, USC, Arizona St

39 schools hold more than 80% of the total value.
> UCLA, Kentucky, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Virginia Tech, Minnesota, Miami, Texas Tech, Mississippi St, Stanford, California, Georgia Tech, Utah

54 schools hold more than 90% of the total value.
> Colorado, Iowa St, North Carolina St, Kansas, Indiana, Virginia, Northwestern, Louisville, TCU, Maryland, North Carolina, Arizona, Oregon St, Illinois, Washington St

67 schools hold more than 95% of the total value.
> Purdue, Missouri, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Boston College, Boise St, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida

Power schools outside the "top 95%": Duke (#68) & Wake Forest (#70)
Non-power schools inside the "top 95%": BYU (#60), Central Florida (#61), Boise St (#63), & South Florida (#67)
Non-power schools that are surprisingly low to me in rank/valuation: Connecticut (#69), Houston (#71), Memphis (#76), Cincinnati (#77), East Carolina (#81), & San Diego St (#82)
Non-power schools that are surprisingly high to me in rank/valuation (looking at top 80): Boise St (#63), Army* (#73), Wyoming (#75), Fresno St (#79), & North Texas (#80)
*Air Force & Navy are absent from this list which makes me believe their numbers weren't available as those football programs would likely be quite a bit more valuable than many.

(06-04-2018 10:37 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Only 115 schools were on the list, including Idaho. I dropped Idaho and gave the final 16 schools not on the list the same valuation as school #114 (after dropping Idaho) even though those schools are likely valued less than school #114.

16 schools hold more than 50% of the total value.
> Ohio St, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Penn St, Texas A&M, Nebraska, South Carolina, Iowa

26 schools hold more than 2/3 of the total value.
> Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Florida St, Oregon, Michigan St, Mississippi, Clemson, USC, Arizona St

39 schools hold more than 80% of the total value.
> UCLA, Kentucky, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Virginia Tech, Minnesota, Miami, Texas Tech, Mississippi St, Stanford, California, Georgia Tech, Utah

54 schools hold more than 90% of the total value.
> Colorado, Iowa St, North Carolina St, Kansas, Indiana, Virginia, Northwestern, Louisville, TCU, Maryland, North Carolina, Arizona, Oregon St, Illinois, Washington St

67 schools hold more than 95% of the total value.
> Purdue, Missouri, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Boston College, Boise St, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida

Power schools outside the "top 95%": Duke (#68) & Wake Forest (#70)
Non-power schools inside the "top 95%": BYU (#60), Central Florida (#61), Boise St (#63), & South Florida (#67)
Non-power schools that are surprisingly low to me in rank/valuation: Connecticut (#69), Houston (#71), Memphis (#76), Cincinnati (#77), East Carolina (#81), & San Diego St (#82)
Non-power schools that are surprisingly high to me in rank/valuation (looking at top 80): Boise St (#63), Army* (#73), Wyoming (#75), Fresno St (#79), & North Texas (#80)
*Air Force & Navy are absent from this list which makes me believe their numbers weren't available as those football programs would likely be quite a bit more valuable than many.

If this is just football program value, I'm surprised Kansas is so high.