JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,236
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7932
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-18-2019 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote: (01-18-2019 12:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-18-2019 11:28 AM)ken d Wrote: (12-06-2018 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: (12-06-2018 01:20 PM)domer1978 Wrote: They're quoting FLug? Oh my goodness how the news media has fallen.
Actually it's worse than that. They are quoting Flug who is quoting his fictitious excuse for making up crap to drive his twitter feed hits, BTM (Big Ten Man). ESPN knew that the LHN wasn't a great venture when they created it. It was just a vehicle to keep UT in the ESPN fold through turbulent times which is why the 15 million a year extortion is paid.
Texas has the most successful business model in college sports and it is largely predicated on playing as many games as possible (home and away) inside the state of Texas so that their alums can see them as often as possible. It's worked marvelously for them and it's not changing. If they ever move anywhere it will be to a place that accommodates that business model. That isn't the Big 10.
There is such a detachment from reality in Fluguar's claims that it boggles the mind. Oklahoma would be the worst academically rated school in the Big 10 overnight surpassing Nebraska and it wouldn't even be close.
The reality here is twofold:
1. Every conference would love to have Texas and probably Oklahoma, but want them without their other state school baggage.
2. The Big 10 just lost Urban at their top football school, just whiffed on their second CFP in a row, and interest heading into bowl season is tepid to poor for the Big 10 as a whole. They have some good stories going on with some individual schools like Purdue, Northwestern, etc. But my point is Fluguar's traffic on his twitter feed was lousy. So he uses his fictitious creation BTM to tell everyone what they want to hear. And in the absence of real news he gets a boost.
There isn't going to be a bunch of real news leaks heading into the 2022-3 time period. The networks don't want leaks because they don't want the FAANG corporations getting into their game early and if ESPN and FOX can create a reason for contract re-negotiations (like additions to the Big 10, SEC, and ACC) they can re-calculate values, sign contract extensions, and lock up product before the main contracts expire.
The SEC's T1 contract with CBS is up in 2024-5. The Big 10's six year deal with FOX is up in 2023. The PAC's contract expires in 2024. The ACC is sewed up until 2037. And the Big 12's contract expires in 2024. Until then nothing will be spoken of.
It looks like if there is movement it will again come out of the Big 12, although the PAC is experiencing carriage and profitability issues. But then that might just make them more of a player. I have no doubts that everyone will make plays for Texas and Oklahoma and I know back door discussions have been going on for years now with both of those schools. Part of it is due diligence (the schools finding their relative value to others) and part of it is just in case talks. But even if they are inclined to move (which they may not be) they will by their GOR and conference rules have to give a 2 year notice before doing so and it will have to come appropriately toward the end of their GOR. So around 2022 if something is going to happen FOX and ESPN will have laid out their offers via the conferences and it will all stay totally under wraps because of NDA's with the conferences involved, the stipulations in the GOR's and the Networks' caution over tortuous interference suits. So there is no way in hell that some jock sniffer in the Minnesota athletic world is going to spill the beans to an ex football player who plays his role as the next Dude of West Virginia and indeed debates the Dude to drive interest.
Fluguar is the internet equivalent of professional wrestling. Sometimes he goes solo, sometimes he screams into the camera talking about made up stories, and sometimes he tag teams with the Dude of West Virginia.
I might watch if the two of them hit each other with chairs and spurted fake blood!
I have long said that Texas is right where it should be. IMO, they need the Big XII almost as much as the Big XII needs them. That being said, I would be ruluctant to ever bet the ranch against Jim Delaney and the B1G. It would not surprise me if the B1G were to invite Texas and Oklahoma as a pair, if for no other reason than to prevent the SEC from doing so. Those two to the SEC is virtually game over when it comes to realignment. There are no schools left that help the B1G.
But if they were to sign on with the B1G instead, there really aren't any other schools left that would enhance the per school value of the SEC either. I would go so far as to say the B1G would become the SEC's equal on the field as well. Maybe not in terms of average strength (the SEC doen't have nearly as many weak sisters as the B1G). But at the top, they would have as many perennial NC contenders - the schools that draw eyeballs nationally.
Maybe, recognizing this reality, the B1G might be willing to accommodate in some way UT's need for opportunities to play OOC games against Texas schools. One way they might do that is to count only intra-division games in determining who plays for the conference championship. They could encourage, but not require, teams to schedule opponents from the other division (and offer incentives for doing so). Most of the original members would probably do this willingly even if not required to. But if UT only had to play 7 league games, they would be free to mine Texas heavily.
The next few years may be the last best opportunity for the big dogs to improve themselves. Don't be too surprised if the common wisdom when it comes to UT turns out not to be true.
The Big 10, like the SEC, will offer no special favors to any one school. If Texas were to head North (hardly likely) they would have to join as equals and would receive no special deals. What the Big 10 might be able to do to land Texas is to offer Tech. They might hold their noses for that one, but I just can't see them doing the same for Oklahoma State.
Interesting to me has been the devaluations in the value of the Big 10 Network that virtually equals some of the payouts to the oldest member schools. I say interesting because it indicates not only a possible change in the format of the Network, but it would also be a prudent move to eliminate a buy in which Texas and Oklahoma would never go for, and I might add neither would most ACC schools of prominence.
All SEC schools are now at least R1 Carnegie schools. The SEC has no buy in. The SEC is geographically compatible and has two of Texas's former rivals already in tow and Missouri as a familiar opponent. The sports fit leans SEC heavily. Diamond sports are important at both Texas and Oklahoma. Women's gymnastics, like softball, are better in the SEC. And athletic associations have nothing to do with academic associations through organizations like the AAU. Texas has the most successful sports business model in the nation. They will move only when they have to, and they will move to a destination that requires the least change to that sports model, which includes not only type and quality of sports, but also foes their alumni want to see Texas play, and away games that are within driving distance.
Nobody is going to refuse a research relationship with Texas / North Carolina / Duke or anyone else based on athletic affiliations.
The Big 10 can make lots of money from having Texas. But taking OU without Texas would give then instantly a school that would be at the bottom academically in the Big 10 and with the risk that their athletics would take a Nebraska like nosedive without traditional ties to important recruiting grounds.
The Big 10's natural expansion candidates might include Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame with Duke certainly being possible. The presidents of the Big 10 are more accustomed to thinking in terms of research revenue than sports revenue.
As for Delany, the last time out he added Maryland and Rutgers. Why not Missouri and Kansas? Why not Oklahoma and Kansas? Because the research money was far greater at Piscataway and at College Park. In their minds, why grab Oklahoma and Texas if you can land Virginia and North Carolina, possibly Duke, and then maybe have enough leverage to make another run at the sports brand that undermines their advertising rates by giving other networks a back door into their largest cities, Notre Dame.
In my mind, I don't think he has any realistic chance of landing the VA and/or NC schools. I also think UT and OU are unlikely, but without any of those schools he'll probably have to stand pat. And that likely means falling even further behind the SEC. He may not be happy about that, but I don't see where he has a lot of choices.
1. If the Big 12 has peaked in earnings then Oklahoma and Texas might have second thoughts about their stability. The recent FOX decisions impacts the Big 12 potentially to the tune of 2 million per school.
2. If the perception is that they will continue to fall behind the Big 12 brands might entertain moves.
3. I agree that for the most part the Big 10 has run out of targets that payoff. Texas and Oklahoma are worth the run at them.
4. I agree that for the time being the ACC is stable. But should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma that would significantly enhance the gap in earnings and could be destabilizing. Especially if it were the Big 10. The SEC knows this too and would move to block, or make the move themselves.
5. When a sports revenue gaps gets to the 20 million range your core schools may not be susceptible, but programs like Florida State, Syracuse, etc. might be.
6. Clearly the safest place for that pair to default to would be the PAC. However that move seems impossible due to the myriad of issues facing the PAC at this time.
7. The networks are truly paying 10 to get 3 with regard to the Big 12. Therefore, stability will remain under constant strain, especially now that the rights bubble may be hitting a plateau.
So in conclusion the environment is right for destabilization and pressure to secure revenue streams moving forward. Add that to the Big 10's strategic needs and a push on Texas and Oklahoma is likely. Toss in the access issues to the CFP for the Big 10 and PAC, the reluctance of the Presidents to entertain an extension of the season via expanded playoffs, and the funnel through which this issue travels narrows increasing the rate of urgency in some camps. Now add the economic pressure the networks are presently under and the fact that Oklahoma and Texas would be worth more practically anywhere other than the Big 12 and would have more relevant games almost anywhere else and I believe the recipe is right for the likelihood of movement prior to 2024.
How that plays out? Nobody could predict. But there are some contractual ties upon Texas that could indicate a lean.
The question is therefore, "How much destabilization might cost the networks vs the potential overhead reduction and the increased content value that could be derived by encouraging moves from Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas?" If the networks think that there would be more damage to the bottom line by moving those schools than profit gained by doing so then nothing will happen. If they feel that it could be handled profitably it will happen.
Now if it is the latter will they seek to keep the imbalance from growing too much by splitting up those entities, or will one network get greedy and try to scoop them all? We'll see.
|
|
/
Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
