This thought came to me last night, and I have not been able to shake it out of my brain. What if we’re looking at conference realignment all wrong?? I don’t think chances are good for Big XII survival, but I don’t think Texas will wind up where we expect them to either. I’m thinking ESPN is holding on Texas as a poker chip. Yes, the Longhorn Network has stunk it up, but might another entity be interested in acquiring Texas, and giving ESPN something it really wants in the process?? I wonder if ESPN is trying to make a play at sole control of PAC 12 broadcasting rights, using Texas as a bargaining chip to get this from FOX.

Basically, what I’m driving at is this: ESPN lets/encourages Texas to join the Big Ten in exchange for sole broadcasting rights of the PAC 12 conference.

The whole reason ESPN paid the high rights they do for the Longhorn Network was to help keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-12 threatened. Five power conferences are better for them than 4. The less there are, the more they can't afford to lose out on one.

Granted, they couldn't stop things going from 6 to 5, but they definitely won't help push a reduction.

(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The whole reason ESPN paid the high rights they do for the Longhorn Network was to help keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-12 threatened. Five power conferences are better for them than 4. The less there are, the more they can't afford to lose out on one.

Granted, they couldn't stop things going from 6 to 5, but they definitely won't help push a reduction.

I don't think ESPN would hesitate for one second if they found a way to orchestrate another go-around of realignment, where they could consolidate their content with the power conferences, then weaken the lower conferences by spending less on their content.

(01-16-2019 04:04 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This thought came to me last night, and I have not been able to shake it out of my brain. What if we’re looking at conference realignment all wrong?? I don’t think chances are good for Big XII survival, but I don’t think Texas will wind up where we expect them to either. I’m thinking ESPN is holding on Texas as a poker chip. Yes, the Longhorn Network has stunk it up, but might another entity be interested in acquiring Texas, and giving ESPN something it really wants in the process?? I wonder if ESPN is trying to make a play at sole control of PAC 12 broadcasting rights, using Texas as a bargaining chip to get this from FOX.

Basically, what I’m driving at is this: ESPN lets/encourages Texas to join the Big Ten in exchange for sole broadcasting rights of the PAC 12 conference.

Why would Texas to the Big Ten give ESPN rights to the Pac-12?
Shouldn't it be either Texas to the Pac-12 for the PTN, or to the Big Ten for the BTN?

(01-16-2019 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 04:04 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This thought came to me last night, and I have not been able to shake it out of my brain. What if we’re looking at conference realignment all wrong?? I don’t think chances are good for Big XII survival, but I don’t think Texas will wind up where we expect them to either. I’m thinking ESPN is holding on Texas as a poker chip. Yes, the Longhorn Network has stunk it up, but might another entity be interested in acquiring Texas, and giving ESPN something it really wants in the process?? I wonder if ESPN is trying to make a play at sole control of PAC 12 broadcasting rights, using Texas as a bargaining chip to get this from FOX.

Basically, what I’m driving at is this: ESPN lets/encourages Texas to join the Big Ten in exchange for sole broadcasting rights of the PAC 12 conference.

Why would Texas to the Big Ten give ESPN rights to the Pac-12?
Shouldn't it be either Texas to the Pac-12 for the PTN, or to the Big Ten for the BTN?

Yeah.

(01-16-2019 04:04 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This thought came to me last night, and I have not been able to shake it out of my brain. What if we’re looking at conference realignment all wrong?? I don’t think chances are good for Big XII survival, but I don’t think Texas will wind up where we expect them to either. I’m thinking ESPN is holding on Texas as a poker chip. Yes, the Longhorn Network has stunk it up, but might another entity be interested in acquiring Texas, and giving ESPN something it really wants in the process?? I wonder if ESPN is trying to make a play at sole control of PAC 12 broadcasting rights, using Texas as a bargaining chip to get this from FOX.

Basically, what I’m driving at is this: ESPN lets/encourages Texas to join the Big Ten in exchange for sole broadcasting rights of the PAC 12 conference.

Texas makes more than any other school. They could earn zero from tv and still be top 5 in revenue. ESPN does not have that much power. And LHN is great if you are a Texas fan. I suspect ad revenue is far below projections

(01-16-2019 09:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The whole reason ESPN paid the high rights they do for the Longhorn Network was to help keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-12 threatened. Five power conferences are better for them than 4. The less there are, the more they can't afford to lose out on one.

Granted, they couldn't stop things going from 6 to 5, but they definitely won't help push a reduction.

I don't think ESPN would hesitate for one second if they found a way to orchestrate another go-around of realignment, where they could consolidate their content with the power conferences, then weaken the lower conferences by spending less on their content.

What they spend on other conferences pales in comparison to what the power conferences make. Adding Texas and/or Oklahoma to another major conference would make the possibility of losing out on that all the worse (and bettet for another network). Thr result would likely be spending significantly more for the same teams. Now the conferences might do that on their own with that knowledge, but ESPN will do what they can to discourage realignment.

Crazy idea here but what if the biggest programs in each P5 decided they were too big for their conference in FB but their conference kept them in for Olympic sports like ND.

USC
Texas
Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama

These programs would all play each other and then a partial schedule in conference play of 6 games.

Then backfill taken mostly from the B12

PAC (Texas Tech)
B1G (Kansas)
SEC (Oklahoma)

B12 adds 4 to go to 10/11 in basketball w/ Texas.

XII (Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF)

Yeah if espn wants the pac 12 than they would want Texas in it. The best move might be Texas, Texas tech, Houston and TCU or OKLA state to a pac 16 with OU and KU to the big 10. Yet, i do think an 18 team pac is better given the geography if they are taking big 12 schools. However, putting OU and KU in the big 10 gives them a big bump and with Fox and espn sort of on the same page, everybody could be happy in that move. If the big 10 and pac jumped to 16 I would think the sec would add 2 acc schools and the acc add wvu and Cincinnati as replacements. Depending on ND could add 1 more

Texas would not be an ESPN bargaining chip unless Texas permitted it. Texas is going to decide their own acceptable options. Money that ESPN puts on the table will certainly factor into the decision. ESPN's power is offering financial enticements for broadcasting, not authoritative control.

(01-16-2019 09:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The whole reason ESPN paid the high rights they do for the Longhorn Network was to help keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-12 threatened. Five power conferences are better for them than 4. The less there are, the more they can't afford to lose out on one.

Granted, they couldn't stop things going from 6 to 5, but they definitely won't help push a reduction.

I don't think ESPN would hesitate for one second if they found a way to orchestrate another go-around of realignment, where they could consolidate their content with the power conferences, then weaken the lower conferences by spending less on their content.

It would appesr to me that the FOX rejection of the Big12 CCG would indicate that it’s the cost of the P5 that’s bumping up against its economic ceiling...and the cost of the non-power networks is not an issue, so, it would seem to me that anything that increases the cost of the P5 would be counter to the network interests.

(01-16-2019 04:04 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This thought came to me last night, and I have not been able to shake it out of my brain. What if we’re looking at conference realignment all wrong?? I don’t think chances are good for Big XII survival, but I don’t think Texas will wind up where we expect them to either. I’m thinking ESPN is holding on Texas as a poker chip. Yes, the Longhorn Network has stunk it up, but might another entity be interested in acquiring Texas, and giving ESPN something it really wants in the process?? I wonder if ESPN is trying to make a play at sole control of PAC 12 broadcasting rights, using Texas as a bargaining chip to get this from FOX.

Basically, what I’m driving at is this: ESPN lets/encourages Texas to join the Big Ten in exchange for sole broadcasting rights of the PAC 12 conference.

Disagree.

First and most important point is that Texas' athletic department has so much money that they don't need to chase a couple million more in TV money here or there. They are like the old joke: Where does a 900-pound gorilla sit? Wherever he wants to sit. The Big 12, in its current form, will end only when Texas wants it to end, and there's not enough TV money in the world to make Texas leave before they want to leave, or to make them choose a new conference other than the one they most want for themselves.

Second, as to your last paragraph: IMO ESPN can easily be the sole rightsholder for the Pac-12 after the current contract without having to do anything. Fox's turndown of the Big 12 CCG, along with the fact that it's clear FS1 is never going to generate ESPN levels of revenue, might indicate that Fox will back away from both the Big 12 and Pac-12 TV rights when the current contracts expire. Even if Fox doesn't completely back away, they might choose to buy a more limited number of games for Fox OTA only.

(01-16-2019 11:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Crazy idea here but what if the biggest programs in each P5 decided they were too big for their conference in FB but their conference kept them in for Olympic sports like ND.

USC
Texas
Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama

These programs would all play each other and then a partial schedule in conference play of 6 games.

Then backfill taken mostly from the B12

PAC (Texas Tech)
B1G (Kansas)
SEC (Oklahoma)

B12 adds 4 to go to 10/11 in basketball w/ Texas.

XII (Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF)

The next major realignment in the mid 30s may be something of that nature. More like a superconference. Only play 5 or 6 conference games and feed on "lesser" schools for the rest. Something like:
West-USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama
East-Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Penn St., Georgia, Florida

(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The whole reason ESPN paid the high rights they do for the Longhorn Network was to help keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-12 threatened. Five power conferences are better for them than 4. The less there are, the more they can't afford to lose out on one.

Granted, they couldn't stop things going from 6 to 5, but they definitely won't help push a reduction.

I don't think ESPN had a problem with expansion as they are largely responsible for the demise of the old Big East and in regards to Texas I don't think they would have been as aggressive in overpaying for the LHN had Texas been on the verge of moving to a conference that had a stronger connection with ESPN but because at that time they had no connection to the Pac10 they were looking at a situation where had the Pac16 came to fruition and with their tie to the BigTen at a weak point back then they could find themselves shut out of college athletics for almost everything west of the Mississippi.

(01-16-2019 01:20 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The whole reason ESPN paid the high rights they do for the Longhorn Network was to help keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-12 threatened. Five power conferences are better for them than 4. The less there are, the more they can't afford to lose out on one.

Granted, they couldn't stop things going from 6 to 5, but they definitely won't help push a reduction.

I don't think ESPN had a problem with expansion as they are largely responsible for the demise of the old Big East and in regards to Texas I don't think they would have been as aggressive in overpaying for the LHN had Texas been on the verge of moving to a conference that had a stronger connection with ESPN but because at that time they had no connection to the Pac10 they were looking at a situation where had the Pac16 came to fruition and with their tie to the BigTen at a weak point back then they could find themselves shut out of college athletics for almost everything west of the Mississippi.

Well, it was a Big East that rejected it's TV deal and then shortly afterwards

So perhaps they had some skin in the game for that particular expansion/defection depending upon what your view was at that point in time?

Cheers,
Neil

Texas will do what Texas will do, and they will do it for Texas and Texas alone. It is a $4B a year institution (part of an $18.8B system wide operating budget) with a $31B endowment.

ESPN does not have any sway over them.

Sometimes I think you guys think an athletic departments $10M preference is the most important thing. For Texas it's a rounding error on the annual budget.

The way to get Texas to do something would be to chip away at the big 12 by removing OU and KU. I think the pac 12 and SEC are the only places that can offer a package to get OU or KU to move

SEC: offer OU, OK state combo
pac 12: offer OU, OK state, KU, KSU combo

The big 10 could offer OU and KU but can they leave and destroy their instate partner when they have the option to stay in the big 12 with texas?

(01-16-2019 02:51 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The way to get Texas to do something would be to chip away at the big 12 by removing OU and KU. I think the pac 12 and SEC are the only places that can offer a package to get OU or KU to move

SEC: offer OU, OK state combo
pac 12: offer OU, OK state, KU, KSU combo

The big 10 could offer OU and KU but can they leave and destroy their instate partner when they have the option to stay in the big 12 with texas?

It's already been tried.

When OU and Ok St applied to join the Pac-12 several years ago, Tennis Larry found out there wasn't enough support for adding just them, so he approached Texas, and they said, nope, not interested, not even if OU and Ok St leave.

And of course another obvious possibility is that any conference could lock themselves into OU and Ok St only to see Texas leave for a different conference instead of theirs.

Texas is going to do what they want to do. I still say they keep the Big 12 together because they are the power school. Also, I believe Chris Del Conte is very pro Big 12. He very well may be the commissioner when the current one retires.

Guys, always remember this. Texas has power issues, not financial ones.

There’s no money in the world that can convince Texas to go to another conference and be a team player. Why? They have money. Tons of it.

What Texas wants is to be in control. They like to dictate terms and conditions, be a decision maker from expansion to tv deals to league matters. They like to be surrounded by an entourage of yes schools. They won’t get any of that in the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12. Oklahoma can throw a fit once in awhile but they’ve been quite successful in the Big XII. They can look at Arkansas, Nebraska and Texas A&M as a cautionary tale of what happens when you get away from Texas and join a stronger league with more resources. The last thing Oklahoma wants is to be Nebraska.