(08-11-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:27 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 10:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually, it works in reverse. It's the premise which leads to issues. What's the best way for ESPN to ensure massive control over the Texas market, rescue straggling PAC schools after the B1G raids, and place an inventory bind on the Big Ten's 3 network arrangement, help Texas and Oklahoma vacate early, and do it all without liability?

Buy all of the B12 rights, add the PAC schools, use the LHN as a B12N, and pay them well enough not to gripe!

What this does is it gives ESPN a monopoly in the SW and expands it into Arizona, Utah, and possibly Colorado. If Kansas gets picked up you have the AAC and PAC from which to backfill.

This move is essential in covering ESPN's other moves and potentially handling any changes in the ACC should any occur.

As part of the LHN negotiations ESPN could even negotiate an early release to the SEC for UT and OU as part of the "Big12 future security plan".

Yep, I mentioned that, but aside from a large state monopoly on advertising for college sports, the move, if everyone under ESPN's umbrella which was not in the SEC was placed in the B12, would permit a third P conference under ESPN control to emerge which would preserve rivalries cross conference. It simplifies virtually all political issues between schools in the greater region.

With a 24 member SEC and 24 member SEC you split many bowl tie ins, lay claim to 10 of the 16 slots in an expanded CFP, keep hoops challenge money inside the Disney household, and rope off the largest and deepest recruiting pools in the nation and Southerners and Southwesterners love their rivalries. This is the "more" in "It just means more."

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas essentially earn more only without losing in state rivals except as conference games.

Your New Big 12:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Houston, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, Texas Tech, Utah

Central Florida, Louisville, N.C. State, South Florida, Virginia Tech/Virginia, Wake Forest

Notre Dame as an independent would play both B12 and SEC schools under ESPN.

If the SEC reaches 24 schools, I don't think the new Big 12 looks like that. Some of those schools would likely be in the SEC to get to 24. Unless I'm missing something about your view.

As for the OP, I just don't see that happening. OR, WA, and Stanford (maybe Cal) are bolting the first chance they get. ESPN won't be able to come up with near enough money for them to stay. I think it's safe to say they will take a partial share to join the B1G knowing what they will get once they reach full shares. The partial share might be as much or more than what they can get remaining in the PAC considering how large the B1G's payout will be. I think it makes more sense for ESPN to pay the Big 12 and they add some PAC schools. If Warren hadn't said what he did, along with the report right after about who they were looking at, I would probably see things differently.

My view is simple. ESPN will shelter national brands and potential Big 10 / FOX targets in the SEC. Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Kansas, and North Carolina are the brands and Georgia Tech, Miami, and Virginia are the other possible targets. There is no need to shelter the others and they all have like values to those of B12 and PAC schools.

I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

(08-11-2022 01:52 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:27 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As part of the LHN negotiations ESPN could even negotiate an early release to the SEC for UT and OU as part of the "Big12 future security plan".

Yep, I mentioned that, but aside from a large state monopoly on advertising for college sports, the move, if everyone under ESPN's umbrella which was not in the SEC was placed in the B12, would permit a third P conference under ESPN control to emerge which would preserve rivalries cross conference. It simplifies virtually all political issues between schools in the greater region.

With a 24 member SEC and 24 member SEC you split many bowl tie ins, lay claim to 10 of the 16 slots in an expanded CFP, keep hoops challenge money inside the Disney household, and rope off the largest and deepest recruiting pools in the nation and Southerners and Southwesterners love their rivalries. This is the "more" in "It just means more."

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas essentially earn more only without losing in state rivals except as conference games.

Your New Big 12:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Houston, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, Texas Tech, Utah

Central Florida, Louisville, N.C. State, South Florida, Virginia Tech/Virginia, Wake Forest

Notre Dame as an independent would play both B12 and SEC schools under ESPN.

If the SEC reaches 24 schools, I don't think the new Big 12 looks like that. Some of those schools would likely be in the SEC to get to 24. Unless I'm missing something about your view.

As for the OP, I just don't see that happening. OR, WA, and Stanford (maybe Cal) are bolting the first chance they get. ESPN won't be able to come up with near enough money for them to stay. I think it's safe to say they will take a partial share to join the B1G knowing what they will get once they reach full shares. The partial share might be as much or more than what they can get remaining in the PAC considering how large the B1G's payout will be. I think it makes more sense for ESPN to pay the Big 12 and they add some PAC schools. If Warren hadn't said what he did, along with the report right after about who they were looking at, I would probably see things differently.

My view is simple. ESPN will shelter national brands and potential Big 10 / FOX targets in the SEC. Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Kansas, and North Carolina are the brands and Georgia Tech, Miami, and Virginia are the other possible targets. There is no need to shelter the others and they all have like values to those of B12 and PAC schools.

I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

Dead seriously, what do you actually know about the Big 10's deal, or the SEC's?

Big Ten: 350 million from CBS, 350 million from NBC, both yet undocumented. They've advertised 1.5 billion. Well for that to be true FOX has to provide 800 million and for what? They aren't getting the T1, & T2 rights they got last time out for 650 million. Are they paying 800 million for less? I doubt it. Would they pay 600 million after they just bought another 10% of a BTN which like all conference networks is going down in value not up. So, the FOX purchase was a favor. I'm willing to concede 1.3 billion. Sounds great doesn't it!

The SEC made 777 million last year from its media contract. It had 833 million in total conference revenue. The 55-million-dollar CBS contract will be replaced by just a T1 contract for what a Disney insider said will be closer to 375 million than 350 million. So, let's assume that's 363 million. 777 million minus 55 million equals 722 million plus 363 million equals 1.14 billion and that doesn't include a reworking of the T2 and T3 contracts which have yet to be announced, nor does it include Texas and Oklahoma, while the new B1G contract does include USC and UCLA.

USC and UCLA are the 23rd and 26th most valuable programs. Texas and Oklahoma are the 2nd and 7th most valuable programs. If Texas and Oklahoma just get pro rata and the SEC gets nothing for reworking their T2 and T3 rights deal, the SEC has a contract worth 1.3 billion. If they get more for Texas and Oklahoma than the Big 10 gets for USC and UCLA well, then maybe the B1G contract is not so special after all. The SEC doesn't flash cash to attract members and they hold earnings much closer to the vest. So, the cash at worst will be a wash.

Then there's ESPN. Do you think they would permit major brands to waltz off to FOX when they hold rights on them until 2036? Hell no! If UNC and Duke and UVa want more money, B1G money, they can have it by moving to where ESPN retains the rights. If not the whole ACC rots for 14 more years. Well over half a billion in revenue overcomes a boat load of arrogance. And how bad are the academics of an SEC with Texas, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri and Vanderbilt when those three stay together with Ga Tech in a much better academic SEC than the one they knew 20 years ago?

There's your answer. Pride and rot for 14 years, or .6 billion more and solid company and excellent security in a conference which treasures baseball, and where their hoops will shine, and where fans can easily travel? ESPN will bet on the latter.

To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

(08-11-2022 03:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

In support of your viewpoint, had ESPN and Fox not told the Big 12 what it would have been worth in 2 years, it would have disentegrated in 2010. They worked very hard to stop the Pac 16. What likely would have happened would be CU, Texas, OU, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Kansas to the Pac, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and Nebraska to the Big 10. ISU, KSU and Baylor then join the Big East.

(08-11-2022 07:34 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If and only if you believe you have zero shot at securing the Big 12 rights because they are holding a grudge over the Texas and OU poaching.

However, you kind of strengthen their tortious interference accusation.

How can you have interference claim when all the current Big 12 members have reached out to the PAC 12?

"Does it make sense for ESPN to sign the PAC 10, then dismantle the Big 12?"

If by "dismantle" you mean, "to have the ACC and SEC poach a few schools", then yes, I think it does.

Having the SEC add Kansas, and the ACC add Cin, WV, UCF (and USF and Memphis), pretty much takes what inventory espn might want, and strengthens the ACC. As we've said elsewhere, the next move would be to move Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, to the SEC (facilitated by an ACC vote, which espn likely would have to up the ACC's media deal, to get).

And the B12's backfil options would be quite reduced. Probably SMU, and either Rice and/or Tulane, or schools from the MWC.

And once this is all done, if espn did later decide they wanted this new B12, they could likely get it much more cheaply.

What I hope is that ND eventually goes to the ACC.

Would be even better if the leapfrogged everyone and added Stanford, Washington and Oregon to get to 18.

ESPN broadcast a total of 21 PAC12 regular season games in 2021. 12 were broadcast on ESPN or ESPN2 in the 10pm ET timeslot.

- 4 on ABC [2 at 3:30pm ET and 2 at 7/8pm ET]. All 4 involved Oregon.

- 2 on ESPN at 3:3opm ET, including the Hawaii @ UCLA week 0 game.

- 10 on ESPN at 10pm ET - (6 of these games involved ASU or Arizona)

- 2 on ESPN2 at 10p ET - (both of these games involved ASU or Arizona)

- 3 on ESPNU [2 at 7pm ET; 1 at 10pm ET]

ESPN broadcast 4 BYU home games on ESPN or ESPN2 in the 10pm ET timeslot...and 2 of the PAC games on ESPN at 10pm ET involved BYU. (Boise @ BYU was broadcast on ABC).

So, 9 out of the 12 games on ESPN or ESPN2 in 2021 that were part of the PAC 12 contract involved ASU, Arizona, and/or BYU...and 13 of ESPN and ESPN2's 2021 inventory involved ASU, Arizona, or BYU.


FOX broadcast a total of 22 PAC 12 games in 2021. The bigger PAC 12 games were more likely to be broadcast on FOX.

- 10 on FOX [4 at 3:30pm ET; 5 at 7/8pm ET and 1 at 10pm ET]
(I note that 6 of the 10 games involved UCLA or USC and 3 were OOC, including LSU @ UCLA, A&M @ Colorado; and Notre Dame @ Stanford...so FOX only broadcast 2 PAC games that didn't involve UCLA, USC, Notre Dame or the SEC).

- 12 on FS1; 8 of those in the 10pm ET timeslot.

(08-11-2022 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:52 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:27 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yep, I mentioned that, but aside from a large state monopoly on advertising for college sports, the move, if everyone under ESPN's umbrella which was not in the SEC was placed in the B12, would permit a third P conference under ESPN control to emerge which would preserve rivalries cross conference. It simplifies virtually all political issues between schools in the greater region.

With a 24 member SEC and 24 member SEC you split many bowl tie ins, lay claim to 10 of the 16 slots in an expanded CFP, keep hoops challenge money inside the Disney household, and rope off the largest and deepest recruiting pools in the nation and Southerners and Southwesterners love their rivalries. This is the "more" in "It just means more."

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas essentially earn more only without losing in state rivals except as conference games.

Your New Big 12:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Houston, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, Texas Tech, Utah

Central Florida, Louisville, N.C. State, South Florida, Virginia Tech/Virginia, Wake Forest

Notre Dame as an independent would play both B12 and SEC schools under ESPN.

If the SEC reaches 24 schools, I don't think the new Big 12 looks like that. Some of those schools would likely be in the SEC to get to 24. Unless I'm missing something about your view.

As for the OP, I just don't see that happening. OR, WA, and Stanford (maybe Cal) are bolting the first chance they get. ESPN won't be able to come up with near enough money for them to stay. I think it's safe to say they will take a partial share to join the B1G knowing what they will get once they reach full shares. The partial share might be as much or more than what they can get remaining in the PAC considering how large the B1G's payout will be. I think it makes more sense for ESPN to pay the Big 12 and they add some PAC schools. If Warren hadn't said what he did, along with the report right after about who they were looking at, I would probably see things differently.

My view is simple. ESPN will shelter national brands and potential Big 10 / FOX targets in the SEC. Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Kansas, and North Carolina are the brands and Georgia Tech, Miami, and Virginia are the other possible targets. There is no need to shelter the others and they all have like values to those of B12 and PAC schools.

I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

Dead seriously, what do you actually know about the Big 10's deal, or the SEC's?

Big Ten: 350 million from CBS, 350 million from NBC, both yet undocumented. They've advertised 1.5 billion. Well for that to be true FOX has to provide 800 million and for what? They aren't getting the T1, & T2 rights they got last time out for 650 million. Are they paying 800 million for less? I doubt it. Would they pay 600 million after they just bought another 10% of a BTN which like all conference networks is going down in value not up. So, the FOX purchase was a favor. I'm willing to concede 1.3 billion. Sounds great doesn't it!

The SEC made 777 million last year from its media contract. It had 833 million in total conference revenue. The 55-million-dollar CBS contract will be replaced by just a T1 contract for what a Disney insider said will be closer to 375 million than 350 million. So, let's assume that's 363 million. 777 million minus 55 million equals 722 million plus 363 million equals 1.14 billion and that doesn't include a reworking of the T2 and T3 contracts which have yet to be announced, nor does it include Texas and Oklahoma, while the new B1G contract does include USC and UCLA.

USC and UCLA are the 23rd and 26th most valuable programs. Texas and Oklahoma are the 2nd and 7th most valuable programs. If Texas and Oklahoma just get pro rata and the SEC gets nothing for reworking their T2 and T3 rights deal, the SEC has a contract worth 1.3 billion. If the get more for Texas and Oklahoma than the Big 10 gets for OU and UT well, then maybe the B1G contract is not so special after all. The SEC doesn't flash cash to attract members and they hold earnings much closer to the vest. So, the cash at worst will be a wash.

Then there's ESPN. Do you think they would permit major brands to waltz off to FOX when they hold rights on them until 2036? Hell no! If UNC and Duke and UVa want more money, B1G money, they can have it by moving to where ESPN retains the rights. If not the whole ACC rots for 14 more years. Well over half a billion in revenue overcomes a boat load of arrogance. And how bad are the academics of an SEC with Texas, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri and Vanderbilt when those three stay together with Ga Tech in a much better academic SEC than the one they knew 20 years ago?

There's your answer. Pride and rot for 14 years, or .6 billion more and solid company and excellent security in a conference which treasures baseball, and where their hoops will shine, and where fans can easily travel? ESPN will bet on the latter.

Yeah I have also considered what the difference would be for Fox to help reach the supposed target of $1.5B. Like everyone else here I can only go by the estimated amounts given and form opinions from there. When considering what these providers are paying/likely will pay for SEC/B1G product in 2021-22 and going forward I would believe that the decrease in network value that you mention has little impact on their decisions. Using the estimated amount you gave, ESPN is paying 6.6x the amount compared to the SEC's last deal with CBS. And CBS could be paying around the same increase for B1G games.

As for Fox, dollar inflation alone bumps up what that $650M would be today. If we are using that $650M as a starting point from a year or two ago (assuming fiscal 2020 since COVID impacted fiscal 2021 revenues), even as a favor a 23% increase for less content in today's market doesn't seem unreasonable considering the 560% increase for equal content going from CBS to ESPN. With USCLA being added, even if they are not as valuable as OUT they are still bringing enough to have full shares from the beginning of their membership with the B1G. That suggests at worst there is no dip in adding them. If $1.5B is the goal and $800M is the difference left to make up, it doesn't seem that hard for Fox to achieve it.

The ESPN and travel angles makes the most sense, but I'm not willing to undervalue the worth of some schools' "arrogance" as much as you are. If waiting can get some of them roughly the same money while getting the perceived academic value of the B1G, I can see some schools doing that knowing they can get an offer from them as well as the SEC. Pride and rotting till it's affordable to leave might be improbable when looking at where bigger money is most accessible (in your example the SEC). But not impossible if the arrogance is strong enough.

(08-11-2022 04:54 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:52 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:27 PM)Alanda Wrote:  If the SEC reaches 24 schools, I don't think the new Big 12 looks like that. Some of those schools would likely be in the SEC to get to 24. Unless I'm missing something about your view.

As for the OP, I just don't see that happening. OR, WA, and Stanford (maybe Cal) are bolting the first chance they get. ESPN won't be able to come up with near enough money for them to stay. I think it's safe to say they will take a partial share to join the B1G knowing what they will get once they reach full shares. The partial share might be as much or more than what they can get remaining in the PAC considering how large the B1G's payout will be. I think it makes more sense for ESPN to pay the Big 12 and they add some PAC schools. If Warren hadn't said what he did, along with the report right after about who they were looking at, I would probably see things differently.

My view is simple. ESPN will shelter national brands and potential Big 10 / FOX targets in the SEC. Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Kansas, and North Carolina are the brands and Georgia Tech, Miami, and Virginia are the other possible targets. There is no need to shelter the others and they all have like values to those of B12 and PAC schools.

I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

Dead seriously, what do you actually know about the Big 10's deal, or the SEC's?

Big Ten: 350 million from CBS, 350 million from NBC, both yet undocumented. They've advertised 1.5 billion. Well for that to be true FOX has to provide 800 million and for what? They aren't getting the T1, & T2 rights they got last time out for 650 million. Are they paying 800 million for less? I doubt it. Would they pay 600 million after they just bought another 10% of a BTN which like all conference networks is going down in value not up. So, the FOX purchase was a favor. I'm willing to concede 1.3 billion. Sounds great doesn't it!

The SEC made 777 million last year from its media contract. It had 833 million in total conference revenue. The 55-million-dollar CBS contract will be replaced by just a T1 contract for what a Disney insider said will be closer to 375 million than 350 million. So, let's assume that's 363 million. 777 million minus 55 million equals 722 million plus 363 million equals 1.14 billion and that doesn't include a reworking of the T2 and T3 contracts which have yet to be announced, nor does it include Texas and Oklahoma, while the new B1G contract does include USC and UCLA.

USC and UCLA are the 23rd and 26th most valuable programs. Texas and Oklahoma are the 2nd and 7th most valuable programs. If Texas and Oklahoma just get pro rata and the SEC gets nothing for reworking their T2 and T3 rights deal, the SEC has a contract worth 1.3 billion. If the get more for Texas and Oklahoma than the Big 10 gets for OU and UT well, then maybe the B1G contract is not so special after all. The SEC doesn't flash cash to attract members and they hold earnings much closer to the vest. So, the cash at worst will be a wash.

Then there's ESPN. Do you think they would permit major brands to waltz off to FOX when they hold rights on them until 2036? Hell no! If UNC and Duke and UVa want more money, B1G money, they can have it by moving to where ESPN retains the rights. If not the whole ACC rots for 14 more years. Well over half a billion in revenue overcomes a boat load of arrogance. And how bad are the academics of an SEC with Texas, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri and Vanderbilt when those three stay together with Ga Tech in a much better academic SEC than the one they knew 20 years ago?

There's your answer. Pride and rot for 14 years, or .6 billion more and solid company and excellent security in a conference which treasures baseball, and where their hoops will shine, and where fans can easily travel? ESPN will bet on the latter.

Yeah I have also considered what the difference would be for Fox to help reach the supposed target of $1.5B. Like everyone else here I can only go by the estimated amounts given and form opinions from there. When considering what these providers are paying/likely will pay for SEC/B1G product in 2021-22 and going forward I would believe that the decrease in network value that you mention has little impact on their decisions. Using the estimated amount you gave, ESPN is paying 6.6x the amount compared to the SEC's last deal with CBS. And CBS could be paying around the same increase for B1G games.

As for Fox, dollar inflation alone bumps up what that $650M would be today. If we are using that $650M as a starting point from a year or two ago (assuming fiscal 2020 since COVID impacted fiscal 2021 revenues), even as a favor a 23% increase for less content in today's market doesn't seem unreasonable considering the 560% increase for equal content going from CBS to ESPN. With USCLA being added, even if they are not as valuable as OUT they are still bringing enough to have full shares from the beginning of their membership with the B1G. That suggests at worst there is no dip in adding them. If $1.5B is the goal and $800M is the difference left to make up, it doesn't seem that hard for Fox to achieve it.

The ESPN and travel angles makes the most sense, but I'm not willing to undervalue the worth of some schools' "arrogance" as much as you are. If waiting can get some of them roughly the same money while getting the perceived academic value of the B1G, I can see some schools doing that knowing they can get an offer from them as well as the SEC. Pride and rotting till it's affordable to leave might be improbable when looking at where bigger money is most accessible (in your example the SEC). But not impossible if the arrogance is strong enough.

What value??? You are talking about AAU schools who already share aspects of grants with other AAU schools and some schools which aren't AAU but which have specific areas of expertise. The B1G doesn't really offer them anything they don't already have, except a logo and the Big 10's need of their support which most have already. It has nothing to do with sports and never did. You need to research what the Big Ten Academic alliance offers. It's nothing which the SEC and ACC don't do, it's just there are more schools into research. It doesn't really add to research money. It does help with partnering on different aspects of a grant.

14 years is a lifetime in academia. 600 million more and happier donors is massive. In 2011 UNC donors were polled, over a hundred of them, one preferred the Big 10 over the SEC. Duke is a different matter as the draw heavily from the NE for enrollment. Virginia is just across the river. But I still don't see anyone waiting 14 years at a deficit of 40 million plus a year.

(08-11-2022 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 04:54 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:52 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  My view is simple. ESPN will shelter national brands and potential Big 10 / FOX targets in the SEC. Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Kansas, and North Carolina are the brands and Georgia Tech, Miami, and Virginia are the other possible targets. There is no need to shelter the others and they all have like values to those of B12 and PAC schools.

I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

Dead seriously, what do you actually know about the Big 10's deal, or the SEC's?

Big Ten: 350 million from CBS, 350 million from NBC, both yet undocumented. They've advertised 1.5 billion. Well for that to be true FOX has to provide 800 million and for what? They aren't getting the T1, & T2 rights they got last time out for 650 million. Are they paying 800 million for less? I doubt it. Would they pay 600 million after they just bought another 10% of a BTN which like all conference networks is going down in value not up. So, the FOX purchase was a favor. I'm willing to concede 1.3 billion. Sounds great doesn't it!

The SEC made 777 million last year from its media contract. It had 833 million in total conference revenue. The 55-million-dollar CBS contract will be replaced by just a T1 contract for what a Disney insider said will be closer to 375 million than 350 million. So, let's assume that's 363 million. 777 million minus 55 million equals 722 million plus 363 million equals 1.14 billion and that doesn't include a reworking of the T2 and T3 contracts which have yet to be announced, nor does it include Texas and Oklahoma, while the new B1G contract does include USC and UCLA.

USC and UCLA are the 23rd and 26th most valuable programs. Texas and Oklahoma are the 2nd and 7th most valuable programs. If Texas and Oklahoma just get pro rata and the SEC gets nothing for reworking their T2 and T3 rights deal, the SEC has a contract worth 1.3 billion. If the get more for Texas and Oklahoma than the Big 10 gets for OU and UT well, then maybe the B1G contract is not so special after all. The SEC doesn't flash cash to attract members and they hold earnings much closer to the vest. So, the cash at worst will be a wash.

Then there's ESPN. Do you think they would permit major brands to waltz off to FOX when they hold rights on them until 2036? Hell no! If UNC and Duke and UVa want more money, B1G money, they can have it by moving to where ESPN retains the rights. If not the whole ACC rots for 14 more years. Well over half a billion in revenue overcomes a boat load of arrogance. And how bad are the academics of an SEC with Texas, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri and Vanderbilt when those three stay together with Ga Tech in a much better academic SEC than the one they knew 20 years ago?

There's your answer. Pride and rot for 14 years, or .6 billion more and solid company and excellent security in a conference which treasures baseball, and where their hoops will shine, and where fans can easily travel? ESPN will bet on the latter.

Yeah I have also considered what the difference would be for Fox to help reach the supposed target of $1.5B. Like everyone else here I can only go by the estimated amounts given and form opinions from there. When considering what these providers are paying/likely will pay for SEC/B1G product in 2021-22 and going forward I would believe that the decrease in network value that you mention has little impact on their decisions. Using the estimated amount you gave, ESPN is paying 6.6x the amount compared to the SEC's last deal with CBS. And CBS could be paying around the same increase for B1G games.

As for Fox, dollar inflation alone bumps up what that $650M would be today. If we are using that $650M as a starting point from a year or two ago (assuming fiscal 2020 since COVID impacted fiscal 2021 revenues), even as a favor a 23% increase for less content in today's market doesn't seem unreasonable considering the 560% increase for equal content going from CBS to ESPN. With USCLA being added, even if they are not as valuable as OUT they are still bringing enough to have full shares from the beginning of their membership with the B1G. That suggests at worst there is no dip in adding them. If $1.5B is the goal and $800M is the difference left to make up, it doesn't seem that hard for Fox to achieve it.

The ESPN and travel angles makes the most sense, but I'm not willing to undervalue the worth of some schools' "arrogance" as much as you are. If waiting can get some of them roughly the same money while getting the perceived academic value of the B1G, I can see some schools doing that knowing they can get an offer from them as well as the SEC. Pride and rotting till it's affordable to leave might be improbable when looking at where bigger money is most accessible (in your example the SEC). But not impossible if the arrogance is strong enough.

What value??? You are talking about AAU schools who already share aspects of grants with other AAU schools and some schools which aren't AAU but which have specific areas of expertise. The B1G doesn't really offer them anything they don't already have, except a logo and the Big 10's need of their support which most have already. It has nothing to do with sports and never did. You need to research what the Big Ten Academic alliance offers. It's nothing which the SEC and ACC don't do, it's just there are more schools into research. It doesn't really add to research money. It does help with partnering on different aspects of a grant.

14 years is a lifetime in academia. 600 million more and happier donors is massive. In 2011 UNC donors were polled, over a hundred of them, one preferred the Big 10 over the SEC. Duke is a different matter as the draw heavily from the NE for enrollment. Virginia is just across the river. But I still don't see anyone waiting 14 years at a deficit of 40 million plus a year.

That's why I made sure to say "perceived". The idea of being in a conference made up of an overwhelming majority of AAU schools would be a promotional point for those potential schools. Saying it has nothing to do with sports is somewhat influencing what I'm saying since these schools would be looking at it from a perspective that's more than just a sports move. Moving to the SEC is solely a sports move.

I agree about the length of 14 years. That's in part why I asked last time about the SEC (and of course ESPN) helping certain ACC schools with exit fees. That way they didn't have to wait and the SEC gets who they really want. But that question was based on the SEC poaching to reach 20, not 24. Helping with four exit fees is one thing. But how feasible is it to help seven? It would seem collusion would be a big concern even if that weren't true if seven left for one conference.

(08-11-2022 06:34 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 04:54 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:52 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

Dead seriously, what do you actually know about the Big 10's deal, or the SEC's?

Big Ten: 350 million from CBS, 350 million from NBC, both yet undocumented. They've advertised 1.5 billion. Well for that to be true FOX has to provide 800 million and for what? They aren't getting the T1, & T2 rights they got last time out for 650 million. Are they paying 800 million for less? I doubt it. Would they pay 600 million after they just bought another 10% of a BTN which like all conference networks is going down in value not up. So, the FOX purchase was a favor. I'm willing to concede 1.3 billion. Sounds great doesn't it!

The SEC made 777 million last year from its media contract. It had 833 million in total conference revenue. The 55-million-dollar CBS contract will be replaced by just a T1 contract for what a Disney insider said will be closer to 375 million than 350 million. So, let's assume that's 363 million. 777 million minus 55 million equals 722 million plus 363 million equals 1.14 billion and that doesn't include a reworking of the T2 and T3 contracts which have yet to be announced, nor does it include Texas and Oklahoma, while the new B1G contract does include USC and UCLA.

USC and UCLA are the 23rd and 26th most valuable programs. Texas and Oklahoma are the 2nd and 7th most valuable programs. If Texas and Oklahoma just get pro rata and the SEC gets nothing for reworking their T2 and T3 rights deal, the SEC has a contract worth 1.3 billion. If the get more for Texas and Oklahoma than the Big 10 gets for OU and UT well, then maybe the B1G contract is not so special after all. The SEC doesn't flash cash to attract members and they hold earnings much closer to the vest. So, the cash at worst will be a wash.

Then there's ESPN. Do you think they would permit major brands to waltz off to FOX when they hold rights on them until 2036? Hell no! If UNC and Duke and UVa want more money, B1G money, they can have it by moving to where ESPN retains the rights. If not the whole ACC rots for 14 more years. Well over half a billion in revenue overcomes a boat load of arrogance. And how bad are the academics of an SEC with Texas, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri and Vanderbilt when those three stay together with Ga Tech in a much better academic SEC than the one they knew 20 years ago?

There's your answer. Pride and rot for 14 years, or .6 billion more and solid company and excellent security in a conference which treasures baseball, and where their hoops will shine, and where fans can easily travel? ESPN will bet on the latter.

Yeah I have also considered what the difference would be for Fox to help reach the supposed target of $1.5B. Like everyone else here I can only go by the estimated amounts given and form opinions from there. When considering what these providers are paying/likely will pay for SEC/B1G product in 2021-22 and going forward I would believe that the decrease in network value that you mention has little impact on their decisions. Using the estimated amount you gave, ESPN is paying 6.6x the amount compared to the SEC's last deal with CBS. And CBS could be paying around the same increase for B1G games.

As for Fox, dollar inflation alone bumps up what that $650M would be today. If we are using that $650M as a starting point from a year or two ago (assuming fiscal 2020 since COVID impacted fiscal 2021 revenues), even as a favor a 23% increase for less content in today's market doesn't seem unreasonable considering the 560% increase for equal content going from CBS to ESPN. With USCLA being added, even if they are not as valuable as OUT they are still bringing enough to have full shares from the beginning of their membership with the B1G. That suggests at worst there is no dip in adding them. If $1.5B is the goal and $800M is the difference left to make up, it doesn't seem that hard for Fox to achieve it.

The ESPN and travel angles makes the most sense, but I'm not willing to undervalue the worth of some schools' "arrogance" as much as you are. If waiting can get some of them roughly the same money while getting the perceived academic value of the B1G, I can see some schools doing that knowing they can get an offer from them as well as the SEC. Pride and rotting till it's affordable to leave might be improbable when looking at where bigger money is most accessible (in your example the SEC). But not impossible if the arrogance is strong enough.

What value??? You are talking about AAU schools who already share aspects of grants with other AAU schools and some schools which aren't AAU but which have specific areas of expertise. The B1G doesn't really offer them anything they don't already have, except a logo and the Big 10's need of their support which most have already. It has nothing to do with sports and never did. You need to research what the Big Ten Academic alliance offers. It's nothing which the SEC and ACC don't do, it's just there are more schools into research. It doesn't really add to research money. It does help with partnering on different aspects of a grant.

14 years is a lifetime in academia. 600 million more and happier donors is massive. In 2011 UNC donors were polled, over a hundred of them, one preferred the Big 10 over the SEC. Duke is a different matter as the draw heavily from the NE for enrollment. Virginia is just across the river. But I still don't see anyone waiting 14 years at a deficit of 40 million plus a year.

That's why I made sure to say "perceived". The idea of being in a conference made up of an overwhelming majority of AAU schools would be a promotional point for those potential schools. Saying it has nothing to do with sports is somewhat influencing what I'm saying since these schools would be looking at it from a perspective that's more than just a sports move. Moving to the SEC is solely a sports move.

I agree about the length of 14 years. That's in part why I asked last time about the SEC (and of course ESPN) helping certain ACC schools with exit fees. That way they didn't have to wait and the SEC gets who they really want. But that question was based on the SEC poaching to reach 20, not 24. Helping with four exit fees is one thing. But how feasible is it to help seven? It would seem collusion would be a big concern even if that weren't true if seven left for one conference.

There will be no helping with exit fees period. The network will either pay for the move or not. Since ESPN is the rights holder for both conferences these things will be handled by them (think adding schools for those who leave and giving the ACC a bump in pay which eliminates damages, or by moving the remaining ACC schools to the Big 12 and giving them a bump). They won't give a nickel to help a school depart to FOX. And ESPN won't be making money on a per school basis but will with an expanded CFP which is estimated to be worth over 3 billion and where ESPN and FOX should NET about a billion each and with a hoops tourney where they should net another 250 million each. Then the schools moved to face SEC competition will be worth more per game play SEC schools than ACC schools. And the added regional interest would also drive advertising revenue. So, this time it's about what the whole package is worth and not just individual schools, which makes it a whole new ballgame on figuring values.

(08-11-2022 06:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 06:34 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What value??? You are talking about AAU schools who already share aspects of grants with other AAU schools and some schools which aren't AAU but which have specific areas of expertise. The B1G doesn't really offer them anything they don't already have, except a logo and the Big 10's need of their support which most have already. It has nothing to do with sports and never did. You need to research what the Big Ten Academic alliance offers. It's nothing which the SEC and ACC don't do, it's just there are more schools into research. It doesn't really add to research money. It does help with partnering on different aspects of a grant.

14 years is a lifetime in academia. 600 million more and happier donors is massive. In 2011 UNC donors were polled, over a hundred of them, one preferred the Big 10 over the SEC. Duke is a different matter as the draw heavily from the NE for enrollment. Virginia is just across the river. But I still don't see anyone waiting 14 years at a deficit of 40 million plus a year.

That's why I made sure to say "perceived". The idea of being in a conference made up of an overwhelming majority of AAU schools would be a promotional point for those potential schools. Saying it has nothing to do with sports is somewhat influencing what I'm saying since these schools would be looking at it from a perspective that's more than just a sports move. Moving to the SEC is solely a sports move.

I agree about the length of 14 years. That's in part why I asked last time about the SEC (and of course ESPN) helping certain ACC schools with exit fees. That way they didn't have to wait and the SEC gets who they really want. But that question was based on the SEC poaching to reach 20, not 24. Helping with four exit fees is one thing. But how feasible is it to help seven? It would seem collusion would be a big concern even if that weren't true if seven left for one conference.

There will be no helping with exit fees period. The network will either pay for the move or not. Since ESPN is the rights holder for both conferences these things will be handled by them (think adding schools for those who leave and giving the ACC a bump in pay which eliminates damages, or by moving the remaining ACC schools to the Big 12 and giving them a bump). They won't give a nickel to help a school depart to FOX. And ESPN won't be making money on a per school basis but will with an expanded CFP which is estimated to be worth over 3 billion and where ESPN and FOX should NET about a billion each and with a hoops tourney where they should net another 250 million each. Then the schools moved to face SEC competition will be worth more per game play SEC schools than ACC schools. And the added regional interest would also drive advertising revenue. So, this time it's about what the whole package is worth and not just individual schools, which makes it a whole new ballgame on figuring values.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation since to me as long as the network pays for the move to the SEC they are helping with exit fees to the ACC. Just to be clear I agree that they won't help a school go to Fox. My view is that it doesn't seem that easy getting those seven schools from the ACC to the SEC even with ESPN controlling both conferences. And from there getting the nBig 12 to look like what you mentioned. The scenario is too perfect for the SEC to work out that way IMO.

(08-11-2022 10:33 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 09:50 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just tossing ideas out here:

ESPN already has the SEC and ACC locked up and the PAC 10 and Big 12 rights are up for negotiation, with the PAC 10 up first.

In an effort to grab content and keep it from their competitors, would it make sense to sign the PAC 10 to an exclusive deal, push them to add 6 Big 12 schools, then push the ACC to take Cincinnati and WVU, leaving 4 schools behind and very little content for FOX/CBS/NBC to pick up to compliment their Big 10 deals—essentially sending the message that it’s fine if they want the Big 10, but that’s all they are going to get.

IIRC the exit fee from the Big 12 is 80 million per team so no. OU and Texas can go to the SEC because of the top tier TV payouts that conference generates. It's a lot cheaper to move some PAC teams to the Big 12.

The exit fees is two years league revenue. Presently that is 80 million. What happens to that number post 2024/25?

Well before then PAC 12 will be a couple of leftovers and the MWC, so it really doesn't matter does it.

(08-11-2022 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:52 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 01:27 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yep, I mentioned that, but aside from a large state monopoly on advertising for college sports, the move, if everyone under ESPN's umbrella which was not in the SEC was placed in the B12, would permit a third P conference under ESPN control to emerge which would preserve rivalries cross conference. It simplifies virtually all political issues between schools in the greater region.

With a 24 member SEC and 24 member SEC you split many bowl tie ins, lay claim to 10 of the 16 slots in an expanded CFP, keep hoops challenge money inside the Disney household, and rope off the largest and deepest recruiting pools in the nation and Southerners and Southwesterners love their rivalries. This is the "more" in "It just means more."

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas essentially earn more only without losing in state rivals except as conference games.

Your New Big 12:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Houston, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, Texas Tech, Utah

Central Florida, Louisville, N.C. State, South Florida, Virginia Tech/Virginia, Wake Forest

Notre Dame as an independent would play both B12 and SEC schools under ESPN.

If the SEC reaches 24 schools, I don't think the new Big 12 looks like that. Some of those schools would likely be in the SEC to get to 24. Unless I'm missing something about your view.

As for the OP, I just don't see that happening. OR, WA, and Stanford (maybe Cal) are bolting the first chance they get. ESPN won't be able to come up with near enough money for them to stay. I think it's safe to say they will take a partial share to join the B1G knowing what they will get once they reach full shares. The partial share might be as much or more than what they can get remaining in the PAC considering how large the B1G's payout will be. I think it makes more sense for ESPN to pay the Big 12 and they add some PAC schools. If Warren hadn't said what he did, along with the report right after about who they were looking at, I would probably see things differently.

My view is simple. ESPN will shelter national brands and potential Big 10 / FOX targets in the SEC. Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Kansas, and North Carolina are the brands and Georgia Tech, Miami, and Virginia are the other possible targets. There is no need to shelter the others and they all have like values to those of B12 and PAC schools.

I gotcha. So how would sheltering play out in this scenario considering how much we know about the B1G's deal? Some of those schools might want that along with the academic alignment.

Dead seriously, what do you actually know about the Big 10's deal, or the SEC's?

Big Ten: 350 million from CBS, 350 million from NBC, both yet undocumented. They've advertised 1.5 billion. Well for that to be true FOX has to provide 800 million and for what? They aren't getting the T1, & T2 rights they got last time out for 650 million. Are they paying 800 million for less? I doubt it. Would they pay 600 million after they just bought another 10% of a BTN which like all conference networks is going down in value not up. So, the FOX purchase was a favor. I'm willing to concede 1.3 billion. Sounds great doesn't it!

The SEC made 777 million last year from its media contract. It had 833 million in total conference revenue. The 55-million-dollar CBS contract will be replaced by just a T1 contract for what a Disney insider said will be closer to 375 million than 350 million. So, let's assume that's 363 million. 777 million minus 55 million equals 722 million plus 363 million equals 1.14 billion and that doesn't include a reworking of the T2 and T3 contracts which have yet to be announced, nor does it include Texas and Oklahoma, while the new B1G contract does include USC and UCLA.

USC and UCLA are the 23rd and 26th most valuable programs. Texas and Oklahoma are the 2nd and 7th most valuable programs. If Texas and Oklahoma just get pro rata and the SEC gets nothing for reworking their T2 and T3 rights deal, the SEC has a contract worth 1.3 billion. If the get more for Texas and Oklahoma than the Big 10 gets for OU and UT well, then maybe the B1G contract is not so special after all. The SEC doesn't flash cash to attract members and they hold earnings much closer to the vest. So, the cash at worst will be a wash.

Then there's ESPN. Do you think they would permit major brands to waltz off to FOX when they hold rights on them until 2036? Hell no! If UNC and Duke and UVa want more money, B1G money, they can have it by moving to where ESPN retains the rights. If not the whole ACC rots for 14 more years. Well over half a billion in revenue overcomes a boat load of arrogance. And how bad are the academics of an SEC with Texas, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri and Vanderbilt when those three stay together with Ga Tech in a much better academic SEC than the one they knew 20 years ago?

There's your answer. Pride and rot for 14 years, or .6 billion more and solid company and excellent security in a conference which treasures baseball, and where their hoops will shine, and where fans can easily travel? ESPN will bet on the latter.

I don't really care how the exact TV numbers shake out, +/- $10m won't alter the competitive balance between the B1G and SEC when the 3rd conference is $40-50m behind. However, what you said about academics is interesting, I was talking about that the other day on another forum. 5 AAU schools currently (counting tu), that's the same as the ACC right now. I know that the SEC says that all they care about is sports, and that makes sense when you're looking at conferences realigning for more football revenues, but it's interesting that 3 of the 4 recent additions were AAU. And UGA is coming on strong, too. So, I would say that the Academics gap has certainly closed with the ACC.

(08-11-2022 03:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

I don't get how it's ESPN's job to worry about the health, or lack thereof, of the Pac. ESPN clearly had nothing to do with USC/UCLA leaving. If the current Pac teams are all together in one conference or split up into 2 or more, ESPN will be interested in their rights (for the right price of course) either way. And now that they didn't significantly overpay for the B1G, they have money to spend on the teams of the Pac and big 12. It doesn't really matter how those teams align themselves now, they're the 4th/5th best conferences and there's a decent gap up to #3, then a huge gap up to the P2.

(08-11-2022 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To the OP, no it doesn't make sense for ESPN to dismantle either conference. Keep in mind if there are more autonomous conferences than providers the price is lower.

It will cost ESPN, including ESPN+ money, around $400M to keep the Pac-12 intact. A number closer to $300M will likely see Stanford, Oregon and Washington refuse to sign a GOR, and Arizona at a minimum bolt to the Big 12, likely starting an avalanche of the other four corner schools following shortly after. That $400M is a little higher than the $380M ESPN balked at for a piece of the B1G, although that contained no digital content and no control over properties such as kickoff times. At least a high bid for the Pac-12 would give them content control, as well as the ability to fill the after dark slots on Friday and Saturday. It might be an overpay, but they would get value. The other primary reason to make a modest overpay would be to lock properties away from the B1G for a contract cycle into the 2030s.

A modest overpay to keep the Pac-12 intact however, makes adding schools to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 very expensive. The cost would be $40M per year per school, as you have to give the same overpay for those schools as you did to keep Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Arizona in place. Where is that money supposed to come from? Slots are filled already and the budget nearly all allocated.

A decision not to pay the Pac-12 likely means it's disintegration. You'd see at a minimum 4 or 5 Pac-12 schools join the Big 12, possibly 8 schools (if the B1G doesn't offer Stanford, Oregon and Washington half shares to rescue them -- worst case scenario for ESPN who need their SEC property to be equal value with the B1G). ESPN would then find itself in a bit of a bidding war with at least Fox for a portion of this enlarged Big 12, which may prove more costly and for less return.

The most bang for the buck approach would be to shoot for Notre Dame's next contract plus the Pac-12 and offer a lower amount for Big 12 content, focused more on the ESPN+ side (tiers 2 & 3, emphasis on ESPN+ carrying B12N) letting Fox or anyone else take the tier 1.

It definitely is not in ESPN's interest to see either conference crumble at this time.

In support of your viewpoint, had ESPN and Fox not told the Big 12 what it would have been worth in 2 years, it would have disentegrated in 2010. They worked very hard to stop the Pac 16. What likely would have happened would be CU, Texas, OU, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Kansas to the Pac, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and Nebraska to the Big 10. ISU, KSU and Baylor then join the Big East.

A&M had agreed to go to the Pac with the others you listed except Kansas, then at the last second (well last 30 minutes at least) Dodds and Scott couldn't agree on what to do about the LHN and the whole thing got called off. Nebraska heard about it and bolted for the B1G. Colorado went to the Pac anyway. Then the rest was history.

(08-11-2022 04:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "Does it make sense for ESPN to sign the PAC 10, then dismantle the Big 12?"

If by "dismantle" you mean, "to have the ACC and SEC poach a few schools", then yes, I think it does.

Having the SEC add Kansas, and the ACC add Cin, WV, UCF (and USF and Memphis), pretty much takes what inventory espn might want, and strengthens the ACC. As we've said elsewhere, the next move would be to move Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, to the SEC (facilitated by an ACC vote, which espn likely would have to up the ACC's media deal, to get).

And the B12's backfil options would be quite reduced. Probably SMU, and either Rice and/or Tulane, or schools from the MWC.

And once this is all done, if espn did later decide they wanted this new B12, they could likely get it much more cheaply.

So here's your hypothesis:

1. Add a bunch of lower value schools to the ACC but pay everybody like the new schools are Clemson/FSU/Miami. I don't know what the value change of the ACC would be with the changes you listed, but at a guess I'd say it would be $7-8 less value per school. $7.5m x 16 schools x 14 years = $1.68b
2. Give Clemson/FSU/Miami an extra $40-50m per year for 14 years each. $45m per year x 3 schools x 14 years = $1.89b

So, ESPN is going to pay around $3.5b to keep broadcasting the same schools, plus a few more that don't get many eyeballs, over a 14 year period. This seems highly unlikely.

Oh, and the SEC isn't taking Kansas, unless MAYBE if we go to 24+ teams. And even then I'd want every other team in the old big 12 plus probably half the ACC, so...no.

(08-12-2022 12:40 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 04:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "Does it make sense for ESPN to sign the PAC 10, then dismantle the Big 12?"

If by "dismantle" you mean, "to have the ACC and SEC poach a few schools", then yes, I think it does.

Having the SEC add Kansas, and the ACC add Cin, WV, UCF (and USF and Memphis), pretty much takes what inventory espn might want, and strengthens the ACC. As we've said elsewhere, the next move would be to move Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, to the SEC (facilitated by an ACC vote, which espn likely would have to up the ACC's media deal, to get).

And the B12's backfil options would be quite reduced. Probably SMU, and either Rice and/or Tulane, or schools from the MWC.

And once this is all done, if espn did later decide they wanted this new B12, they could likely get it much more cheaply.

So here's your hypothesis:

1. Add a bunch of lower value schools to the ACC but pay everybody like the new schools are Clemson/FSU/Miami. I don't know what the value change of the ACC would be with the changes you listed, but at a guess I'd say it would be $7-8 less value per school. $7.5m x 16 schools x 14 years = $1.68b
2. Give Clemson/FSU/Miami an extra $40-50m per year for 14 years each. $45m per year x 3 schools x 14 years = $1.89b

So, ESPN is going to pay around $3.5b to keep broadcasting the same schools, plus a few more that don't get many eyeballs, over a 14 year period. This seems highly unlikely.

Oh, and the SEC isn't taking Kansas, unless MAYBE if we go to 24+ teams. And even then I'd want every other team in the old big 12 plus probably half the ACC, so...no.

ESPN has kept the ACC below value, perhaps for this moment. So where does it say that ESPN couldn't just simply give those left behind a modest bump so they can fully monetize better brands in the SEC. Bring Texas schools into the ACC and the ACCN earns more. Baylor and T.C.U. along with West Virginia and Cincinnati, or USF and UCF could make the football of the ACC quite appealing in the region. And if ESPN gives those schools 50 million, what have they spent? 180 to 250 million. As to the 4 headed to the SEC they spend 320 million. So, the money is more like 570 million per year which is likely what they are worth. The ACC contract is like an Arab home. It's constantly added onto (a superstition which says when your house is completed you die) without updating the value through a sale. So, it's hard to know what's outdated and what's up to proper standards.

Sculpting the SEC is ESPN's future product. So, 40 million x 4 or even 8 is simply R&D overhead.

(08-11-2022 04:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "Does it make sense for ESPN to sign the PAC 10, then dismantle the Big 12?"

If by "dismantle" you mean, "to have the ACC and SEC poach a few schools", then yes, I think it does.

Having the SEC add Kansas, and the ACC add Cin, WV, UCF (and USF and Memphis), pretty much takes what inventory espn might want, and strengthens the ACC. As we've said elsewhere, the next move would be to move Clemson, FSU, and maybe Miami, to the SEC (facilitated by an ACC vote, which espn likely would have to up the ACC's media deal, to get).

And the B12's backfill options would be quite reduced. Probably SMU, and either Rice and/or Tulane, or schools from the MWC.

And once this is all done, if espn did later decide they wanted this new B12, they could likely get it much more cheaply.

This outcome sounds plausible. Most schools in the B12 want to move elsewhere. Pressures overall favor consolidation. It makes sense that PAC/ACC under siege would in find the middle of the country resources to restabilize their leagues.

Five is an awkward number. Why did so many people ten years ago fantasize about four 16-team leagues? It's very neat for playoff purposes. A 4-team playoff needs no selection committee. Win your league and you're in.

Some of the same benefits can be had in a Super 2 landscape if the next layer has a duple identity. Champions can get automatic CFP bids, etc.