|
Post by davethecoug on Aug 8, 2023 16:10:35 GMT -5
If I were to grade the P5 conferences on their moves, it would be like so: SEC: A+ Big 10: B+ (would have been an A+ if they just stopped with USC and UCLA) Big 12: B (would have been an A if they didn't add Arizona State and Utah) ACC: Incomplete Pac-12: F I also think adding Arizona State and Utah was a mistake by the Big-12.
By adding BYU, the Big-12 added the Utah college sports market to their broadcast map. Is that 70% of the Utah college sports market? 80%? 60%? Who knows. But how many more fans are going to purchase the ESPN App, or Fox Sports App, or Apple App (etc...) because Utah is now added to the Big-12. It doesn't seem logical that adding a 2nd school in the same market will double the value. The same goes for Arizona and ASU.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 8, 2023 16:13:09 GMT -5
If I were to grade the P5 conferences on their moves, it would be like so: SEC: A+ Big 10: B+ (would have been an A+ if they just stopped with USC and UCLA) Big 12: B (would have been an A if they didn't add Arizona State and Utah) ACC: Incomplete Pac-12: F I think the SEC has to be thrilled with everything that's happened. They added two great brands, which will help them continue their football dominance. Meanwhile the Big 10 and Big 12 overexpanded, the ACC is trapped in a terrible TV contract, and the Pac-12 is dead. I fully expect that when the ACC breaks up, the SEC will add great football brands like Florida State, Miami and Clemson, while the Big Ten will counter with like Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. Edit: I obviously don't expect Big Ten fans to agree with me on this, but I stand by my statements. I think you are undervaluing the addition of the other 3 corner schools? The Big 12 now has a lock on the Mountain Time zone (okay, probably not a big deal). They have added a couple real rivalries (and rivalries are important for TV viewing). Arizona/Arizona State is pretty big - and Utah/BYU should be outstanding (although I will defer to you on that one if I am thinking this wrong). Kansas vs. Arizona in basketball is potentially huge. Utah has become a recent significant football school which helps. And the conference makes more geographical/travel sense - other than UCF and West Virginia. More potential for travel partners in scheduling. I don't think you need two schools in Arizona, and you really don't need two schools in Utah (at least the Arizona schools are in different markets, and there are a lot more people in Arizona than Utah). And rivalries can be played out of conference. Georgia and Georgia Tech have figured out how to play every year despite not being in the same conference. Same for Florida and Florida State. Etc. Utah is pretty good at football, but they don't have an especially impressive football brand, which is what really matters. Boise State has the second-highest winning percentage of the last 27 years, behind only Ohio State. That has not gotten them into a power conference. I also think there's an opportunity cost, as I believe the networks only approved up to four spots for expansion. Using all four on Mountain Time schools seems shortsighted to me. I'd rather have stopped at 14 and waited to see what happens with the ACC. Edit: Oh, and Utah and Arizona State also aren't even happy to be in the conference (for example, the ASU president already vowed to not go to Morgantown), which makes them different than every other school in the conference. I just don't think it was a good move.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 8, 2023 16:17:56 GMT -5
That still puts them 6 years' revenue at some percentage less than UCLA and USC, and their new 14 B1G co-members. So, if equal revenue sharing is $60 million * 6 years, that's $360 million for the other 16 B1G members. If the unequal share for UO and UW is 50% of that, they will only be behind $180 million. No way to ever make up that deficit. Sorry to disappoint. We'll be fine. Thank you for your concern.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 8, 2023 16:20:05 GMT -5
If I were to grade the P5 conferences on their moves, it would be like so: SEC: A+ Big 10: B+ (would have been an A+ if they just stopped with USC and UCLA) Big 12: B (would have been an A if they didn't add Arizona State and Utah) ACC: Incomplete Pac-12: F I also think adding Arizona State and Utah was a mistake by the Big-12.
By adding BYU, the Big-12 added the Utah college sports market to their broadcast map. Is that 70% of the Utah college sports market? 80%? 60%? Who knows. But how many more fans are going to purchase the ESPN App, or Fox Sports App, or Apple App (etc...) because Utah is now added to the Big-12. It doesn't seem logical that adding a 2nd school in the same market will double the value. The same goes for Arizona and ASU. If they had not done that, that would have left 6 member schools in the PAC. PAC could have then maybe tried to add SDSU and SMU. And, they'd survive as a conference. Big 12 was very strategic with what they did, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Aug 8, 2023 16:23:23 GMT -5
Well, probably because that isn't likely how the schedule is going to work and in that scenario most students would have a proctored exam while on the road or take the exam during a make up session upon returning. There are some very legitimate concerns about the impending travel, but that really isn't one of them. Those kind of accommodations have been planned for and incorporated into season travel for a very long time. Heck, I played 20 years ago and we accommodations for that. The volume of academic resources allocated to athletics will likely need to increase a bit, but this isn't new territory. The questions that need to be answered that are likely to either exacerbate the problem or alleviate some of it: 1. Charter vs Private- Chartering flights could genuinely ease the travel burden, but it's a massive financial burden. Hard to say if it will be offset by the media deal and increased budgets, but hopefully 2. Maximizing trips- Maybe playing two back-to-back away weekends and staying in the Midwest vs flying home and turning around and flying back. Given the proliferation of online class offerings and Zoom capabilities, it is very likely that accommodations can and will be made to make that a reality. The only thing that would be a struggle would be any lab-based class offerings, but most student athletes don't take those in season anyway due to missed class time. 3. Minimizing OOC travel- this one already seems to be in the works, but likely many of these schools will choose to stay home as much as possible out of conference, or it will become a mandate from their admin. Either way, I think we see the schools with the heaviest travel burden in conference host more pre-conference tournaments or stay local. do you mean charter vs commercial flights? Yes I do. But that error gets to live in perpetuity, courtesy of your quote. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 8, 2023 16:36:12 GMT -5
They get equal revenue in 2030 on the next TV deal. Sorry to disappoint. That still puts them 6 years' revenue at some percentage less than UCLA and USC, and their new 14 B1G co-members. So, if equal revenue sharing is $60 million * 6 years, that's $360 million for the other 16 B1G members. If the unequal share for UO and UW is 50% of that, they will only be behind $180 million. No way to ever make up that deficit. Sorry to disappoint. What is your point? A good 3rd of the Big 10 is dead weight for the revenue generating sports and non-factors for most other spots people actually care about. Do you really think some extra money is going to magically change that? That because teams like Rutgers and Northwestern get more money than Oregon or Washington in media rights, that somehow means their sports programs are going to be better? You should know all to well that it's not true... Texas is arguably the richest athletics program in the country and yet they haven't been to a BCS bowl in years...they have tons more money than a program like Washington and yet I'm pretty sure Washington won that football matchup last year. Money is important, but it's not everything.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 8, 2023 16:44:49 GMT -5
That still puts them 6 years' revenue at some percentage less than UCLA and USC, and their new 14 B1G co-members. So, if equal revenue sharing is $60 million * 6 years, that's $360 million for the other 16 B1G members. If the unequal share for UO and UW is 50% of that, they will only be behind $180 million. No way to ever make up that deficit. Sorry to disappoint. What is your point? A good 3rd of the Big 10 is dead weight for the revenue generating sports and non-factors for most other spots people actually care about. Do you really think some extra money is going to magically change that? That because teams like Rutgers and Northwestern get more money than Oregon or Washington in media rights, that somehow means their sports programs are going to be better? You should know all to well that it's not true... Texas is arguably the richest athletics program in the country and yet they haven't been to a BCS bowl in years...they have tons more money than a program like Washington and yet I'm pretty sure Washington won that football matchup last year. Money is important, but it's not everything. More money is better than less money, sure, but Ohio St. and USC have always had inherent advantages, so it's not novel. And cash hasn't helped Rutgers and Indiana to date. Oregon and Washington are making more than they would have and are in a healthy spot to compete going forward. Also, Oregon's long-term debt is already separately funded. That alone basically equalizes the playing field as a huge chunk of other universities will be using that money for debt service / to pay off facilities. And it's not like if Oregon feels it's losing because of money that they don't have boosters who will step in and close the gap.
|
|
|
Post by davethecoug on Aug 8, 2023 16:52:52 GMT -5
I'm curious how the eventual splintering of entertainment (including sports (amateur and professional)) across numerous Apps will affect the college sports financing. Many people are chord cutting and are not purchasing any of the streaming bundles (Sling, Fubo, etc...). And... if/when ESPN launches a dedicated App, will ESPN still be included in the streaming bundles?
The bundling in Cable and Satellite TV meant that the majority of households had visibility to ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, etc... It was so easy to get access to all sports and leagues.
With the splintering into the various Apps, what is an all-sports fan supposed to do? Purchase the ESPN App for the SEC. Purchase the Fox Sports App for the Big-10. Purchase Apple for MLS. Etc... Where does it end? And how much will it cost?
I suspect that sports fans will limit their App purchases to only their favorite sport/league. Hence, SEC sports will only be visible in ESPN households. And an SEC sports fan will not purchase the Fox App and will no longer see Big-10 games. Leagues that have enjoyed national visibility will start to see holes in their viewership.
I'm curious what Notre Dame will do. They have enjoyed national exposure via NBC. But how many people will purchase the NBC App (Peacock). It doesn't seem like any of the Apps will have full national exposure.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 8, 2023 16:53:37 GMT -5
That still puts them 6 years' revenue at some percentage less than UCLA and USC, and their new 14 B1G co-members. So, if equal revenue sharing is $60 million * 6 years, that's $360 million for the other 16 B1G members. If the unequal share for UO and UW is 50% of that, they will only be behind $180 million. No way to ever make up that deficit. Sorry to disappoint. What is your point? A good 3rd of the Big 10 is dead weight for the revenue generating sports and non-factors for most other spots people actually care about. Do you really think some extra money is going to magically change that? That because teams like Rutgers and Northwestern get more money than Oregon or Washington in media rights, that somehow means their sports programs are going to be better? You should know all to well that it's not true... Texas is arguably the richest athletics program in the country and yet they haven't been to a BCS bowl in years...they have tons more money than a program like Washington and yet I'm pretty sure Washington won that football matchup last year. Money is important, but it's not everything.
|
|
|
Post by davethecoug on Aug 8, 2023 17:28:05 GMT -5
I also think adding Arizona State and Utah was a mistake by the Big-12.
By adding BYU, the Big-12 added the Utah college sports market to their broadcast map. Is that 70% of the Utah college sports market? 80%? 60%? Who knows. But how many more fans are going to purchase the ESPN App, or Fox Sports App, or Apple App (etc...) because Utah is now added to the Big-12. It doesn't seem logical that adding a 2nd school in the same market will double the value. The same goes for Arizona and ASU. If they had not done that, that would have left 6 member schools in the PAC. PAC could have then maybe tried to add SDSU and SMU. And, they'd survive as a conference. Big 12 was very strategic with what they did, IMO. The USC and UCLA departures initiated the PAC turmoil. But the Washington and Oregon departures are what buried the PAC. The surviving remnants (plus SDSU and SMU) would not have been a threat to the Big-12. It just seems like the Big-12 acted more out of emotion than financial responsibility to their members.
It is also possible that the PAC will resurface in xx years (next round of Conference Realignment). I doubt Utah and ASU (or even UA or Colorado) will have any loyalty to the Big-12 if something better surfaces in the future. Offering a lifeboat to Utah and ASU doesn't change that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by topspin on Aug 8, 2023 17:38:08 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Aug 8, 2023 18:09:39 GMT -5
It is also possible that the PAC will resurface in xx years (next round of Conference Realignment). I doubt Utah and ASU (or even UA or Colorado) will have any loyalty to the Big-12 if something better surfaces in the future. Offering a lifeboat to Utah and ASU doesn't change that possibility. My guess is that in about 10 years or so, Fox and ESPN are going to propose separating football from the NCAA and running an NFL-style league co-branded with colleges. Members in the championship league will get a guaranteed share, probably something in the $100MM range (maybe with some variance based upon performance). But to keep costs down and maintain at least a minimum threshold of competitiveness for all games, they'll allow only, say, 32 teams in. It's an easy pitch from the network's perspective: "if you're in, you get $100M/year. If you're out, we'll give your spot to somebody else." Some schools may not like it, but we've just seen what money-FOMO does to university administrators. The haves will have tons of money; the have-nots (and their non-revenue sports that are subsidized with football money) will be screwed. If that happens, all of the financial incentive for national leagues goes away, and we'll go back to regional leagues for non-revenue sports: a Pac-8 or Pac-10; a compact Big Ten; a renewed Big East; a mid-Atlantic-only ACC; etc.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Aug 8, 2023 18:10:29 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity. Most savvy attorneys don't challenge anything, unless and until someone hires them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 8, 2023 18:20:15 GMT -5
It is also possible that the PAC will resurface in xx years (next round of Conference Realignment). I doubt Utah and ASU (or even UA or Colorado) will have any loyalty to the Big-12 if something better surfaces in the future. Offering a lifeboat to Utah and ASU doesn't change that possibility. My guess is that in about 10 years or so, Fox and ESPN are going to propose separating football from the NCAA and running an NFL-style league co-branded with colleges. Members in the championship league will get a guaranteed share, probably something in the $100MM range (maybe with some variance based upon performance). But to keep costs down and maintain at least a minimum threshold of competitiveness for all games, they'll allow only, say, 32 teams in. It's an easy pitch from the network's perspective: "if you're in, you get $100M/year. If you're out, we'll give your spot to somebody else." Some schools may not like it, but we've just seen what money-FOMO does to university administrators. The haves will have tons of money; the have-nots (and their non-revenue sports that are subsidized with football money) will be screwed. If that happens, all of the financial incentive for national leagues goes away, and we'll go back to regional leagues for non-revenue sports: a Pac-8 or Pac-10; a compact Big Ten; a renewed Big East; a mid-Atlantic-only ACC; etc. I agree, and it's most cost effective way to sort through all of this. Football is heavily resourced and only plays a handful of games every season. It's no big deal with any given P5 football team to travel 5-6 times out of the year playing once a week. Nationalize that with all the big brands, and let the other non-revenue sports play regionally.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 8, 2023 18:31:50 GMT -5
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a savvy attorney challenge all of this based on Title IX. Are universities or conferences considering the impact on women? Seems like that was the intent of Title IX - make sure women and their sports have equal representation and opportunity. How are women being more negatively effected than men?
|
|