Yes
It all comes down to economics.
If the economics (bid) doesn't add up for ESPN then they will walk.
Nielsen ratings have a value and they will pay a premium of only so much.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
Notre Dame Eyeing Big Ten
- Thread starter mikemarc1
- Start date
Yes
It all comes down to economics.
If the economics (bid) doesn't add up for ESPN then they will walk.
Nielsen ratings have a value and they will pay a premium of only so much.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
You replied before an additional edit I added to the post. I think a "potential" destabilization of the ACC is much less of an issue than losing the B10 altogether.
You're just wrong regarding the importance of the AAU and B1G membership.
Well it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
How soon will an ACC Network be formed (Brando comments ????).
What will the Bid($$$$) for the other half of the B1G.
What will the SEC's thoughts be with regard to their own economics now and in the future.
I'm sure there will be other threads on these subjects in the future.
ESPN does not want to be Toshiba.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
Yes, that clause in the Big 12's contract has been in place since 2012. To answer your other question, Florida St and Clemson were not shaky. This is the problem with expansion. Rumor and speculation are accepted as truth, even when the facts say otherwise.
It's theoretically possible for the contract to be rewritten. This is another problem with expansion talk. People make an argument that because something is theoretically possible, that is stands a legitimate chance of happening. Not true. The clause was put into the Big 12's contract for a reason. ESPN and Fox didn't just throw that in for the hell of it. ESPN and Fox knew going in that expansion was possible, and they didn't deem it beneficial. Hence the inclusion of the clause.
I'm glad you mentioned Notre Dame. That was the only school that could get the Big 12 more money. However, that's not because the contract would increase. It's because Notre Dame was only considering joining as a partial member. As such, they wouldn't get a full share, and the built-in adjustment would be split among the 10 full members, so they would get more money in that way.
Bottom line, that clause is what it is. You may not want to believe it, or try to figure out ways around it, but even Bob Bowlsby himself acknowledge the existence of the clause back during the summer, and acknowledged the limitations it produces. Why do you think the only teams that they are talking about are G5 teams? It's because for those teams, the Big 12's payouts would be a windfall compared to what they make now. For P5 teams, it wouldn't be a big increase.
I forgot to address your last question. Whether your scenario would be a lateral move, it would depend on whether or not the contract would open up. However, there is one issue with your plan. It would require a large group of ACC teams, not just a couple. If you are going to do that, it doesn't make sense for those schools to join the Big 12. It would make more sense for a group of Big 12 teams to break off and join the ACC, since you would combine the ACC's market with the Big 12's prestige. Having Clemson/FSU and crew make some awkward merger with Kansas, Iowa St, Oklahoma St, etc. doesn't make sense, when you could just take Texas/Oklahoma + a couple of other schools and have the biggest footprint and several big name schools.
Edit: To reinforce my first point, when these rumors came out in 2012, Florida St's then president Eric Barron wrote a letter to the alumni in which he detailed how a move to the Big 12 would be financially disadvantageous for Florida St.
Theoretical isn't necessarily realistic but theoretical doesn't automatically mean unrealistic either, which you seem to imply. I don't need to suspend reality to make a reopening plausible if the situation I had mentioned occurred back then. If you added that many teams and dramatically reconfigured the conference, it's quite plausible there would be a reopening/renegotiation soon after. This isn't adding a team or 2, but 6 and in new markets. Same for a hypothetical ND addition. An unhappy long term partnership isn't something I'd expect any business would want, especially in the face of a dramatic change in circumstance like those hypothesized.
The only teams talked about now are G5 teams because the ACC has a GOR (none of the other P5 are plausible additions). Plus as I said to me the B12 is in a weaker position now so no one is leaving their P5 conference to go to the B12. I can't remember how Clemson got included but you mention the 2 were never shaky but IIRC it was FSU BoT member that started it all. It didn't just pop out of nowhere. I think there was even a rivals article about the FSU BoT member. Found the article.
https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/fsu-bot-chair-blasts-acc-opens-door-for-big-12
Haggard confirmed that as far as he knows there has been no contact between FSU and the Big 12 regarding possible expansion. However, he makes it very clear that he and the Board of Trustees would be more than open to exploring the possibility if it would mean additional revenue to the school.
"How do you not look into that option," asked Haggard. "On behalf of the Board of Trustees I can say that unanimously we would be in favor of seeing what the Big 12 might have to offer. We have to do what is in Florida State's best interest."
https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/fsu-bot-chair-blasts-acc-opens-door-for-big-12
The FSU president was against leaving and he basically shut it down, plus the promise of an ACC network was later put on the table and that quieted things down. This isn't just some unsubstantiated internet rumor when you have comments from the chairman of the BoT of the school speculating about exploring options.
Even now you see articles again about how antsy some of the membership is about the lack of an ACC network thus far. Just think about what some might have been feeling a handful of years ago in the midst of all the realignment. Barring a B10/SEC pilfer, the ACC is in a stronger position than the B12 now so I don't expect any teams to realistically entertain leaving for the B12 like they might have back then.
As to making more sense for B12 teams to the ACC rather than vice versa back then. I don't see it as the ACC doesn't have room for enough B12 teams with them being at 14 already. They could take 2 and still try to keep it logistically manageable and those 2 would be western outposts similar to WVU. On the other hand, if the B12 had made a Larry Scott like play (they had room being 10 teams) back then they could have tried to get FSU/Clemson/GT/Miami/VT/NC State. So that along with WVU gets you 7 teams in the east and 9 in the west. A much more even break up and familiarity among the new faces. Maybe financially coax one of the smaller western teams to move east or maybe rotate those small teams on an annual basis. Point is you'd get a much more even geographic split this way as opposed to the other and they'd be coming along with many of their "brethren" without being on an island. It might never have come to fruition like Scott's play but the B12 never gave it an earnest attempt.
Yes, it is/was unrealistic. Right off the bat, you have the issue with the contract clause. Again, ESPN and Fox put that clause in there for a reason. ESPN and Fox certainly knew that a conference making a Larry Scott-type move was possible, and they STILL included the clause. Well, that pretty well tells you the intentions of ESPN and Fox. You seem to imply that ESPN and Fox had no idea that your scenario was possible, and would jump at the chance to renegotiate if the Big 12 had just taken such a move. Again, they put that clause in there for a reason. They knew the possibilities, and simply didn't deem them valuable.
Yes, the FSU/Clemson stuff was just rumors. It did just pop out of nowhere. You don't know the whole story. This first got started by "The Dude" of West Virginia. He wrote about Clemson and Florida St on his blog. A few people picked it up. Not long after that, the ACC signed its new contract with ESPN. Andy Haggard thought (incorrectly) that the ACC had sold the Tier 3 rights for football, but had retained them for basketball. Haggard was mad about this and said (paraphrasing), "Hell, we should go talk to the Big 12 if they're going to be like that!" It had nothing to do with any actual facts. Haggard was just pissed because he though, again incorrectly, that the ACC had screwed the football schools. Even in the quote you posted, Haggard admitted there hadn't been any contact between FSU and the Big 12. I can tell you for 100% certainty there was no contact with Clemson. At the time, both James Barker (president) and Terry Don Phillips (AD) of Clemson were interviewed by the local sports station. Both of them said, on air, that Clemson had not contacted the Big 12, had not been approached by the Big 12, and had no interest in joining the Big 12. It simply just didn't happen.
Your plan again comes back to my point. The money simply wasn't there. I don't care if in your mind you think it's a great scenario and you think the networks would pay for it. The Big 12's contract is what it is. Bob Bowlsby himself has confirmed the existence of the clause. Plus, Bowlsby himself also mentioned that when a conference expands, only the TV contract increases. The rest of the money (bowls, NCAA Tournament, etc.) doesn't increase. He said this other money accounts for about 40% of the total conference payout. So, there is your problem. 40% of the payout doesn't increase, and simply gets split more ways. Then, you have big travel costs for the teams, which is on top of the extra splits. Then, you have the clause in the Big 12's contract. You add all that up, and the money isn't there.
Edit: There is also one other point. When Larry Scott tried that move with the Pac 10, he was counting on not only increasing the TV contract, but starting the conference network as well. That was supposed to be an additional source of revenue to entice the other schools. The Big 12 didn't have that option, because Texas wouldn't give up the LHN. In fact, that's one of the main reasons the Pac 10 deal didn't work out.
Last edited:
You can say it was in my mind or I'm in some la la land all you like, so be it. It was in my mind that RU would be out of the BE/AAC and with the B10 being the most likely landing spot. I gave the reasoning behind it with regards to the NFL/LA and markets mattering and the example of the PAC12 revenue share and needing the blessing of the LA schools again with markets mattering. When most were laughing off RU going to the B10 and panicking with each BE defection nothing changed "in my mind." It was also in my mind when I said I thought the B10 T1 rights would be split between ESPN/Fox again when I didn't see anyone mention that kind of scenario at all back then.
The point isn't whether it's just in my mind, the point is if I'm really reaching. So no I don't think ESPN/Fox were realistically thinking any dramatic shift in conference make up would likely happen despite the Larry Scott attempt. To me the clause is more as a protection for just adding anyone getting a champ game at 12 or adding a couple pedestrian P5 teams then expecting more money. I don't see it as meant as bottling the contract up under any circumstance like the hypotheticals where there'd be a dramatic shift in configuration when you add 6 ACC teams or added a ND. You can say it's in my mind, I'm projecting or what have you but it's no more projecting and in my mind than the things I mentioned above which have actually happened.
LHN could have been a stumbling block as you said but I think there's a difference between Texas having to leave to the PAC12 versus the ACC schools coming to them and they may have been open to finding a way to possibly make it work especially with a couple bigger names like FSU/Clemson and new markets added in the fold. The ACC schools might have been okay with doing their own T3 deals as well, if more money was coming from the shared tv contract. That to me is a better argument to say Texas' ego wouldn't allow it to work rather than saying the contract says what it says and there's no maneuverability at all under any circumstance. But I'd say if they were open to such a dramatic move of adding 6 in the first place, maybe they'd be open to go a little further.
You seem to want to always take everything at face value and not project or read into things further than that as if everything should be taken as is. That if someone does, they're projecting what they want to happen and finding ways to make it work. I could give a darn what happens frankly but I just like talking about these things. I don't see any issue with such speculation provided there's some logical reasoning behind it. I suppose when people leave jobs for "personal reasons" it's actually always true and that it couldn't be for something else rather than something in their personal life. Or if an AD says there's been no contact with whatever or whomever, that there's actually no contact and there's no back channel communication going on. Or if a coach says he's not interested in a job and withdraws his name, it's not because he actually wasn't the choice. Or if a AD says he'll evaluate at the end of the season, there's no chance his mind is already made up on a coach. As long as it's not some outlandish assumption to make and there's some logic behind it I have no issues speculating beyond what's out there.
Last edited:
You are missing one big difference. The other predictions you made actually happened. The Clemson/FSU move to the Big 12 did not happen.
The problem with speculation in this instance is we actually have facts. Plus, this has already happened, so we know the outcome. Instead of writing a long response, I'll just make one point. You keep saying "if" there was more money. There wasn't more money. This isn't speculation. We know for a fact there wasn't more money. The points I mentioned explain why there wasn't more money. Your idea simply doesn't work.
Rumblings of NBC getting involved with the tier 2 B1G rights. If so, I could see some sort of package deal to bring ND into the fold.
Just as long as ND is an equal member and never receives special treatment of any kind, I'm OK with it.
Where'd you see that? Got a link by chance? Maybe that could be part of a possible further splitting of the package like I mentioned above. If that 250M Fox reportedly bid for 1/2 is too big/risky for any one entity then split it further into quarters and make it a more "digestible" piece. 125M from 2 competitors is the same as 250M from one and the lower absolute number may be more feasible for a media company.
I still think ESPN is likely to get part of it if not the whole other half but that kind of scenario is an option and also creates possible leverage to get ESPN to come around. The B10 is a premier sports package but ESPN is a top destination for sports programming, everyone knows it and it has good exposure. It's a 2 way street, both sides want to stick with the other. But if it ever came to cutting ties with ESPN by some chance, these smaller packages is a way to do it IMO. Make sure the games get put on the broadcast network of a NBC or CBS. That's the way you get the same kind of exposure that's on par with being on the top name in ESPN. Broadcast networks are widely distributed and have lots of avenues to cross promote with the NFL, ND, SEC and other programming. My mind was always thinking with these smaller packages which may be more amenable to a NBC or CBS, you could have 2-3 B10 games a week on Fox, NBC, CBS. Double headers and cross promotion with ND games or SEC games. So you could counterbalance some of that loss of exposure by not being on the main name in ESPN by being on all the broadcast networks.
Still think ESPN will be in the fold somehow but this is another possible avenue which can either be taken or could help get ESPN/B10 closer together.
Not sure that it would mean anything for ND, at least not until the GOR is near completion.
Latest posts
-
Is 2024-2025 men's basketball the biggest bust in Rutgers sports history?- Latest: Ruallamerican
-
-
-
