I think it's a combination of ESPN having money issues and SEC's regional focus. The markets simply don't support more money for the SEC league play
Pac12 dissolution discussion
- Thread starter rotorocker
- Start date
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
The SEC keeps talking about a ninth game enabling the ability to play more secondary rivalry games yet they added two teams in Oklahoma and Texas that have zero history with the SEC, except for the two teams that were added in 2012 and Arkansas. 14 teams per conference and a 9 game conf schedule seems ideal, but that ship never sailed and sank while at port. Living here in Texas I have found it odd how little the renewal of A&M vs cow seems to matter. Perhaps the old hate will resurface, but other than twitter queens, no one seems too excited…
I posted his tweet but I don't necessarily agree with it fully. Yes the media companies are all losing money on their streaming services but it doesn't mean they don't have any resources. They just have to be judicious in where they use them and will cut costs where they can. Just read an article about how they're pulling content from their services (including original content) to save money on residuals, licensing etc..
ESPN may not pay extra money for a 9th SEC game but they're paying Texas/OU each the same share they're paying the other 14 members and that's for the length of the deal. The networks didn't pay the PAC12 and B10 any more money when they went to 9 conference games in the middle of their contracts. As a conference, you make that decision because it's good for the conference not because you'll immediately see the dividends of it. So ESPN not paying more for the 9th SEC game isn't anything earth shattering. It doesn't mean they and other networks wouldn't have to when the contract is up for bid again, just not now.
Also ESPN/Fox were willing to pay the B12 decent money for their content. It's not as if they paid them pennies on the dollar. But now the PAC is getting hurt by that because they won't open their wallets too much for them. An example of being more judicious with their resources, not that they don't have any. Also if you want to look at it as a zero sum game, if one conference adds the better teams of another sure they have to pay that conference more but then they might pay the raided conference less so it sort of balances out on some level. They pay more for all the better teams and pay less for the lower status ones.
As to the B10 expansion, I've always said Friday night (AMZN/ESPN/Fox) and late Saturday night (ESPN) are the windows where you have opportunity to sell packages if you have more teams in the conference. I don't think that's a stretch of the imagination to think that is wanted content especially if you can put semi-decent quality games in there more of the time (not always) as opposed to just any filler kind of teams.
edit: I've also mentioned intraconference semi-finals (assuming the conference is large enough) in addition to the B10 champ game as desirable things to sell as part of a package. It's not about having just any ole' content, it's about having quality attractive content.
Last edited:
My comments are completely unrelated to the 9th SEC conference game. I don't think ESPN would pay more for that game even if they were flush with cash. Even if it stays at 8, there is enough SEC content for ESPN to just ignore the lousy non-conference matchups.
Yes, ESPN/FOX were willing to pay decent money to the B12 for their content, but that just made the content problem worse, as it greatly reduced their need for even more content. Look at the networks one by one. ESPN certainly doesn't need more content with the ACC, SEC and B12. Fox has plenty, too, with the B10 and B12, and if they wanted more content they would just low ball the P12, which they still may do. NBC and CBS do not want as much sports content as ESPN and Fox which are sports oriented networks, so what they picked up from the B10 plus ND for NBC is plenty.
I believe your point on the "zero sum game" is backwards. No conference is going to add new members, no matter high profile, without first having an agreement with their broadcasters. And broadcasters can only handle so many high profile games without competing against themselves. The latter includes their streaming services.
I agree that Friday night and Saturday night games are in the future, and possibly conference semi-finals, depending on how the new 12 team playoff format pans out. But first dibs for these critical games goes to their current partners.
I will close by repeating the point I made above. At some time you reach the point where you are broadcasting/streaming games that compete against yourself. This is not an acceptable long term plan. For streaming to actually have an economic impact on conference income, it has to happen without reducing broadcast income i.e. moving games from broadcast to streaming, and the new money must come from new players, such as YouTube and Amazon. So far the non-network streamers have not shown any willingness to compete against the big boys for this content. I will reiterate another point I have made previously. The cable providers also provide a major portion of the internet delivery services on which the streaming services are dependent. This gives the cable industry the leverage to affect the effective prices consumers pay to receive streamed content.
Need is a somewhat relative term and just because they might not "need" it doesn't mean they can't use or wouldn't want additional content.
Both Fox (currently B10/B12) and ESPN (currently SEC/ACC/B12) had rights to additional content of the B10 for ESPN and the PAC12 for both of them. So regardless of what their current inventory is, it doesn't mean they don't have room for more or can't use more.
It's about their opinion on value for money. It's an obvious comment but if they think what they will pay for particular content is worth it they'll do it and if they don't they won't.
I do agree that the conferences would consult the networks on what teams add more value and what kind of packages (like Friday night/late Saturday) would be attractive to them. But that's not a new phenomena. The networks have had input on what's most attractive for themselves since realignment started with the raid of the BE.
As to competing against yourself, conferences have had games on simultaneously in windows all along. I'm not sure it matters. The streaming vs broadcasting thing is less about competing against yourself and more about exposure/reach vs dollars. The NFL just moved a playoff game to Peacock exclusively for more money. They're partnered with NBC currently for broadcasting games but it doesn't mean they cannibalized themselves by pushing something off to streaming. It's just about striking the right balance between dollars and exposure/reach.
As far as the SEC goes, I don’t think it is that the 9th game would be so great, but instead it would result in the 9th conference game replacing some of awful SEC out of conference home games that ESPN is paying for now.
I could be wrong but it may simply be more about how the application fee process works. Don’t some states have systems where you pay one fee to apply for consideration to as many state schools as you want in your resident state and you list your top choices? Where that’s the case, everyone would check the top flagship school - because why not?
North Carolina has such a program, but the University of North Carolina is not part of it. https://twitter.com/hashtag/NCCountdownToCollege?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw The same is true in Virginia. https://www.prepler.com/best-colleges-with-no-application-fee/virginia
BTW, two-thirds of the applications to the University of Virginia come from out of state. https://admission.virginia.edu/taxonomy/term/81
I've been to both. UNC's is nice, but U.Va has the Rotunda designed by Thomas Jefferson (who wrote his tombstone inscription calling himself "The father of the University of Virginia," but leaving out his presidency).
Like I mentioned just because ESPN and whatever other networks aren't willing to pay for something now, doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future.
From the article:
But a third question has lingered and gone mostly unanswered for a year now: the extra money from ESPN, which is not contractually required to provide more money for a ninth game.
Without the incentive of additional revenue from the network, more than half of the league is in support of remaining at eight games in the first year that Texas and Oklahoma begin play in 2024. The expectation is that ESPN, in the midst of layoffs, will not commit to additional revenue for a ninth game—at least not now.
Yeah UVA was real deal - even with their mediocre FB, gameday there is something to behold
Out of the schools I've seen in person, here are the nicest IMO in no particular order (bolded ones are on another level)
UVA
William & Mary
Monmouth
Princeton
FSU
Rutgers (Old Queens portion)
Dartmouth
Yale
Rowan (1 part looks good, rest meh)
TCNJ
Syracuse
Stanford
Boston College
FGCU
Clemson
Army
Colorado
Virginia Tech
Michigan
Michigan State
Cincinnati
Akron
Central Michigan
James Madison
Stockton
Seton Hall
University of Maryland
Penn State
Pitt
Clarion
Bucket list includes UGA, Pepperdine, Navy, Air Force, UNC, Duke, UCLA, and Washington
First sentence is silly. With money involved, "need" and "want" are the same thing. And if they don't "need" it they won't "use" it.
The fact that Fox and ESPN did not successfully bid for their former content is evidence that they did not "need" it. Fox currently has all the B10 and B12 content they can use. Just look at their programming when it comes out for the Fall. Fox added "new" content with USC and UCLA joining the B10. ESPN added "new" content with UT and OU joining the SEC. In their case, "need" also includes their budget limitations. Both Fox and ESPN added "new" content with the additions to their flagship conferences, for which they paid a goodly sum.
My comments about competing against yourself were not about the conferences, it was about the networks/streamers. If ESPN shows Texas vs Florida it will get a huge audience. If they show OU vs Alabama at the same time that will also get a huge audience but will greatly reduce the UT vs FL audience. The total audience will be more but not equal to the sum of what each game will draw alone. And, yes, I know there are different time slots but not everyone binge watches college football on a Saturday as you and I do. Moving a game from broadcast to streaming, as NBC seems want to do, does not eliminate the competition problem, it is just a sacrifice they are willing to make to try to pump up their streaming property. The NFL is not competing against itself by moving a game to Peacock, NBC is.
I don't think need and want are the same. Need means you have more time slots than content, want means you may have enough content to fill those slots but it's not all necessarily content you'd put there if you had other quality options at a decent price. Don't forget ESPN+ is another area they want to push content and if they have to use some content on their family of networks then it's non exclusive ESPN+ content which doesn't help to push subscriptions.
USC/UCLA and OU/Texas are additional content but 2 teams can't make up inventory of a whole conference. In Fox's case, it's not even exclusive to them, NBC, CBS, BTN (majority owned by Fox) are also landing spots for those schools. Plus having more quality teams in a conference means on occasion you can maybe push a quality game (as opposed to just filler) to your streaming service to give it a little more attractive inventory. Like Peacock has obtained with the exclusive NFL playoff game.
If the competing against yourself is from the networks perspective, well that's not new either. Many times you have simultaneous games (marquee ones as well) on competing networks of the same company. You try to not have too much overlap if you can but it happens and they deal with it. ABC/ESPN have had good headline games on both channels at the same time. If it's an eyeball that's on their family of networks, it's a good thing regardless of which channel it's on.
The B10 is going to expand (USC/UCLA aren't going to be an island). It's just a matter of when which is always unpredictable but tv expirations are often the pressure point. If Friday/late Saturday windows are attractive enough then maybe sooner. The B12 is looking to expand and so is the PAC12. The B12 is guaranteed a pro rata rate for any new members from the P5, so somehow money is there for that and agreed to by Fox/ESPN.
Frankly, I think those 2 are trying to indirectly push the PAC to break by being very stingy and then will pay the teams that leave the going rate of the B12 and then either let the PAC12 go or get it extremely cheap. Again a sort of zero sum game. Pay the pro rata B12 rate for few additional teams and save a lot on the PAC12 or let it go altogether.
I would add Princeton on the list of most beautiful schools. North Carolina is up there with UVA. Of course, beauty is relative because campuses are often very different from each other, even if they are considered beautiful. For example, Stanford and Princeton have a totally different vibe, but they are both very beautiful in their own way.
That post looks awfully familiar lol. 😉
It's still early and I'm sure they and others have talked to the B12 but just preliminarily. It all hinges on the numbers and exposure GK can present. Default for most schools, not just the PAC, is to stay put. It's only when forced financially do they leave.
Your list of schools is pretty good. I have been to most of SEC and B1G schools. UGA is one of my favorite campuses.
But you lost me with bolding TCNJ. TCNJ is one of the most mediocre plain vanilla campuses I have ever step foot on.
Report: CU is having talks about ditching Pac-12 and returning to Big 12
CBS Sports reports that if CU leaves for the Big 12, Arizona, ASU and Utah could follow, essentially leaving the Pac-12 to fizzle away
denversports.com
If that happens B1G will just go ahead and grab Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford.Report: CU is having talks about ditching Pac-12 and returning to Big 12
CBS Sports reports that if CU leaves for the Big 12, Arizona, ASU and Utah could follow, essentially leaving the Pac-12 to fizzle away
I have felt all along that the B1G knows exactly which other PAC12 schools they want to invite, but are waiting for something else to happen first (like CO leaving followed by the AZ schools and Utah).
I think the B1G doesn’t want to make the big move that causes the end of the PAC12 because of the long standing relationship the two conferences had.
There are a lot of Cal fans who are praying that the B1G responds like that. Otherwise, Cal is in big trouble.
B1G cares deeply about academics and takes pride in the fact that they're more or less the Public Ivy League, not to mention the academic money that the schools receive via the BTAA/Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium dwarfs the athletic money from the major networks/BTN. That's why I still forsee a full blown West Coast hostile takeover with the additions of Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington by the B1G once the Big 12 makes their move on the 4 corner Pac 12 schools.
I cant see them taking all 4.....
I was thinking 4 total or 5 with ND.....
Figured they would take 2 now and wait for later.
Unless Fox,Amazon and/or friends already planning on paying forth 4th window
I think you are greatly overstating the financial benefit on the academic side. This article extols the benefits (correctly), but I don't see anything that indicates that being part of the Consortium translates into a huge increase in funding. Am I missing something in the article, or is there something else I should be reading? https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2022/11/how-big-ten-changed-rutgers-beyond-athletics.html
The takeaway, in English: Most departments at Rutgers meet regularly with their Big Ten counterparts to the discuss latest developments in their respective field, and students in New Jersey can enroll in certain online classes at the other universities for no extra cost.
The real benefit is the collaboration. On a monthly basis you can be conversing and sharing with peers across 14+ world class universities. How much is that worth. It may open up research opportunities that otherwise would not be available leading to increased research funding.
You also become more familiar with what each university has to offer. You may fill a niche for them or vice versa.
Spanish colonial architecture/style of Montclair state University is beautiful as well. Probably very few have seen it.
Paywall article but mentions Colorado has been more receptive than others and that talks were more productive with them. Still it all hinges on the numbers and exposure.
Agreed. IMO, B1G cares about academics so much that they would decline an Alabama inquiry. Just my opinion.
I don’t think ASU. Miami isn’t going anywhere anytime soon anyhow because of the GOR and ND likely not til the ACC has issues.
Anything happening in the east is a long way off imo.
Either way ND and Miami now meet the AAU qualifications and will be on the radar for B1G entry the second the GOR shows any cracks.
Miami meets none of the B1G quals except for now with AAU. You can forget Miami as well
Latest posts
-
-
-
Buying season tickets, but selling them? Looking for feedback...- Latest: greenknight
-
