Are We Headed Towards 4 Conferences?

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
18,456
Reaction score
8,559
Points
113
The reporting on this makes absolutely no sense.

There isn’t a single member of the Big12 that wouldn’t take an invite, on the spot, to join the Pac12 right now. But the Pac12 still isn’t having any of them.

Meanwhile, there also isn’t a single member of the Pac12 that the Big 12 wouldn’t love to have join them (even Washington State would be a net add for the Big12). And they have been desperately and publicly begging several Pac12 members. Yet, not a single Pac12 member has expressed serious interest in joining them.

The PAC12’s TV negotiations are likely just very complicated by the fact that so many schools are there for the taking (KS, KS St, OK St, TCU, San Diego St, BYU) if any TV partners want them in the Pac12 deal, but TV just isn’t all that impressed with what any of them would add.
Basic story is this

Big ten is worth too much to take on even the Oregon’s and Washington’s without diluting the value per team of the tv contract (or they would’ve already taken those two).

The pac 12 is worth too much for schools to bail on it to go to the big 12 post Texas and Oklahoma departures.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
The only real, actual escape hatch for Oregon and Washington, is the Big Ten.

They know it. They hate it. It is what it is.

Until and if that invitation ever comes, they know damn well that, as much due to geography as anything, they're stuck with the PAC conference being their best option.

They've played with those peer institutions of the West for decades. Playing Cincinnati, South Florida, West Virginia, Texas Christian, Baylor, BYU .... not going to solve their problems.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
While I'm not convinced it makes sense for them, I could slightly more likely see the so-called "4 corner" schools joining the Big 12 to make a 16 team conference, which is all the rage these days.

Would use the 3 annual, 6/6 rotating every two years scheduling format that should be ubiquitous among 16 team conferences over the coming years.

You'd have the 4 corners probably playing each other. The remaining 4 teams from the Big 8 in another pod. The 4 teams that used to be in the Southwest Conference in another pod. And that leaves the leftovers in the last group. (Sucks for BYU, but that's the price you pay, and Utah will make it a condition of joining that they don't have to play BYU every year)
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
While I'm not convinced it makes sense for them, I could slightly more likely see the so-called "4 corner" schools joining the Big 12 to make a 16 team conference, which is all the rage these days.

Would use the 3 annual, 6/6 rotating every two years scheduling format that should be ubiquitous among 16 team conferences over the coming years.

You'd have the 4 corners probably playing each other. The remaining 4 teams from the Big 8 in another pod. The 4 teams that used to be in the Southwest Conference in another pod. And that leaves the leftovers in the last group. (Sucks for BYU, but that's the price you pay, and Utah will make it a condition of joining that they don't have to play BYU every year)
Why would Utah make it a condition to not play BYU every year? There have been a few 2 year gaps, but for the most part the Holy War has been played annually.

I'm guessing the reason for the last 2 (2014-15 & 2022-23) were because Utah's move to the Pac12 reduced their non-conference opportunities and wanted a chance to play someone outside their region. Just total speculation on my part.

If they were in the same conference it would make sense to play each other annually, and would be seen as a significant viewership opportunity for a TV/Broadcast partner.

 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
Why would Utah make it a condition to not play BYU every year? There have been a few 2 year gaps, but for the most part the Holy War has been played annually.

I'm guessing the reason for the last 2 (2014-15 & 2022-23) were because Utah's move to the Pac12 reduced their non-conference opportunities and wanted a chance to play someone outside their region. Just total speculation on my part.

If they were in the same conference it would make sense to play each other annually, and would be seen as a significant viewership opportunity for a TV/Broadcast partner.

I think they hate BYU and hate being tied to them. A non-conference series is fine when they can claim they're above them by being in the PAC with BYU stuck in the lower Mountain West -- which BYU so detested that they actually became a football independent rather than face.

But with Utah possibly getting dragged down to the Big 12 where BYU will be at, different ball game.

You could be right though. And yes it does make more sense geographically. Colorado obviously has Big 8 history with the Kansas schools and Iowa State. Oklahoma State could easily go with the Texas schools and kick newbie Houston over to the other newbies + WV group.


If it even happens at all. Will be interesting to see.


I don't think Washington and Oregon have a leg to stand on, though.
 


short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,382
Reaction score
9,242
Points
113
OK - did some research. to the best of my knowledge, these are the current media rights deals for each P5 conference, ranked on average payout per school. some of these are new deals that kick in next year.

Big Ten - approx $70-million a year per school
SEC - approx $55-million a year per school
Big 12 - under new deal, approx $32-million a year per school
ACC - approx $17-million a year per team (part of a 20-year contract...)

Pac 12 - no new deal yet. the old deal pays $21-million a year per school. based on the current state of negotiations, TV insiders are estimating that the new deal could pay $25-million a year per school.

So unless the Pac 12 pulls a really big freakin' rabbit out of its hat, the Big 12 is going to earn more per year in media rights than the Pac 12. The Pac 12 is likely going to be 4th place of the P5 conferences in media rights, and if their new deal is heavy on streaming, they will also have issues with exposure.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
18,456
Reaction score
8,559
Points
113
OK - did some research. to the best of my knowledge, these are the current media rights deals for each P5 conference, ranked on average payout per school. some of these are new deals that kick in next year.

Big Ten - approx $70-million a year per school
SEC - approx $55-million a year per school
Big 12 - under new deal, approx $32-million a year per school
ACC - approx $17-million a year per team (part of a 20-year contract...)

Pac 12 - no new deal yet. the old deal pays $21-million a year per school. based on the current state of negotiations, TV insiders are estimating that the new deal could pay $25-million a year per school.

So unless the Pac 12 pulls a really big freakin' rabbit out of its hat, the Big 12 is going to earn more per year in media rights than the Pac 12. The Pac 12 is likely going to be 4th place of the P5 conferences in media rights, and if their new deal is heavy on streaming, they will also have issues with exposure.
To break even the big ten would have to add 280 million in revenue to have the same payouts at 20 teams.

A 10 team pac 12in its entirety is only paying out about 250 million.

This is why Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and X haven’t been added.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
OK - did some research. to the best of my knowledge, these are the current media rights deals for each P5 conference, ranked on average payout per school. some of these are new deals that kick in next year.

Big Ten - approx $70-million a year per school
SEC - approx $55-million a year per school
Big 12 - under new deal, approx $32-million a year per school
ACC - approx $17-million a year per team (part of a 20-year contract...)

Pac 12 - no new deal yet. the old deal pays $21-million a year per school. based on the current state of negotiations, TV insiders are estimating that the new deal could pay $25-million a year per school.

So unless the Pac 12 pulls a really big freakin' rabbit out of its hat, the Big 12 is going to earn more per year in media rights than the Pac 12. The Pac 12 is likely going to be 4th place of the P5 conferences in media rights, and if their new deal is heavy on streaming, they will also have issues with exposure.
No chance that Washington, Oregon, Arizona (State), Utah, Colorado is worth (significantly) less than Cincinnati, Central Florida, West Virginia, Kansas in TV football money.

Nope

They deserve and will get, at least, even money as the Big 12.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
To break even the big ten would have to add 280 million in revenue to have the same payouts at 20 teams.

A 10 team pac 12in its entirety is only paying out about 250 million.

This is why Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and X haven’t been added.
Why couldn't the Big 10 add Washington, Oregon, Stanford and X, pay them less than the other current Big 10 members but more than what the Pac 12 is currently paying them?

I don't see any reason why the would have to be full equals.
 



Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
18,456
Reaction score
8,559
Points
113
Why couldn't the Big 10 add Washington, Oregon, Stanford and X, pay them less than the other current Big 10 members but more than what the Pac 12 is currently paying them?

I don't see any reason why the would have to be full equals.
That’s a good point. But would be contrary to everything the big ten has ever done in terms of long term $distributions
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
That’s a good point. But would be contrary to everything the big ten has ever done in terms of long term $distributions
Not exactly. Rutgers still isn't on equal terms, and won't be until 2027.

 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
18,456
Reaction score
8,559
Points
113
Not exactly. Rutgers still isn't on equal terms, and won't be until 2027.

No, exactly.


Long term $ distributions Rutgers will eventually be a full member.
Unless Oregon and Washington are willing to take permanent partial cuts, I’m not sure how it’s profitable to add them. them taking a reduced cut permanently is unprecedented in the big ten
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
No, exactly.


Long term $ distributions Rutgers will eventually be a full member.
Unless Oregon and Washington are willing to take permanent partial cuts, I’m not sure how it’s profitable to add them. them taking a reduced cut permanently is unprecedented in the big ten
At the very least it changes your formula in post 37 short term, requiring less dollars to keep the current full members "whole".

It will have taken Rutgers 13 years, a full media contract cycle, and part of another to get an equal payday. At that point the rest of the Conference will have a smaller percentage but far more dollars then they were getting before they joined. The 12 existing members had to be confident in 2014 they would be getting more in 2027, or they wouldn't have let Delaney take them down that path.

Schools like Washington & Oregon could sign up for something similar, longer or even indefinite, though the last one would be highly unlikely.

I could envision a deal like, as a new Big 10 member you will receive a reduced share until 2040. If the established members don't get as much overall as previous, the reduced payouts continue.
 
Last edited:



Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
Not exactly. Rutgers still isn't on equal terms, and won't be until 2027.

Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland all had "vesting periods" where their shares started out unequal and then gradually built up into full shares, if I recall correctly?

Still, that would eventually get to SG's point. Once the four additional PAC schools got up to full shares, then you're right back to the dilution problem.


I don't think the Big Ten adds more schools unless Notre Dame is in the group. Granted, that same thing has been said before probably many times.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
I could envision a deal like, as a new Big 10 member you will receive a reduced share until 2040. If the established members don't get as much overall as previous, the reduced payouts continue.
That would be incredibly desperate.

And then what if Oregon or Washington win the conference in football, win CFP games, win the conference in men's basketball, win the BT tournament, and/or win a significant amount of March Madness games?

They're going to say "hey man, we're carrying quite a bit of water for the conference here, I think it's time we get a fair share".


I totally get your point, but I don't like it, and I don't think conference leaders will go for it. Big Ten has always been about (eventual) equality between members when it comes to revenue sharing.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
That would be incredibly desperate.

And then what if Oregon or Washington win the conference in football, win CFP games, win the conference in men's basketball, win the BT tournament, and/or win a significant amount of March Madness games?

They're going to say "hey man, we're carrying quite a bit of water for the conference here, I think it's time we get a fair share".


I totally get your point, but I don't like it, and I don't think conference leaders will go for it. Big Ten has always been about (eventual) equality between members when it comes to revenue sharing.
No doubt, but hypothetically it could it would still be likely better than getting a pittance for staying in the Pac12/Mtn West or joining with Big 12 schools. In my made up situation, could also be hedging that revenues would be growing to the point that by 2040 that equal standing would be achievable.

As for Conference leaders, in 2014 they delayed full equality for 13 years. A good portion of them would be gone by 2040 in such an arrangement.

Personally, as a grad and fan of a Big 10 school that has been in the conference for way more than a century building the brand, I would have zero problem cutting new institutions shares for several decades (or beyond).
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
OK. But why add them at all, then?

What is a conference? What is the point of it?

Why not just schedule those schools non-conference?
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
OK. But why add them at all, then?

What is a conference? What is the point of it?

Why not just schedule those schools non-conference?
Just some examples, to get more subscribers to BTN, more money from NBC-Fox-CBS, and reduce a little travel for the West Coast teams.

Personally, I wasn't in favor of even adding Penn St but I was not canvassed for my thoughts on the matter.
 

mngolf

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
653
Reaction score
511
Points
93
OK. But why add them at all, then?

What is a conference? What is the point of it?

Why not just schedule those schools non-conference?
I picture them being desperate, if the new PAC contract is so bad that the 4 corners all leave for B12.
Heck, they want out now but will live with it until conference falls apart. Then I wouldn't be surprised to see B1G giving out a lifeline to fellow AAC members. And they'd have to be part of a conference as scheduling and ability to get in CFP would be threatened otherwise.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,382
Reaction score
9,242
Points
113
there is a flip side to this: we might - I say might - be at a tipping point here. you cannot take for granted that media rights deals will continue to go up in perpetuity. more cord-cutting is impacting revenue for cable networks. Disney - which owns ESPN - is trying to cut $5.5-Billion in costs and is cutting 7,000 employees. In a recent CNBC article, Disney Chairman Bob Iger indicated ESPN is re-examining what it pays out for rights.

Iger did note that he and Pitaro would be more selective on what it spends on sports rights, noting the upcoming negotiations for NBA rights. He noted that while ESPN has been struggling due to cord-cutting, the ESPN brand and programming remains healthy and in-demand.

If the golden TV goose stops laying the golden eggs, that changes the entire landscape.
 

Plato

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
1,176
Points
113
The Pac-12 let the Big 12 negotiate media rights before them.
The well has gone relatively dry for TV rights.
Right now the Pac 12 is negotiating with AppleTV to have all their games stream on that App.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
Just some examples, to get more subscribers to BTN, more money from NBC-Fox-CBS, and reduce a little travel for the West Coast teams.

Personally, I wasn't in favor of even adding Penn St but I was not canvassed for my thoughts on the matter.
Travel for USC/UCLA, sorry to sound harsh, but that is not the concern of the Big Ten. That's for those two to figure out how they're going to handle that.

Remember, those two came to the Big Ten and asked if the conference would take them as a package deal, not the other way around.

The conference is under no obligation to do anything extraordinary to lessen the travel burden for them. (sure, they can play around with schedules a bit, but that's a simple matter)


BTN, as far as I can surmise, just rolls up into what FOX pays the Big Ten. That channel is essentially just another FOX Sports cable network, in that sense, like FS1. If that were not the case, then the BTN figure would stand out and be reported just like the other three were.


Certainly, there would be some increase in the TV contracts if they added Wash and Ore. But it wouldn't be a Pro Rata increase. The only one we can reasonable guess that would hold is Notre Dame.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
The Pac-12 let the Big 12 negotiate media rights before them.
Not let.

It was a matter of the PAC being too big for their britches, thinking they deserved an increase more like what the Big Ten was getting.

If they had aimed more for like what the Big 12 signed up for from the git go, they would've gotten it first.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
3,706
Points
113
Travel for USC/UCLA, sorry to sound harsh, but that is not the concern of the Big Ten. That's for those two to figure out how they're going to handle that.

Remember, those two came to the Big Ten and asked if the conference would take them as a package deal, not the other way around.

The conference is under no obligation to do anything extraordinary to lessen the travel burden for them. (sure, they can play around with schedules a bit, but that's a simple matter)


BTN, as far as I can surmise, just rolls up into what FOX pays the Big Ten. That channel is essentially just another FOX Sports cable network, in that sense, like FS1. If that were not the case, then the BTN figure would stand out and be reported just like the other three were.


Certainly, there would be some increase in the TV contracts if they added Wash and Ore. But it wouldn't be a Pro Rata increase. The only one we can reasonable guess that would hold is Notre Dame.
I don't disagree with anything you have stated, other than the Big 10 has a 49% ownership stake in BTN with Fox.
 



short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
16,382
Reaction score
9,242
Points
113
Sports and Money. what a combo.

the tweet howie posted above has to do with Florida State making a fuss over the ACC media rights deal.

from ESPN:
Florida State athletic director Michael Alford told his board of trustees on Friday that "something has to change" when it comes to closing the growing revenue gap with other conferences -- a sign that one of the biggest brands in the ACC is unhappy with the current structure.

At issue: The ACC will fall behind both the SEC and Big Ten in revenue by about $30 million per year when their respective new television contracts kick in (Big Ten in 2023, SEC in 2024).

"Something has to change because we cannot compete nationally being $30 million behind every year," Alford said. "It's not one year. We're talking about $30 million compounded year after year."

Based on a market valuation that he had commissioned, Alford told board members on Friday that FSU contributes roughly 15% of the value in the ACC's media rights deal but the school only gets 7% of the distributions as one of 14 full members of the conference.

The ACC is locked into its television deal with ESPN through 2036. The league also has all schools tied together with a grant of rights that lasts the length of the contract. In the most recent available financial filing, the ACC distributed a record $578 million to its members for 2020-21. The SEC distributed $721.8 million in 2021-22, but that is before its new deal kicks in.

The grant of rights is currently keeping the league together because any school that leaves would have to forfeit its media payout and media rights. But at some point, that grant of rights could be challenged in court, especially if the revenue gap continues to grow with no relief in sight.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
13,531
Reaction score
3,376
Points
113
Basic story is this

Big ten is worth too much to take on even the Oregon’s and Washington’s without diluting the value per team of the tv contract (or they would’ve already taken those two).

The pac 12 is worth too much for schools to bail on it to go to the big 12 post Texas and Oklahoma departures.
I think the B1G media contract has kickers tied to future expansion.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
18,456
Reaction score
8,559
Points
113
I think the B1G media contract has kickers tied to future expansion.
From what I’ve read the only school who has a specified kicker is notre dame. Everyone else the kicker says it would open up time to negotiate

But I haven’t read about that in like 4 months so I could be misremembering
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
14,267
Reaction score
3,433
Points
113
That is correct. Only Notre Dame is specified in the contract with a pre-agreed upon increase should they be added. There is no Pro Rata clause.
 




Top Bottom