Are We Headed Towards 4 Conferences?

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
8,102
Reaction score
5,837
Points
113
to add to the complexity of the 'adding teams' discussion -
It's one thing to talk about teams that might be a good fit in terms of athletics or academics, but as
Some Guy has pointed out, TV contracts play a huge role in any decision.

the new B1G media deal, when it fully kicks in, will pay out $80-million to $100-million per school per year.

If a new school comes in as a full partner, the question is whether that school is "worth" $80 to $100-million in terms of the value it provides as a TV market and ratings generator. Now, in some cases, new schools do not get a full share of media dollars right away - I believe Maryland and Rutgers came in under that type of agreement.

so all of that has to be factored into any expansion or addition of teams. Would a Washington or Oregon be willing to join the B1G if they only got, say $60-million a year?
Rutgers still isn't getting a full share, and won't until 2027.

 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
I had to laugh the other day.

was reading an article on the Pac-12 Media deal negotiations.

the writer compared the situation to Schrodinger's Cat.

the media deal - like the cat - is theoretically both alive and dead at the same time.

you can't beat a good Schrodinger's Cat reference in a sports story.
 

Dave H

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
1,405
Points
113
I can only say this, and I risk being mocked:
AAU...AAU...AAU!
This is not the sole decision of the B1G or AD's. University Presidents/Chancellors have a lot of influence here and I believe you underestimate their desire to have B1G schools be number one in academics. AAU membership is one way to show that commitment.
Yes, I know about Nebby, but when they joined, they were an AAU member.
Okay, have at it.

If a school wants to come and they bring the right amount of money, the Big Ten will make an exception on the AAU. There will be a bit of handwringing, but it will happen and honestly no one "in the know" will even break a sweat about it.

I am not mocking you, just saying that just isn't the consideration it was even 10 years ago.
 

nitramnaed

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,184
Reaction score
1,525
Points
113
If a school wants to come and they bring the right amount of money, the Big Ten will make an exception on the AAU. There will be a bit of handwringing, but it will happen and honestly no one "in the know" will even break a sweat about it.

I am not mocking you, just saying that just isn't the consideration it was even 10 years ago.
we will see.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
I had to laugh the other day.

was reading an article on the Pac-12 Media deal negotiations.

the writer compared the situation to Schrodinger's Cat.

the media deal - like the cat - is theoretically both alive and dead at the same time.

you can't beat a good Schrodinger's Cat reference in a sports story.
The media has to make-up weekly clickbait on this topic. They really don't care that the PAC-12 is stiffing everyone on actual information. They'll just make it up. "Sources say" :sneaky:

Big 12 also put out a bunch of trash earlier on, letting it be known if school X was talking to the league.


There won't be much to actually know until it is announced.


But the punch line will be that the current 10 schools, at least, will be in the PAC for the next few years. No one is leaving, no point.
 


PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
15,364
Reaction score
4,964
Points
113
The media has to make-up weekly clickbait on this topic. They really don't care that the PAC-12 is stiffing everyone on actual information. They'll just make it up. "Sources say" :sneaky:

Big 12 also put out a bunch of trash earlier on, letting it be known if school X was talking to the league.


There won't be much to actually know until it is announced.


But the punch line will be that the current 10 schools, at least, will be in the PAC for the next few years. No one is leaving, no point.
:rolleyes:
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
Frank talk from Washington State U's President and one of the regents :)

(Go to 33:20)

 


WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
The PAC is embarrassing themselves. Said it before, negative press everyday and week after week goes by with no deal. FAIL.
He’s also from WA State, so there is also some wishful thinking there.
 




WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
What would the PAC’s representative on the CFP Executive Board know about anything, amiright??

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx
So, you don’t think the President of Washington State is hoping the Pac doesn’t lose anymore high profile schools? He better be hoping, praying, and working his ass off so they don’t.

San Diego State and Southern Methodist are the most likely schools to take the place of UCLA and USC, and neither are adequate replacements. If the Big 12 poaches the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, then it’s likely Washington and Oregon will move. Or since the B1G put off a decision on WA and OR, maybe the Big 12 invites them instead.

No Power 5 conference is talking about adding Washington State. If the crap hits the fan, they could end up in the Mountain West. Oregon State is in the same boat.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
So, you don’t think the President of Washington State is hoping the Pac doesn’t lose anymore high profile schools? He better be hoping, praying, and working his ass off so they don’t.

San Diego State and Southern Methodist are the most likely schools to take the place of UCLA and USC, and neither are adequate replacements. If the Big 12 poaches the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, then it’s likely Washington and Oregon will move. Or since the B1G put off a decision on WA and OR, maybe the Big 12 invites them instead.

No Power 5 conference is talking about adding Washington State. If the crap hits the fan, they could end up in the Mountain West. Oregon State is in the same boat.
You are, of course, correct. WSU and OSU stand the most to lose by the PAC falling apart.

That doesn't disprove WSU's president stating that the 10 remaining league members want to stay together.

And to be sure, I've never said once in this thread that the next arrangement is permanent. There is still a lot to play out in the story of conference realignment, over the next 10-15 years.

Could be sooner if the ACC GoR somehow is broken or bypassed (in court).



Oregon and Washington can't just decide to move. They have nowhere to move to, that would be worth the hassle and very minor gain (if any) in money.

If the 4-corners decide to go to the Big 12, and no Big Ten invite comes for OR/WA, could those two just decide to go to the Big 12 as well? Sure .... but what would be the point??

Play the same schools as before ... except now you get to play Central Florida, Cincinnati, and West Virginia? I don't think they'll see that as a prize.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
15,364
Reaction score
4,964
Points
113
You are, of course, correct. WSU and OSU stand the most to lose by the PAC falling apart.

That doesn't disprove WSU's president stating that the 10 remaining league members want to stay together.

And to be sure, I've never said once in this thread that the next arrangement is permanent. There is still a lot to play out in the story of conference realignment, over the next 10-15 years.

Could be sooner if the ACC GoR somehow is broken or bypassed (in court).



Oregon and Washington can't just decide to move. They have nowhere to move to, that would be worth the hassle and very minor gain (if any) in money.

If the 4-corners decide to go to the Big 12, and no Big Ten invite comes for OR/WA, could those two just decide to go to the Big 12 as well? Sure .... but what would be the point??

Play the same schools as before ... except now you get to play Central Florida, Cincinnati, and West Virginia? I don't think they'll see that as a prize.
Like other PAC school officials have said, they prefer to, but it depends on the media contract $$. The longer it goes without a media contract the less likely it stays intact. B1G would certainly jump in and entice some schools to jump.
 



mngolf

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
962
Points
113
Like other PAC school officials have said, they prefer to, but it depends on the media contract $$. The longer it goes without a media contract the less likely it stays intact. B1G would certainly jump in and entice some schools to jump.
But at a discount.
 


mngolf

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
962
Points
113
Maybe, maybe not. The contract has revenue elevators. But to your comment, $10 million more a year adds up quickly.
I think Petitti said as much. Can't lower the revenue of existing members. And they asked already and were turned away. Maybe when the ACC blows up here in the next 5yrs and we need a round number.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
15,364
Reaction score
4,964
Points
113
I think Petitti said as much. Can't lower the revenue of existing members. And they asked already and were turned away. Maybe when the ACC blows up here in the next 5yrs and we need a round number.
I feel like it's going to happen sooner than folks might think and the B1G will be the destination. Big 12 new contract is reported to be around $32 million per year per school. That's what PAC 12 is hoping for as well. B1G could beat that substantially, even with less than full shares.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
so, I was listening to "The Monty Show" and they did an interview with the head of Scripps Broadcasting's sports division.

Scripps has signed a deal to carry WNBA games on ION TV, and just announced a deal with the Vegas Golden Knights NHL team to carry VGK games on a Scripps-owned over-the-air TV station. (Vegas was on AT & T Sports Net, which is folding)

It was an interesting interview. the guy talked about how the RSN model is dying, and said he feels the future for NBA, NHL and MLB teams is moving from RSNs to a mix of local over-the-air stations, channels like ION, and direct-to-consumer streaming packages.

under that type of system, the pro teams would not get as much $$$ up front, but they would be able to reach a larger audience, and hopefully generate more revenue from advertising.

FWIW - the Monty Show hosts continue to predict that the Pac-12 will wind up with a deal that pays an average of $20 to $25-million a year per school. at least that's what their 'sources' are saying.....
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
It was an interesting interview. the guy talked about how the RSN model is dying, and said he feels the future for NBA, NHL and MLB teams is moving from RSNs to a mix of local over-the-air stations, channels like ION, and direct-to-consumer streaming packages.

under that type of system, the pro teams would not get as much $$$ up front, but they would be able to reach a larger audience, and hopefully generate more revenue from advertising.
I'm shocked that the head of a broadcasting company thinks the future is broadcasting
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
15,364
Reaction score
4,964
Points
113
so, I was listening to "The Monty Show" and they did an interview with the head of Scripps Broadcasting's sports division.

Scripps has signed a deal to carry WNBA games on ION TV, and just announced a deal with the Vegas Golden Knights NHL team to carry VGK games on a Scripps-owned over-the-air TV station. (Vegas was on AT & T Sports Net, which is folding)

It was an interesting interview. the guy talked about how the RSN model is dying, and said he feels the future for NBA, NHL and MLB teams is moving from RSNs to a mix of local over-the-air stations, channels like ION, and direct-to-consumer streaming packages.

under that type of system, the pro teams would not get as much $$$ up front, but they would be able to reach a larger audience, and hopefully generate more revenue from advertising.

FWIW - the Monty Show hosts continue to predict that the Pac-12 will wind up with a deal that pays an average of $20 to $25-million a year per school. at least that's what their 'sources' are saying.....
If that is the final figure, some schools will definitely look to move before it is signed. Stay tuned. Pun intended.
 

mngolf

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
962
Points
113
I feel like it's going to happen sooner than folks might think and the B1G will be the destination. Big 12 new contract is reported to be around $32 million per year per school. That's what PAC 12 is hoping for as well. B1G could beat that substantially, even with less than full shares.
Same issue with ACC. And FSU/Clemson/Miami are already getting upset by it. The penalty/lawsuit to get out of GoR will soon become worth it.
 


Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
Do you disagree with that?
Supposedly it is "just a matter of when, not if" ESPN takes its entire operation to a standalone streaming platform (like ESPN+ is now) that you have a separate monthly billed account.

If that actually does happen, and if the Big Ten has no contract with ESPN, then I will no longer be watching ESPN content. Which is sad.

It's fine if they also offer everything on a platform like ESPN+, but they need to continue to provide the main channels of content on services like YouTubeTV.

They'll never get the same amount of subscriber revenue going standalone only method. They'll need to charge too much. Lot of people will say F it.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
People won't pay for 7 different TV services/subscriptions. They'll largely pay for 2-3, at a time.

That's why it always made the most sense to aggregate everything under one account, one monthly payment. The technology forced it to be that way for a long time. Only recently has steaming allowed the separates to rise up.


If you can't force everyone to pay for everything, then nothing works. You have to charge $15, 20 per month for one service ... then it will quickly go to 30, 35, 40 ....
 

mngolf

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
962
Points
113
People won't pay for 7 different TV services/subscriptions. They'll largely pay for 2-3, at a time.

That's why it always made the most sense to aggregate everything under one account, one monthly payment. The technology forced it to be that way for a long time. Only recently has steaming allowed the separates to rise up.


If you can't force everyone to pay for everything, then nothing works. You have to charge $15, 20 per month for one service ... then it will quickly go to 30, 35, 40 ....
I believe I get my apps through Roku so I am paying one at a time to go along with my YTT and the "free" ESPN+ I get with my Verizon phone service.
 

Dave H

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
1,405
Points
113
People won't pay for 7 different TV services/subscriptions. They'll largely pay for 2-3, at a time.

That's why it always made the most sense to aggregate everything under one account, one monthly payment. The technology forced it to be that way for a long time. Only recently has steaming allowed the separates to rise up.


If you can't force everyone to pay for everything, then nothing works. You have to charge $15, 20 per month for one service ... then it will quickly go to 30, 35, 40 ....
They won't? Cause everyone I know under the age of 60 does. Some of us are smarter and share though that won't last much longer.

Now is it cost effective? NO! But the more fractured this gets the more people do it.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
I believe I get my apps through Roku so I am paying one at a time to go along with my YTT and the "free" ESPN+ I get with my Verizon phone service.
Fair response. I'm not aware of what subscription aggregation services Roku provides, but that probably is a smart thing for them to offer.

Still, it's not one platform that you load and can click through all channels, programs, and offerings without having to leave the platform. That would really be the thing, if they get that worked out.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
They won't? Cause everyone I know under the age of 60 does. Some of us are smarter and share though that won't last much longer.

Now is it cost effective? NO! But the more fractured this gets the more people do it.
The more fractured it gets, the more total people subscribe to at least one thing. That I buy, since $15/mo for just Netflix is well cheaper than cable/sat/YTTV.

We pay 1/3rd of YTTV (share with 2 other households), for sports and news. We only ever have one TV on streaming, so that's fine for us. We pay for Hulu (not Live, just the on-demand content), since it has some programs we both enjoy (rare enough). We get Netflix free from her family, and we get HBO free from my family.


You might know a few who go crazy, but I bet with an actual survey of the whole nation it would probably average to around 2-3 paid services.
 

Dave H

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
1,405
Points
113
Honestly, and I'm not being argumentative, they would be lying or not realize how much they pay for. Hell if they have kids they probably have 2-3 just for them. It's crazy how fast it adds up.

Most people I know, with or without cable, have a combo of these:

Amazon Prime
Hulu
Di$ney+
Appletv +
HBO Max
Paramount+
Netflix

And that is just of the top of my head. Some have others for more specific things like channels through Prime (Showtime, Starz, AMC...etc), Peacock which is "free" with cable, various sports packages and more. I know people who have households with 2 separate accounts for some services...
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
We have Prime, but barely ever log into Prime Video. I don't consider that a valid option, can you even subscribe to just that but not Prime itself? Not apples to apples on that one.

Of the remaining 6, the only one that I know universally in most households in Netflix. The three + in particular, I don't know anyone who keeps those all year.

So yes, in a calendar year, it could be much safer to say that 6-7 at some point in the year. Not continuously.


No point in declaring winners here. You know the households you claim to know, fine. I want to see the national survey results.
 




Top Bottom