Monday Musings: Big 12 expansion makes long-term sense

**azepp** · 01-28-2013, 01:24 PM

On a somewhat related side note, I've been thinking lately that ISU probably benefits more than many of us realize by the conferences (Big Ten) and larger schools (Texas) forming their own networks. Those networks have to carry a certain number of football games to be viable which (a) increases the total number of games shown on a given weekend and (b) dilutes the number of "quality" games available to the big networks (ESPN/ABC and Fox, in particular).

The games that get sent to the conference networks often feature teams that we may have been competing against for a slot on national TV. In the past, ESPN may have opted to show a Minnesota or Iowa game instead of an ISU game, but now those games are move to BTN so we've moved up in the pecking order of games available to ESPN.

**PabloDiablo** · 01-28-2013, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Clark

Sports are one of the very few things people watch live anymore. As long as that continues, the revenues generated from tv contracts will continue to rise.

I agree, I just wonder how long that will continue to occur. Attendance figures for most schools were down this past year, hopefully as just an outlier, but if schools price themselves out due to keeping up with the jones' that trend may be more permanent.

**Rogue52** · 01-28-2013, 01:31 PM

Let's accept the premise that football is a dimished brand in 20 years.

No one is going to make a decision today because of that. 20 years ago, the Big 12 didn't even exist.

**BringBackJohnny** · 01-28-2013, 01:31 PM

This thing will all fall apart in around 5 years time. With the advances video streaming technology and soon to be new cabel options the media packages for league will certainly change and business models for opperations will have to adjust. I believe the Big 10 to be harded hit by this bug in the near future because they are leverageing their own network philosiphy to the max while bullying their way into 'mandaitory' carriership deals with regional providers. When the number of cost friendly TV options appear in the market the Big Ten will be left with less guarenteed revenue and too many mouths to feed.

The best bet for any confrence right now it to create strategic partnerships around the landscape of football and cash in. The days of this kind of return are limited because of the outdated nature of TV options. Its 2013!

**Wesley** · 01-28-2013, 01:34 PM

B12 says 12 teams. If we can add a WVU and a TYCU, we can add many others. And I want a conference championship game for more money.

**ricochet** · 01-28-2013, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Clark

Sports are one of the very few things people watch live anymore. As long as that continues, the revenues generated from tv contracts will continue to rise.

When you watch sports live do you actually watch the commercials? If so why?

**Rogue52** · 01-28-2013, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by BringBackJohnny

This thing will all fall apart in around 5 years time. With the advances video streaming technology and soon to be new cabel options the media packages for league will certainly change and business models for opperations will have to adjust. I believe the Big 10 to be harded hit by this bug in the near future because they are leverageing their own network philosiphy to the max while bullying their way into 'mandaitory' carriership deals with regional providers. When the number of cost friendly TV options appear in the market the Big Ten will be left with less guarenteed revenue and too many mouths to feed.

The best bet for any confrence right now it to create strategic partnerships around the landscape of football and cash in. The days of this kind of return are limited because of the outdated nature of TV options. Its 2013!

What you are saying has been said for 20 years and here we are still with standard subsidized television packages.

It's not technology that is holding this trend back. Cable companies are a politically powerful group.

The Big Ten can just as easily make their channel ala carte for a huge premium and probably get a ton of people to pay.

**azepp** · 01-28-2013, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rogue52

What you are saying has been said for 20 years and here we are still with standard subsidized television packages.

It's not technology that is holding this trend back. Cable companies are a politically powerful group.

The Big Ten can just as easily make their channel ala carte for a huge premium and probably get a ton of people to pay.

You're probably right now that they've proven it out. I don't think it would have been true 10 years ago (not that it matters now).

**Tornado man** · 01-28-2013, 01:44 PM

Chris Williams wrote,

"Texas A&M was always mad at Texas. Texas always walked around with its chest puffed out and nose in the air towards Texas A&M."

You mean the Texas that was all set to leave us and join the Pac 10 until Texas A&M backed out and didn't go with them?
I didn't become a fan of the Aggies until finally they joined Nebraska and said "enough." Look where they're at now. With Texas still running the Big 12 show, this conference will always be less attractive to any sought-after schools...

**Clark** · 01-28-2013, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by ricochet

When you watch sports live do you actually watch the commercials? If so why?

I generally turn the channel if there's another game on or I'll just surf the internet during commercials.

**Rogue52** · 01-28-2013, 01:49 PM

Another thing to think about with ala carte cable, the availability of channels like FSN, FCS, FX, ESPNU, ESPN 2, etc. where we watch all of our games now, could all magically disappear because they can't be supported.

**dafarmer** · 01-28-2013, 02:05 PM

I miss the old Big 8 days with the rivalries, but those days are past. I would like to stay at 10 and build up these rivalries, but you can't stay stuck in the present either. What about a pact with the Pac 12( we will take Col. back for a price) and puild from there. No merger, but a real partnership.

**BringBackJohnny** · 01-28-2013, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rogue52

What you are saying has been said for 20 years and here we are still with standard subsidized television packages.

It's not technology that is holding this trend back. Cable companies are a politically powerful group.

The Big Ten can just as easily make their channel ala carte for a huge premium and probably get a ton of people to pay.

I am not sure I fully buy into what you are saying regarding the technology. Look at the number of new players and means of distribution the industry has today that were not there 20 years ago.

Even if you are talking about the big ten moving into per subscriber package how will they make up for the sure number of TVs that will not purchase the package. Right now everyone in those major norther metro areas has this package. With deminished viewership do you think the advirtising dollars will still come in at the same permium price.