Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC

[isucy86]

The Pac 12 has no interest in losing its sexy football schools to the B1G. The Pac 12 wants to expand.. they need the central time zone. I have a hard time imagining USC playing at tOSU at 11:00 am. Anyone in LA going to watch that at 9:00 am their time? BTW, Colo has zero interest in the B1G. The Pac 12 has a golden opportunity here with the vulnerable Angry 8.

In the end, I still think that in college sports keeping things regional is best for the fans and the games. Rivalries are awesome for the fans, storylines, ticket sales, etc. It's seriously hard to imagine creating a real rivalry with schools that are several time zones away. We know ISU and Hoks rivalry. Imagine ISU/Minn? ISU/WISC? ISU/ILL? ISU and KU are by far best fitted for the B1G. Not to mention the fun that fans can have making reasonable road trips to follow ISU.

This really sucks that we have a really good football team to watch in less than a month, and all our focus got shifted to this narrative. Let's go kick some butt and prove our worth!!!

The Pac12 might prefer to stay intact, but where does the money come from? Money isn't the key to success, otherwise Texas wouldn't be a middle of the road Big12 team. But as we have seen from history, college athletics is an arms race. They aren't giving incremental media rights $ back to the university. If the Big10 and SEC media rights deals are in the $70-$100M range annually over a 10 year period, that makes it tough on Pac12 schools who would be mired in the $35-$50M range. Especially if athletes become school employees - getting paid and schools are responsible for their health insurance. Could all happen if athletes can collectively bargain.

IMO the Big10 should grow to around 20-24 schools - adding USC, Stanford, Washington & Oregon are no brainers. USC & Oregon because they are name brands in football and draw viewership from casual football fans. The Big10 adds Stanford for academic reasons and Washington because they have highest revenues among Pac12 public universities and Seattle is large media/tech market. Both Stanford & Washington have historically solid athletic teams.

After that, there is a host of schools that would be good fits, each have their pros/cons. IMO if the Big10 does add Pac12 schools, they will add a minimum of 6 teams. That way Pac12 schools can play a schedule split 50/50 among traditional Pac12 & Big10 schools,

• Both USC & Stanford are private California schools, but is there still pressure to include UCLA and California? Both public schools are AAU schools and well respected academically. IMO they would be Big10's preference if they stop at 6 schools. But do they add the most value to the Big10 Network?
• Arizona is an AAU school and there are A LOT of Big10 alumni who live full or part-time in AZ. Also not a bad road trip in November.
• Arizona State in not an AAU school, but Phoenix is larger media market than Tucson and again a lot of Big10 alumni live in Phoenix area. Does having 2 Arizona teams make sense to maximize Big10's media rights?
• Both Utah & Colorado are AAU schools- but not sure either moves the needle as the other Pac12 schools mentioned above. One advantage that CU would have over Az/ASU is historical rivalry with Nebraska. CU also makes sense to pair with KU if the Big10 adds 2 Midwest schools.
• Iowa State makes as much sense as KU or CU if the Big10 wants to solidify its east of the Rockies footprint. All have had periods of nationally respected basketball or football programs over the last 40 years. But where KU & CU have an advantage is media markets for Big10 Network platform. Cable isn't going to disappear anytime soon.

A big question for me is how does basketball fit into the media rights equation? Does KU's blue blood tradition on a network for 30 dates a season impact media right dollars as much as football for schools like UCLA, Cal, ASU, ISU, etc.

 

[AlaCyclone]

Whoa Nellie!

 

[ruflosn]

Go Toledo.

 

[IComeInPiece]

The Pac12 might prefer to stay intact, but where does the money come from? Money isn't the key to success, otherwise Texas wouldn't be a middle of the road Big12 team. But as we have seen from history, college athletics is an arms race. They aren't giving incremental media rights $ back to the university. If the Big10 and SEC media rights deals are in the $70-$100M range annually over a 10 year period, that makes it tough on Pac12 schools who would be mired in the $35-$50M range. Especially if athletes become school employees - getting paid and schools are responsible for their health insurance. Could all happen if athletes can collectively bargain.

IMO the Big10 should grow to around 20-24 schools - adding USC, Stanford, Washington & Oregon are no brainers. USC & Oregon because they are name brands in football and draw viewership from casual football fans. The Big10 adds Stanford for academic reasons and Washington because they have highest revenues among Pac12 public universities and Seattle is large media/tech market. Both Stanford & Washington have historically solid athletic teams.

After that, there is a host of schools that would be good fits, each have their pros/cons. IMO if the Big10 does add Pac12 schools, they will add a minimum of 6 teams. That way Pac12 schools can play a schedule split 50/50 among traditional Pac12 & Big10 schools,

• Both USC & Stanford are private California schools, but is there still pressure to include UCLA and California? Both public schools are AAU schools and well respected academically. IMO they would be Big10's preference if they stop at 6 schools. But do they add the most value to the Big10 Network?
• Arizona is an AAU school and there are A LOT of Big10 alumni who live full or part-time in AZ. Also not a bad road trip in November.
• Arizona State in not an AAU school, but Phoenix is larger media market than Tucson and again a lot of Big10 alumni live in Phoenix area. Does having 2 Arizona teams make sense to maximize Big10's media rights?
• Both Utah & Colorado are AAU schools- but not sure either moves the needle as the other Pac12 schools mentioned above. One advantage that CU would have over Az/ASU is historical rivalry with Nebraska. CU also makes sense to pair with KU if the Big10 adds 2 Midwest schools.
• Iowa State makes as much sense as KU or CU if the Big10 wants to solidify its east of the Rockies footprint. All have had periods of nationally respected basketball or football programs over the last 40 years. But where KU & CU have an advantage is media markets for Big10 Network platform. Cable isn't going to disappear anytime soon.

A big question for me is how does basketball fit into the media rights equation? Does KU's blue blood tradition on a network for 30 dates a season impact media right dollars as much as football for schools like UCLA, Cal, ASU, ISU, etc.

See the tweet above yours. 'Markets' aren't going to necessarily matter going forward - new subscribers for streaming services are what's going to end up being important. NBC is taking a ND game of broadcast TV so they can drive people to subscribe to Peacock. Texas and OU draw aren't in the markets they are located in, but in the fact that they can add new subscribers for ESPN/SEC/Amazon/Netflix streaming services down the road

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

See the tweet above yours. 'Markets' aren't going to necessarily matter going forward - new subscribers for streaming services are what's going to end up being important. NBC is taking a ND game of broadcast TV so they can drive people to subscribe to Peacock. Texas and OU draw aren't in the markets they are located in, but in the fact that they can add new subscribers for ESPN/SEC/Amazon/Netflix streaming services down the road

How many subscribers do you think we actually bring? Make it $5 a month with ads.

We'd need to bring a million subscribers a month to make us valuable enough. That's a tall order for all the remaining 8.

 

[isucy86]

One think I didn't mention in the above post is the California regulatory environment. There could be aspects that Big10 schools migh

I think subscription apps is the future of sports programing, whether it is ACC/SEC Networks or broader App's like Peacock. FOX could roll the Big10 Network into a FOX entertainment App similar to Peacock.

However, just showing 1 game on the App is curious. My guess is avid Notre Dame fans will subscribe to the App for 1 month and then drop, but it does raise awareness to the App and other free programming. Gives people a taste of the Peacock App.

 

[isucy86]

See the tweet above yours. 'Markets' aren't going to necessarily matter going forward - new subscribers for streaming services are what's going to end up being important. NBC is taking a ND game of broadcast TV so they can drive people to subscribe to Peacock. Texas and OU draw aren't in the markets they are located in, but in the fact that they can add new subscribers for ESPN/SEC/Amazon/Netflix streaming services down the road

I agree to a point, but markets will always matter. Just not as much as the linear TV/cable model.

Since most people on message boards are avid fans, we tend to over focus on the avid fan. The Super Bowl or March Madness don't rely on avid fans, their media value is extraordinary because they attract the casual fan.

Cable TV's share is shrinking, but are YouTube TV, FUBO or HULU all that much different than cable? From a carriage revenue model for ESPN, FOX, Big10 Network- not really. Brand name programs in large metro areas will still have value in the next media rights deals that run from 2024 to 2034 ish.

Eventually, the subscriber model will be be dominant. If that is in less than 3 years, then you are 100% right. If that happens in 10 years, then markets will still matter to a large degree.

Who knows market size might still matter greatly if it brings more people to the platform vs. a small market school. After all the "New" media players people point to like Disney, Amazon, Netflix, etc. are more than just sports platforms.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Do you think they'd rather watch USC vs Ohio State or vs Iowa State at 9am?

With a conference merge, early games would be reserved for eastern teams. It wouldn’t be hard to schedule with 16-20 teams.

 

[KnappShack]

One think I didn't mention in the above post is the California regulatory environment. There could be aspects that Big10 schools migh


I think subscription apps is the future of sports programing, whether it is ACC/SEC Networks or broader App's like Peacock. FOX could roll the Big10 Network into a FOX entertainment App similar to Peacock.

However, just showing 1 game on the App is curious. My guess is avid Notre Dame fans will subscribe to the App for 1 month and then drop, but it does raise awareness to the App and other free programming. Gives people a taste of the Peacock App.

Is a subscription deal or ad supported? I don't think we're paying for the ****

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

Is a subscription deal or ad supported? I don't think we're paying for the ****

You have to pay $5 and then you still get ads for Peacocks live sports stuff

 

[BCClone]

How many subscribers do you think we actually bring? Make it $5 a month with ads.

We'd need to bring a million subscribers a month to make us valuable enough. That's a tall order for all the remaining 8.

I would think $10 a month would be reasonable and would guess ads would equate to about the same amount of inflow. Would say we would need about 250K then. Can we bring that? I don't know, just what I think the number would need to be.

 

[surly]

I remember not long ago when people were clamoring to get TV programming they wanted to see, not the Hallmark Channel which they had to pay for with their cable subscription.

Now, we're moving to that and people are complaining that they have to pay to watch. It's all a somewhat circular, market-driven, perfectly logical transition though, isn't it. We're getting what we asked for.

 

[surly]

Stewart Mandel
@slmandel
·
20h

We're to believe that the Big Ten's counter to the SEC adding two of the winningest programs of all time is to invite the worst P5 program in the country (Ku).

 

[cytor]

With a conference merge, early games would be reserved for eastern teams. It wouldn’t be hard to schedule with 16-20 teams.

Agree with this... the 11:00 games would mostly be Angry 8 matchups. The Pac team coming the the central time zone would likely be a 2:30 or 3:30 game or later.

 

[BCClone]

Agree with this... the 11:00 games would mostly be Angry 8 matchups. The Pac team coming the the central time zone would likely be a 2:30 or 3:30 game or later.

PAC/b12 could be on for 12 hours a day plus in an alliance. Would be the only P5s in that situation.

 

[MartyFine]

 

[Macloney]

What is he trying to say here?

 

[Cloneon]

I agree to a point, but markets will always matter. Just not as much as the linear TV/cable model.

Since most people on message boards are avid fans, we tend to over focus on the avid fan. The Super Bowl or March Madness don't rely on avid fans, their media value is extraordinary because they attract the casual fan.

Cable TV's share is shrinking, but are YouTube TV, FUBO or HULU all that much different than cable? From a carriage revenue model for ESPN, FOX, Big10 Network- not really. Brand name programs in large metro areas will still have value in the next media rights deals that run from 2024 to 2034 ish.

Eventually, the subscriber model will be be dominant. If that is in less than 3 years, then you are 100% right. If that happens in 10 years, then markets will still matter to a large degree.

Who knows market size might still matter greatly if it brings more people to the platform vs. a small market school. After all the "New" media players people point to like Disney, Amazon, Netflix, etc. are more than just sports platforms.

Of course a lot has been made about 'markets'. And while considering ONLY CFB, I can provide ample evidence 'markets' are irrelevant. But what suddenly came to light was the 'packaging' of products for streaming services. It's the same model as cable. Sell packages of products even if what you only need is a small portion. It's an illusion just to get the viewer to buy more than what they need. In that respect, the 'urban' viewing market is better targeted for cross sport viewership, thus providing the sense you get 'more'. When what you really get is 'more of what you don't need'. And, here's the real catch: it's a 'free' production to the streaming services. Or, at the very least, it's a product they can manipulate with negative propaganda to get a 'deal' on production costs.

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

What is he trying to say here?

That maybe the network/channel matters more than the team

 

[Cyclonepride]

What is he trying to say here?

I interpret it as saying that Iowa State's stats would be much, much better if plugged into the same slots that OU and UT usually get.