Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC

[knowlesjam]

The one article basically says the Flutie effect, or impact of sports on enrollment is questionable and does not seem to last.
As for the two comparisons- Butler and Alabama, since Butlers final fours ISUs growth in enrollment is more than double theirs between 2011-2019. ISUs growth is about 1.5x that of Alabama’s during that same period.

There are certainly impacts, and it has effects on things like endowments, but I think the effects by sports media and sports fans is overstated.

Agree. To me the biggest impact is continued good recruitment to schools that have a long history of success. Nebraska is the easy poster child there...basically non-competitive for 15 years, but still average a top 25 recruiting year. Is there spillover into other sports...maybe, but in Nebraska's case, they parlayed their previous success into a BIG invite, thus providing a huge source of income for their other sports (and coaches).

 

[AuH2O]

Interesting. It would be cool to see how that compares across conferences.

The Athletic did an interesting piece on 4 million+ viewers games across conferences. The Big 12 was essentially 3rd if you take ND away from the ACC. But with out OU/Texas, the Big 12 had just two games that hit those numbers. That’s why none of the remaining 8 are in high demand.

Staples: Why would the Big Ten form an alliance with the ACC and Pac-12? It’s all about TV’s ‘Four Million Club’

One way for conferences to get as much money as possible from TV? Get matchups that draw 4,000,000+.

theathletic.com

First, there was one regular season game last year (Wisc-Northwestern) that got 4 mil last year that did not include a blue blood. All the rest were SEC, OU, UT, OSU, ND, Clemson and Michigan. There were no PAC regular season games that did that. If the analysis is "be a blue blood or you don't add value to a conference," that's not very good analysis. The point is, if schools like Okie St. and ISU don't bring value to conferences, then based on the value of TV viewership a good chunk of teams in these power conferences don't either.

Second, you can't look at the conference as a monolith. Okie St. and Iowa State would both be the 3rd most watched team in the PAC. So they would absolutely boost the average viewership of the conferences games.

Third - everybody needs to understand that the decision on a team getting an invite is not a simple binary yes or no. Much like Maryland and Rutgers, there will be bargaining for media revenue shares and schedules. If a school takes a significantly reduced cut of media rights for a few years, the bar becomes pretty low for that school to bring value to the rest of the members.

Finally - A big 12 team absolutely wouldn't accept an offer to bolt right now. You not only jeopardize the action against OU, UT and ESPN, you put yourself in a GoR bind. Considering the time it's going to take for all the Big 12 mess to settle, it would be messy for any other conference to get tangled up in the Big 12 until the dust settles, which probably means 2022.

Bottom line is can schools like Ok St and ISU bring value to the PAC? Yes. But is it enough for another conference to get tangled up in this mess right now? No. And could either school afford to leave or get to far down that road before the legal matters are sorted out? No.
Some time over the next year I suspect OU and UT will agree to write checks, and the rest of the teams will then agree that the remaining members can go negotiate to find landing spots. That’s when things will get interesting.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Finally - A big 12 team absolutely wouldn't accept an offer to bolt right now. You not only jeopardize the action against OU, UT and ESPN, you put yourself in a GoR bind. Considering the time it's going to take for all the Big 12 mess to settle, it would be messy for any other conference to get tangled up in the Big 12 until the dust settles, which probably means 2022.

I agree with all of your post except this part. If any P5 league made an offer to a Big 12 school to accept today for 7/1/2025 admission, that school would say yes. Of course it would be trickier if the Pac-12 said “It has to be 2023” or something (and not sure why they would press that issue, when they would know that this invitation would help give UT and OU cover to move their date up, which would help move this new invite up as well). But any school would say yes today to an invite beginning in 2025.

 

[cayin]

Interesting. It would be cool to see how that compares across conferences.

The Athletic did an interesting piece on 4 million+ viewers games across conferences. The Big 12 was essentially 3rd if you take ND away from the ACC. But with out OU/Texas, the Big 12 had just two games that hit those numbers. That’s why none of the remaining 8 are in high demand.

Staples: Why would the Big Ten form an alliance with the ACC and Pac-12? It’s all about TV’s ‘Four Million Club’

One way for conferences to get as much money as possible from TV? Get matchups that draw 4,000,000+.

theathletic.com

but take the top two or proportional amount out of most leagues and won't it look like the angry 8? I get so sick of people looking at the angry 8's value on it's own. We don't do that with the rest of college football. We don't talk Boston College, Wake Forrest, or Duke's college football value on their own, then why do they do it with us?

 

[AuH2O]

I agree with all of your post except this part. If any P5 league made an offer to a Big 12 school to accept today for 7/1/2025 admission, that school would say yes. Of course it would be trickier if the Pac-12 said “It has to be 2023” or something (and not sure why they would press that issue, when they would know that this invitation would help give UT and OU cover to move their date up, which would help move this new invite up as well). But any school would say yes today to an invite beginning in 2025.

I think it would depend. I don't think any of the schools could simultaneously leave the conference and be on the hook for a buyout while also taking reduced media rights from the PAC.

The PAC, ACC, or even Big 10 could do some bargain shopping for members, but they are going to need to wait do it.

But I think in some ways this is what ESPN, UT and OU are banking on, that they can settle something quickly because the remaining members start panicking and want to get their options lined up. The remaining Big 12 teams' willingness to cut a deal will likely vary based on how confident they feel in either finding a landing spot. If there are 3-4 remaining members that want to stick together and try to pick up some AAC members, and there are 4-5 that want to dissolve and try to catch on with another conference the resolve to engage in a legal battle will be quite different.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

I know that makes you feel better. So, I'll try never to put K-State in the class of ISU again.

I apologize, seriously. that was a **** head thing to say.

 

[cayin]

Well, it looks like the Big 10 and SEC are really going to distance themselves from the ACC and Pac 12 when it comes to tv dollar earnings. As long as this situation exists, then all of college football is unstable, not just the angry 8. Will FSU and Clemson be okay with 33-35 mil a year while Northwestern is getting 65 to 70 mil? Will USC, Oregon, and Washington be okay at 33 mil while Bama and LSU are at 70 mil?

 

[AuH2O]

but take the top two or proportional amount out of most leagues and won't it look like the angry 8? I get so sick of people looking at the angry 8's value on it's own. We don't do that with the rest of college football. We don't talk Boston College, Wake Forrest, or Duke's college football value on their own, then why do they do it with us?

Yes. The new-look SEC is the only exception. Take the top 2-3 out of the PAC, ACC and Big 10 and they are junk leagues with low value and low TV viewership. Take USC and Oregon out of the PAC and it's horrible, worse than the Big 12 leftovers. Take ND and Clemson out of the ACC and while there are some nice brands - UNC, Miami, VT, but viewership for the remaining ACC schools isn't good.

Take out USC, Oregon, Ohio St., Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame and Clemson from their respective leagues and value based on TV viewers of the leftovers would be: Big 10, Big 12 and ACC would be similar, and PAC would be absolutely bringing up the rear.

People need to understand something. A non-con scheduling alliance is not going to save the PAC. They are in bad shape financially. No matter what, a vast majority of their games are going to be conference games that do not include USC or Oregon. That means they aren't very valuable in terms of TV. Of the Fox, ABC and ESPN games last year, ISUs regular season games EXCLUDING TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA were only 19% and 14% lower than USC and Oregon's regular season games on those networks last year.

The rest of the league was very bad in terms of TV viewers. Their attendance as a league is very bad. Bottom line is there is no enthusiasm for PAC football. They need to figure out how to get it. A few ACC/Big 10 non-con games aren't going to do it, as they already have been playing decent non-cons, especially Oregon and USC.

USC and Oregon are going to be big brands that get left behind in terms of financial and on the field competitiveness vs. the SEC and top of the Big 10 if the PAC doesn't figure out how to boost the revenue to those two schools. If USC were to leave, let alone both USC and Oregon, that conference is absolute toast.

I think a likely outcome is the PAC expanding to get into Texas and the midwest, where college football interest is high, and get some PAC network (or whatever may replace it) into an expanded footprint. That means probably Okie St., ISU, Kansas, and I'd say TTU. Then they combine that with uneven distribution to favor USC and Oregon. Otherwise I think the PAC really risks USC and Oregon trying to get into the Big 10.

 

[KnappShack]

Well, it looks like the Big 10 and SEC are really going to distance themselves from the ACC and Pac 12 when it comes to tv dollar earnings. As long as this situation exists, then all of college football is unstable, not just the angry 8. Will FSU and Clemson be okay with 33-35 mil a year while Northwestern is getting 65 to 70 mil? Will USC, Oregon, and Washington be okay at 33 mil while Bama and LSU are at 70 mil?

No. The answer is no.

Money is hellbent on destroying the greatest game America has ever known. If I'm Purdue or Vandy or NW or Indiana or Rutgers or or or....

I wouldn't sleep well. Isn't the ultimate end something like 32 schools with an NFL type TV contract?

The ESPNs of the world seem to say nothing else matters. No other games matter.

 

[LincolnSwinger]

No. The answer is no.

Money is hellbent on destroying the greatest game America has ever known. If I'm Purdue or Vandy or NW or Indiana or Rutgers or or or....

I wouldn't sleep well. Isn't the ultimate end something like 32 schools with an NFL type TV contract?

The ESPNs of the world seem to say nothing else matters. No other games matter.

I know I'm in the minority but I wouldn't hate that*. The league just below the 32 would be a helluva lot of fun to follow and still have plenty of player and coaching talent. And might be worth $40-$50 million/team in revenue.

*As long as Iowa isn't one of the 32

 

[KnappShack]

I know I'm in the minority but I wouldn't hate that*. The league just below the 32 would be a helluva lot of fun to follow and still have plenty of player and coaching talent. And might be worth $40-$50 million/team in revenue.

*As long as Iowa isn't one of the 32

I see the top 32 taking all prime windows leaving the rest fighting for 9 pm kickoffs on CBS Sports App.

More of an AAC payout vs current Big 12 money. We've already seen how the time slot and channel makes a huge difference. ISU gets nice ratings when it gets a good time/channel.

The powers would want to protect their NFL Lite investment by completely blowing the schools in that league (the SEC project) and killing the other schools (Big 12 example).

 

[Cydwinder]

I know I'm in the minority but I wouldn't hate that*. The league just below the 32 would be a helluva lot of fun to follow and still have plenty of player and coaching talent. And might be worth $40-$50 million/team in revenue.

*As long as Iowa isn't one of the 32

If I want to watch a 32 team league with paid players, I’m not watching the younger, less talented and skilled version. I’m watching the NFL and the other league slowly loses all relevance. There is a reason AAA baseball isn’t as relevant as the MLB and this would be the football version of that.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

If I want to watch a 32 team league with paid players, I’m not watching the younger, less talented and skilled version. I’m watching the NFL and the other league slowly loses all relevance. There is a reason AAA baseball isn’t as relevant as the MLB and this would be the football version of that.

Agreed. If a super league forms, it will exclude more people than it includes while at the same time making themselves a prime target for congressional review/attention.

 

[isucy86]

I see the top 32 taking all prime windows leaving the rest fighting for 9 pm kickoffs on CBS Sports App.

More of an AAC payout vs current Big 12 money. We've already seen how the time slot and channel makes a huge difference. ISU gets nice ratings when it gets a good time/channel.

The powers would want to protect their NFL Lite investment by completely blowing the schools in that league (the SEC project) and killing the other schools (Big 12 example).

If there is another football division, then I don't believe they will be beholden to the major network time slots. ISU could have a 1pm kickoff. Especially if TV is subscription based and not in linear TV.

Also, maybe we see a return to the old days where ISU sports are broadcast in state on a WHO, KWWL, etc. and people outside that watch via subscription.

If ESPN, FOX, CBS Sports would value ISU like an AAC team- maybe there are more profitable media rights models for a large state school like ISU, KU, KSU, WVU, Okie State or TT.

Also with ESPN throwing big $ for SEC rights, it is just a matter of time before the SEC Network is subscription based, maybe paired with the ACC Network and maybe with MLB, NFL or NBA to provide year round sports. NBC putting the Notre Dame v Toledo is the way I believe the networks want to go for all but the biggest games.

The casual fan might opt for free broadcast TV or regional teams

 

[NorthCyd]

The one article basically says the Flutie effect, or impact of sports on enrollment is questionable and does not seem to last.
As for the two comparisons- Butler and Alabama, since Butlers final fours ISUs growth in enrollment is more than double theirs between 2011-2019. ISUs growth is about 1.5x that of Alabama’s during that same period.

There are certainly impacts, and it has effects on things like endowments, but I think the effects by sports media and sports fans is overstated.

It's not just enrollment. It's also about applications.

All the evidence you really need is the fact that universities invest so much into college athletics, and football specifically. They obviously see a lot of tangible benefits otherwise they wouldn't do it.

 

[Cyclonepride]

If I want to watch a 32 team league with paid players, I’m not watching the younger, less talented and skilled version. I’m watching the NFL and the other league slowly loses all relevance. There is a reason AAA baseball isn’t as relevant as the MLB and this would be the football version of that.

I'm really not sure why elite programs would want to be part of a 32 team league. Some of them have to end up as bottom feeders, and you could easily take a perennial winning program with lots of prestige, and turn them into the new league equivalent of Vanderbilt.

 

[AuH2O]

It's not just enrollment. It's also about applications.

All the evidence you really need is the fact that universities invest so much into college athletics, and football specifically. They obviously see a lot of tangible benefits otherwise they wouldn't do it.

But a lot of schools, ISU and Iowa included, have self-sufficient ADs, so the state or the general university don't invest anything outside of the AD. And the amount that universities invest in their research and teaching infrastructure as a whole dwarfs what they invest in athletics. While the raw figures are large, relative to research and teaching, it does NOT suggest that athletics is as big a driver as people think.

I do think it makes a difference. Sports are very good marketing tools and ways to get brand recognition for a university. But the fact is people are saying sports drive enrollment, and their examples are a 15% increase by Butler since their final fours in the last decade and a 20% or so increase in Alabama's enrollment in the past decade. As a couple comparisons ISU's in that time is about 30% and to get another regional comp, Ole Miss' enrollment increase during that time is about 40% without athletic success.

I'm just saying the correlation is shaky at best, and I think college sports fans and media tend to overestimate the role of athletics in the financial health of a university.

 

[NorthCyd]

But a lot of schools, ISU and Iowa included, have self-sufficient ADs, so the state or the general university don't invest anything outside of the AD. And the amount that universities invest in their research and teaching infrastructure as a whole dwarfs what they invest in athletics. While the raw figures are large, relative to research and teaching, it does NOT suggest that athletics is as big a driver as people think.

I do think it makes a difference. Sports are very good marketing tools and ways to get brand recognition for a university. But the fact is people are saying sports drive enrollment, and their examples are a 15% increase by Butler since their final fours in the last decade and a 20% or so increase in Alabama's enrollment in the past decade. As a couple comparisons ISU's in that time is about 30% and to get another regional comp, Ole Miss' enrollment increase during that time is about 40% without athletic success.

I'm just saying the correlation is shaky at best, and I think college sports fans and media tend to overestimate the role of athletics in the financial health of a university.

I understand ADs at a lot of major universities are financially independent. I also understand just having an AD adds a lot of indirect costs to a university. It's an effort on the universities part to have an AD, especially on the level to have a major college football program, that they wouldn't bother with if there was no benefit.

 

[Number Monkey]

But a lot of schools, ISU and Iowa included, have self-sufficient ADs, so the state or the general university don't invest anything outside of the AD. And the amount that universities invest in their research and teaching infrastructure as a whole dwarfs what they invest in athletics. While the raw figures are large, relative to research and teaching, it does NOT suggest that athletics is as big a driver as people think.

I do think it makes a difference. Sports are very good marketing tools and ways to get brand recognition for a university. But the fact is people are saying sports drive enrollment, and their examples are a 15% increase by Butler since their final fours in the last decade and a 20% or so increase in Alabama's enrollment in the past decade. As a couple comparisons ISU's in that time is about 30% and to get another regional comp, Ole Miss' enrollment increase during that time is about 40% without athletic success.

I'm just saying the correlation is shaky at best, and I think college sports fans and media tend to overestimate the role of athletics in the financial health of a university.

The number one brand ambassador for a university, unless you're a world renown Ivy, is revenue sports - and football is far and away greater than men's or women's basketball. Now, its not the only thing and it isn't always direct, but what matters to enrollment numbers isn't necessarily revenue in the athletic department, but exposure the university receives from them being broadcast and marketed during the seasons. And yes, the Flutie effect is real, even if it isn't always felt the same, and has shown up numerous times; including when George Mason University went to the final four, when Auburn had Cam Newton, and when the Aggy's joined the SEC and won a Heisman, when Baylor went from terrible to good and won a Heisman, etc. These bumps, while real at about 10-30% boost, are temporary fizzling out about 2-3 years after a change in success. I'd actually be surprised if Iowa State wasn't about ready to be in the throws of a mini one, but its likely tempered by a pandemic and if they peaked last year or if this football success is sustainable. Iowa's athletic department is $50m more than ISU's not because of Big Ten payouts, but because they have had 8 win averages for decades in football, with the occasional 10s here and there. More success, more tickets, more money, more press.

Iowa State football was seen by 20m people in the regular season last year. There is no other type of marketing that a university can provide that gets any where close to those figures. And it isn't always in enrollment. One of the dumbest, but often quoted markers for a university's prestige is acceptance rate. Sports draw eyeballs, eyeballs drive applications. Even without growing quickly due to successful sports, more apps means your acceptance rate drops, which makes it look like you're taking smarter kids, and your academic rating increases, which helps you get more apps...etc. (You quoted Alabama above and while they're growing like Iowa State, their acceptance rate is down to 59%, from something like 90% 10-20 years ago) Its a cycle and it grows and it is worth far more to a university than spending $30m on football. That's why so many schools lose money on football to stay in the conversation.

Your point is correct in that a university can be successful at what it does without athletics, but it is far easier to to do all you do when you're talked about year round.

 

[Cloneon]

It isn’t arrogance. Texas and OU have a huge nationwide following and Iowa/ISU games tend to have the whole state tuned in, rather than split

Now if only someone would compare our viewership on all the 'other' games against the same without a 'rival' and OU or TX. I'll bet the house, we're right up there at the top. Thus ending the argument of biased viewership.