I think the Big 10 knows it's not going to keep up football-wise. But it could certainly work to make the case that it's pretty damn close in football, kicking the SECs ass in basketball, and destroying it in academics and research.
IOWA STATE TO BIG TEN?!? Dave Wannstedt thinks so.
- Thread starter cyclone4L
- Start date
Have you actually looked into what the BTAA is? Nothing in their description suggests they share research dollars. If I'm wrong I would love to be proven so.
You know, when you have a chance to step back from the PAC situation (daves comments allowed us to do that for a bit), you see things you didn't before. I always thought this wouldn't finish for a couple years, now I think this very well is the last year due to the PAC wanting to not wait 3 more years on a crappy deal and FOX not wanting to gamble on losing more teams/inventory. If the PAC comes to FOX, CBS, whoever, and says we have your 12 pm ET timeslot inventory, that may allow an early renegotiation of their deal and now make the PACN way more attractive. It may lead to that thing gaining a load of subscribers. If they can pick up a TCU and pull a big ten and force payment in Texas (of if TT can bring the same thing) that could shove a lot of money to them. I know that cable is old school but right now they are so far behind, something like that allows them time to grab some money and position themselves for the future.
I see the PAC now as the driver of any expansion. They don't have much for options out there and just using that alliance doesn't help them much in the long run, they need earlier games and the midwest plus texas would do that. They at minimum take OSU and a texas team in my opinion. If they do that, they are still limited on games, because their early game is either one of those each week. I think they go four to have a couple options and increased inventory. That then points to either a combo of KU/ISU or one of them and another texas team.
This is the key when it comes to the Big 10. But regarding the tweet, as others have said, research doesn't work that way.
The only thing that maybe the tweet fails to mention is that by adding ISU to the conference, it may increase the member universities and BTA's chances of landing more research if ISU were involved in the grant process. But tough to say if that is the case without reading the report.
Bottom line, being a part of the Big 10 an the BTA would be great for ISU due to the organization's assistance with collaboration.
I agree and I don't think you can understate the roll that Fox will play in all of this. The GOR's can be negotiated early, people forget that. Also, I kind of get the feeling that the Pac, B1G and ACC are working together here to split up the remaining teams. They need as many teams on board as possible to roadblock the SEC.
Kind of obvious ESPN has been trying to change the landscape and secure inventory before Amazon gets mixed in. Fox may feel the same way.
This is a good point.
I've also thought a bit about the "carriage fees" and how everyone thinks about this in terms of BTN and markets almost exclusively. Here are a couple of thoughts:
- Based on average carriage fees, households in Iowa, and percentage of cable/sat households, I would estimate that through BTN Iowa is bringing roughly $300-$500k per year per team in revenue. Another way to look at it the "lost revenue" due to ISU being in existing footprint. What that means is you are talking about a difference in media revenue of less than 1%. While every little bit matters, this is incredibly insignificant.
- Here are avg. carriage fees by subscribers
ESPN: $7.64
FS1: 1.12
ESPN2: 1.04
FS2: ? no data
ESPNU: ? no data
BTN: 0.59
What this says is that the stakes in terms of carriage fees for Fox are higher than the Big 10, and the stakes for ESPN absolutely dwarf both.
What this means is ESPN absolutely cannot do something that jeopardizes subscriptions. Now if KU and KSU are relegated to a lower league the state of Kansas isn't going to stop subscribing to cable or satellite, and the carriers aren't going to completely drop FS1, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FS2, etc. But if the moves ESPN orchestrates drops overall interest it's going to reduce subscriptions to cable, satellite, streaming services sports packages, etc. To what extent no one knows.
So people looking at this and thinking ESPN does better by relegating teams, and having some small, exclusive super-league because the per-team value goes up (at least in the short term) are missing the big picture. ESPN doesn't give a **** about the SEC or any other conferences' per team revenue. It doesn't mean anything to them. ESPN and Fox need inventory, not just for inventory's sake, but because they absolutely must maintain heavy and broad interest in the US or they take a bath.
People are greatly underestimating the motivation ESPN has to place the Big 12 teams and make sure they are not relegated to low interest. In fact, looking at the AAC move in this context, it is starting to look like it may be only partially about getting them, OU and UT out of trouble, but also about trying to pump up a new, large league. Now, it would've been bad still, but I imagine for this reason if the Big 12 and AAC merger thing would've happened that ESPN was prepared to spend a lot of money to try to pump up that league and try to keep it in the power conference designation and getting an autobid in a 12 team playoff.
Regarding the research question above, there are related things that likely matter and help ISU's case for the B1G in not only showing an academic fit but also cultural.
There are more general things like:
(1) creation of the first electronic digital computer,
(2) ISU's role on the Manhattan Project (in collaboration I believe with the University of Chicago, previously a member of the B1G and still a member of the Big Ten Academic Alliance)
(3) George Washington Carver's education and research before leaving for the Tuskegee Institute
(4) Henry A. Wallace's contributions to agricultural research (including Pioneer Hybrid)
Most people outside of ISU or even reading this board would not be aware of these things. Such things surely matter more than Nebraska's success on the football field prior to becoming a B1G member, which I've read are included in B1G highlight reels of past success.
I am aware of some more specific things I might try to post later.
There are more general things like:
(1) creation of the first electronic digital computer,
(2) ISU's role on the Manhattan Project (in collaboration I believe with the University of Chicago, previously a member of the B1G and still a member of the Big Ten Academic Alliance)
(3) George Washington Carver's education and research before leaving for the Tuskegee Institute
(4) Henry A. Wallace's contributions to agricultural research (including Pioneer Hybrid)
Most people outside of ISU or even reading this board would not be aware of these things. Such things surely matter more than Nebraska's success on the football field prior to becoming a B1G member, which I've read are included in B1G highlight reels of past success.
I am aware of some more specific things I might try to post later.
Last edited:
Who on these boards has said that ESPN and FOX wouldn't pay less for an 8 team conference vs. the current 10? Link the post.
Who has said ESPN's lawyers wouldn't make arguments? Link the post.
Obviously, the networks would lower payments for less inventory. Obviously, there is no replacement for OU & UT.
Lawyers can come up with an argument that the sun rises in the west. And they don't have to have gone to Harvard or Yale. Saul will do.
Also, it isn't ESPN's lawyers that have to be good, it's OU & UT's. I am sure they will be. But in the courtroom facts matter
Who knows what the future holds or the odds. And the short-term future 6-12 months could be far different than 3 years from now
Last edited:
I think it's about not getting caught with your pants down like the B12 did. Our contract isn't up for a few more years, yet see what happened. 2024 LSU playing USC OOC could be inferred as a bit of meddling over there. My point is, it's not necessarily where the contract ends, but the perception of what can happen prior to that ... at any point in time.
Correct - plus look at the PAC's non-con games past and future. The alliance does nothing scheduling-wise that that certainly the upper half teams haven't been able to do on their own. They have had no issue scheduling great non-con games.
Of what has been publicly discussed there has been no benefit to the PAC, unless you consider the Big 10 colluding with the lower 8-10 PAC teams to not poach their top brands.
There is much more going on behind the scenes. In fact, it may be intended to try to exclude SEC from non-con scheduling. Then we see USC turn around and finalize an SEC non-con. Now, I'm sure it's been in the works for a long time, but USC could go get another game within minutes if they wanted to. I'm not so sure it isn't USC flexing a bit and saying this alliance doesn't do a damn thing for them. I have no idea if that's the case, but on the surface this alliance does not provide anything for USC. It simply restricts one attractive option - going to the Big 10.
I believe the carriage fees for states in the footprint are 1.10 and outside are 0.40. So it would be about that amount times 1.65 or roughly 800k on the high end, without actually doing the math in any way.
The one thing I would say regarding the whole Big 12/AAC deal is that the angry 8 would have all balked at that deal. Everyone would have been exploring their options just like they are now. That would be such a short term fix and you know damn well ESPN was going to want to sign a lengthy GOR like the did with the ACC. That would have been the very definition of painting yourself into a corner. especially knowing that the Pac and B1G GOR's are getting ready to be renegotiated.
I feel like I would be a great conference commissioner because I played alot of Risk as a kid. It's basically the same **** that's going on here.
Got it - so it would be something like 1.28 M households in Iowa x 56% (national avg) w/ cable and sat. Assuming all of those subscribers have a package that includes BTN it would be an annual per team revenue of about $675k. So it will be in the neighborhood of 1% of media revenue, and shrinking.
I really wonder how ESPN saw that going. Hey Big 12, merge with the American to form a 19-school super-G5 and we will pay you XXX. You will lose all of your leverage with OU and UT, you will lose your autonomy league status and any possibility of being considered P5, and you will get to play Tulsa and East Carolina in an enormous conference - because it is more convenient for us, ESPN.
It just shows ESPN’s hubris that they thought they could strong-arm the Big 12 into taking that absolutely horrible deal.
As always, great post.
Add to that two things:
- how highly leveraged ESPN already is (and will be for another decade of investment) in cable. Yes, they have opened the doors to streaming, but they still have a high liability in cable.
- borrowing rate is only going to go up. Don't underestimate this as it will play a significant role. Especially, in already highly leveraged entities.
I agree, and I'm glad it didn't happen. But I used to think, "is ESPN that dumb that they think these teams would accept it?" Looking at those carriage fees for ESPN, I'm thinking the idea of getting a big discount on the remaining Big 12 teams was not really the main goal. It makes a lot more sense to think they would offer the teams some surprisingly good money and TV slots in an effort to pump up the league. I think that plan would've been tough to pull off, and ultimately this league would end up being ESPN2 and + filler games, but ESPN would have a ton at stake to get more of their teams/leagues in an autobid scenario. In fact, I think looking at these numbers suggests that the marginal benefit to ESPN of getting a 4th SEC team into a 12 team playoff vs. 3 (or a 3rd vs. 2) is probably much smaller than elevating an AAC/Big 12 hybrid of some sort as an autobid league for which they own the media rights.
