Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

Scruff

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2008
1,022
1,426
113
Coralville, IA
I'm still trying to figure out which of these is going on:

A) The PAC is run by idiots, when they did not take any Big 12 teams a month ago. Big 12 mentioned taking Houston before someone else got their hands on them, which sure sounds like the PAC. Now that the Big 12 appears they may make as much money as them would they even be able to take a Big 12 team at this point? Seems plausible.

B) PAC didn't take any Big 12 teams because Bolsby asked them to allow our conference to stick it to TX/OU and allow our conference to solidify and steal the AAC teams he wants. That way the teams left behind are also in a better situation. Which if this is the case, I'm hoping that also means the rumors of KU/ISU to B1G were true.

The soap opera continues. Sure feels like something else is going to happen by 2024.
 

HouClone

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2011
2,830
2,197
113
Houston
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
3,019
3,125
113
West Virginia

Clonedogg

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2009
2,525
1,884
113
CR, IA
biblehub.com
Boise St. vs BYU on Saturday got a solid rating of 2.24M viewers on Saturday.


Thats the good news, along with the fact that game crushed PAC games Utah vs USC 1.37M & ACC FSU vs UNC 1.07M viewers.

The bad news is the new SEC and B1G had 5 games over 4.5M. The each had a game at almost 7m or more.

If we view things in terms of par the new B12 conference games can compete very well with PAC & ACC conference games. The ACC & PAC will get better OOC game ratings due to better matchups I'm afraid. Hopefully, that at least keeps the tv revenue close with the ACC & PAC.
Any idea when these update with the previous weeks numbers? It's been interesting to follow.
 

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
23,927
32,310
113
Parts Unknown
Translation: ESPN screwed the pooch with their 'cable' centric contracts and it's soon going to be a huge drain on our balance sheet.

ESPN is interesting. Their plan seems to be expanding ESPN+ until it can be a stand alone product worth $25/month or so. (From what I've seen)

That's not a horrible deal if I've cut the cord.

But....what if ESPN+ is largely free? Or free if you have an ESPN branded gambling account? Maybe a tier or two to access all of the NHL or UFC content?

Maybe nothing can ever beat the cable model, but to win over a generation who doesn't believe they need to pay for anything....would any type of 'free' or cross branded model work?

We already get it free with the cell phone. But tie it to a gambling account....hummm
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,916
25,049
113
ESPN is interesting. Their plan seems to be expanding ESPN+ until it can be a stand alone product worth $25/month or so. (From what I've seen)

That's not a horrible deal if I've cut the cord.

But....what if ESPN+ is largely free? Or free if you have an ESPN branded gambling account? Maybe a tier or two to access all of the NHL or UFC content?

Maybe nothing can ever beat the cable model, but to win over a generation who doesn't believe they need to pay for anything....would any type of 'free' or cross branded model work?

We already get it free with the cell phone. But tie it to a gambling account....hummm

It's a balancing game though. You need to improve your streaming product, but not at the expense of your cable product. They get something like $9 per month from all cable and streaming customers. To make that up, they'd have to charge a whole lot more than $25 as a stand alone product since your subscriber list would drop dramatically. That's to even stay equal to now when they're already losing money.
 

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
3,019
3,125
113
West Virginia
ESPN is interesting. Their plan seems to be expanding ESPN+ until it can be a stand alone product worth $25/month or so. (From what I've seen)

That's not a horrible deal if I've cut the cord.

But....what if ESPN+ is largely free? Or free if you have an ESPN branded gambling account? Maybe a tier or two to access all of the NHL or UFC content?

Maybe nothing can ever beat the cable model, but to win over a generation who doesn't believe they need to pay for anything....would any type of 'free' or cross branded model work?

We already get it free with the cell phone. But tie it to a gambling account....hummm
I see a pricing bait and switch coming down the road unless contracts are competitive.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
ESPN is interesting. Their plan seems to be expanding ESPN+ until it can be a stand alone product worth $25/month or so. (From what I've seen)

That's not a horrible deal if I've cut the cord.

But....what if ESPN+ is largely free? Or free if you have an ESPN branded gambling account? Maybe a tier or two to access all of the NHL or UFC content?

Maybe nothing can ever beat the cable model, but to win over a generation who doesn't believe they need to pay for anything....would any type of 'free' or cross branded model work?

We already get it free with the cell phone. But tie it to a gambling account....hummm

Cable companies need ESPN more than ESPN needs them at this point. So many cable subscribers keep it just for live sports. ESPN is probably not there yet, but they are building to a point where they could legitimately threaten to put all of their content on ESPN+ and encourage people to simply pay them directly for it and cut out Mediacom and Comcast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
3,019
3,125
113
West Virginia
Cable companies need ESPN more than ESPN needs them at this point. So many cable subscribers keep it just for live sports. ESPN is probably not there yet, but they are building to a point where they could legitimately threaten to put all of their content on ESPN+ and encourage people to simply pay them directly for it and cut out Mediacom and Comcast.
Of course, that assumes their internet is not via Mediacom or Comcast. The transition to internet pricing vs cable entertainment packaging is probably the more accurate picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
23,927
32,310
113
Parts Unknown
It's a balancing game though. You need to improve your streaming product, but not at the expense of your cable product. They get something like $9 per month from all cable and streaming customers. To make that up, they'd have to charge a whole lot more than $25 as a stand alone product since your subscriber list would drop dramatically. That's to even stay equal to now when they're already losing money.

Not sure if I've posted this. Seems optimistic

"Levy, who's now chairman of data firm Genius Sports, said he thinks Disney can get 30 million customers to pay $30 a month for streaming ESPN, or more than double the cost for a standard Netflix subscription. That would bring in $10.8 billion annually — more than Disney makes today from pay-TV affiliate revenue."

 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
I'm still trying to figure out which of these is going on:

A) The PAC is run by idiots, when they did not take any Big 12 teams a month ago. Big 12 mentioned taking Houston before someone else got their hands on them, which sure sounds like the PAC. Now that the Big 12 appears they may make as much money as them would they even be able to take a Big 12 team at this point? Seems plausible.

B) PAC didn't take any Big 12 teams because Bolsby asked them to allow our conference to stick it to TX/OU and allow our conference to solidify and steal the AAC teams he wants. That way the teams left behind are also in a better situation. Which if this is the case, I'm hoping that also means the rumors of KU/ISU to B1G were true.

The soap opera continues. Sure feels like something else is going to happen by 2024.

I don't claim to know the answer but Tony Altimore who put out the huge report on expansions stated the athletic revenues are dwarfed by each schools endowment and those schools won't move for 10-15M annually. I think 10-15M will understate the difference and it might be more like 30M but we will see.

Any academic benefit for OU and UT was not enough to sway them to the B1G over the SEC. Its mentioned all the time the benefits of the CIC and the research funding that comes from it(is that truth or speculation to the increased funding?). For that fact, it wasn't enough for ND to switch its athletics to the B1G and ND is a good academic school, although the academic institution sure wanted to be part of the CIC even if ND didn't join the B1G for athletics. Fat chance of that happening, lol.

But I think the PAC schools might be different. They might like their clique for academic and political reasons and that might have a couple of ramifications. First it probably has a high chance of keeping 4 schools leaving for the B1G(especially if it isn't all 4 Cali schools which the B1G doesn't probably want). For that fact if the B1G was willing to take 6 schools I would think at least one of those spots need taken by a school in Arizona or Colorado instead of 4 Cali schools and OR/UW. I can't imagine the B1G wants more than 1 northern California school in the mix for tv purposes.

The second ramification might be they really don't want to associate with the B12 schools and won't look to expand from them even if there are positive reasons to do so. Remember last time when it was rumored UT, A&M, OU & OSU were headed to the PAC and then fell through, I believe the PAC rejected taking OU & OSU by themselves. What sense does it make to reject OU with OSU and now the PAC is supposed to want OSU along with a couple Texas schools such as UH & TCU? Even if the PAC had thought UT was never coming, adding OU would have potentially allowed them to try and negotiate to add UT or later to build with the best available Texas schools.

The PAC 12 might just be a different group of schools.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron