Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

[WhoISthis]

I’m saying fans of ISU/KSU and schools like that are more likely to watch games in the BIG/SEC being part of the bigger club than they would be if relegated.

Then there would also be a segment of the fans if those teams that stop watching their own teams. Lastly, you have fans of other teams that watch teams like ISU when they are good because they are at the same level and there are national implications, to the tune of 2.8 and 2 mil vs OSU and KSU last year. Lots of people watched ISU and Cincy last year.

Do you really think having the inventory of an ISU game isn't worth the $20-25 million per year in carriage fees and ad revenue, and they would just fill more air time with extra replays of SportsCenter and Stephen A. Smith shows?

But you've already said not much are watching now, certainly not enough to worry about if you're saving millions more from not having to pay them (because they don't care about CFB). Are you now changing your mind on that?

Those national implications will just be shifted to teams in the P40-P48.

The total network revenue per team goes up when you chop off any team that brings in below the average. Basic math.

Absolutely- they'll still have us in the slightly better than James Madison role, and as we draw less, they'll pay us less, until. 1-to-1. They aren't giving out money. The fans that won't pay carriage fees because there is no longer KSU football is offset by not having to pay KSU football. The carriage fee draw has been priced into the contract. If the elasticity were different, and KSU actually had that many viewers driving revenue, pulling in viewers, they'd be included. The networks have invested millions on forecasting this. It is coming if they have their way.

In the streaming, cord-cutting world, this is even more true, although will hurt the Rutgers adds, and I imagine someone like Iowa St, hurt primarily from linear in-market redundancy, will take their place.

 

[RedBlooded]

I wonder if North Dakota State will make a jump to the Mountain west.

 

[WhoISthis]

The poster your quoting thinks the 40-48 is popular enough eventually to do away with the remaining 32-40 schools(the number is fluid) eventually.

I don't believe the CFB is popular enough to do it on that limited number of teams.

No, I believe in marginal cost savings. That is it.

And the elasticity improves when doing it over 10-15 years of such unequitable funding.

The sport will also grow and become less regional when going to a top-40 to to-48, North-South polarization.
The NFL is so popular in part because less is more. People generally know the teams and divisions, it does not cannibalize attention on Sundays.

 

[BCClone]

No, I believe in marginal cost savings. That is it.

And the elasticity improves when doing it over 10-15 years of such unequitable funding.

The sport will also grow and become less regional when going to a top-40 to to-48, North-South polarization.
The NFL is so popular in part because less is more. People generally know the teams and divisions, it does not cannibalize attention on Sundays.

Stop comparing to the NFL. It is way too different.
1). There are substitutes in college with a P40. There is not in the NFL

2). People went to these schools and have a more vested interest than an NFL team that they watched.
3). In the NFL you can follow a player (Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers/Adrian Peterson) and know they will be in the league 10-20 years. In college you won’t see them over 3 years if they are very good.

Just three major differences why you can’t compare CFB to the NFL.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I would be careful to just assume that the PAC 12 is a better option than a reconfigured Big 12 even if it loses another team or two. Don't get me wrong, I won't want to remain if we have anymore Hateful 8 defections, but let's see how the TV money actually stacks up before we pray for a PAC 12 invite.

Agree. Big 10 is better. I don’t think PAC 12 is at this point.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I have to admire the outside of the box thinking on some of these scenarios. Couple of points:
1. Kansas isn't coming to the big ten. They bring so little to the table that they would have to take around a 70% cut with the new media deal to get an invite.
2. Big Ten really isn't that interested in moving to the west coast for all the reasons why the Pac is screwed. They also need the other 3 non SEC conferences in place for voting purposes so that they can control the narrative. USC and Oregon would be great fits but it would kill the conference.
3. USC isn't going to the SEC ever. USC doesn't want to associate with them for a number of reasons that don't need to be expanded upon again.
4. Big ten wont consider serious expansion until the ACC GOR is close to up and they have a better idea of the landscape of CFB 8ish years from now after NLI has really started to affect levels of competition.

 

[scyclonekid]

 

[cyIclSoneU]

2. Big Ten really isn't that interested in moving to the west coast for all the reasons why the Pac is screwed. They also need the other 3 non SEC conferences in place for voting purposes so that they can control the narrative. USC and Oregon would be great fits but it would kill the conference.

I don't think it is a sure thing that the Big 12 just votes along with the Alliance without those leagues letting them in. After all, if the Alliance starts scheduling each other and freezing out the SEC and Big 12, those two leagues are likely going to play each other a lot in the non-conference, and the Big 12 will probably realize it needs the SEC to vouch for its inclusion at the big table if the B1G PACC won't do it.

I am holding out hope for a 4-conference Alliance in which every school (more or less) plays an 8+1+1+1+buy game schedule, which would leave the SEC on an island. The B1G-Pac can own the Rose Bowl and the Big 12-ACC can split the Orange.

 

[BCClone]

I have to admire the outside of the box thinking on some of these scenarios. Couple of points:
1. Kansas isn't coming to the big ten. They bring so little to the table that they would have to take around a 70% cut with the new media deal to get an invite.
2. Big Ten really isn't that interested in moving to the west coast for all the reasons why the Pac is screwed. They also need the other 3 non SEC conferences in place for voting purposes so that they can control the narrative. USC and Oregon would be great fits but it would kill the conference.
3. USC isn't going to the SEC ever. USC doesn't want to associate with them for a number of reasons that don't need to be expanded upon again.
4. Big ten wont consider serious expansion until the ACC GOR is close to up and they have a better idea of the landscape of CFB 8ish years from now after NLI has really started to affect levels of competition.

8 years? ACC GoR isn’t up until 2025. Add a year or two to transition and you are saying the big ten isn’t doing anything for 15 years. The SEC will be laughing at the big ten at that point.

 

[BCClone]

I don't think it is a sure thing that the Big 12 just votes along with the Alliance without those leagues letting them in. After all, if the Alliance starts scheduling each other and freezing out the SEC and Big 12, those two leagues are likely going to play each other a lot in the non-conference, and the Big 12 will probably realize it needs the SEC to vouch for its inclusion at the big table if the B1G PACC won't do it.

I am holding out hope for a 4-conference Alliance in which every school (more or less) plays an 8+1+1+1+buy game schedule, which would leave the SEC on an island. The B1G-Pac can own the Rose Bowl and the Big 12-ACC can split the Orange.

Agree. If they think the other three non SEC conferences will just go along while making much less, they will be in for an unpleasant experience.

 

[WhoISthis]

Stop comparing to the NFL. It is way too different.
1). There are substitutes in college with a P40. There is not in the NFL

2). People went to these schools and have a more vested interest than an NFL team that they watched.
3). In the NFL you can follow a player (Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers/Adrian Peterson) and know they will be in the league 10-20 years. In college you won’t see them over 3 years if they are very good.

Just three major differences why you can’t compare CFB to the NFL.

1.) I’m not equating it to the NFL, but it’s silly to say there are shared business and branding concepts. It’s basic marketing 101 stuff
2. Doesn’t matter.. they can stop cheering and become soccer fans. The networks don’t care about getting all fans, they care about fans/$ paid. They know people love north-south polarization, red-blue lines, and will play that up to drive revenue
3.) stop comparing it to the NFL. That wasn’t what I did but it’s definitely what you’re doing

 

[BCClone]

1.) I’m not equating it to the NFL, but it’s silly to say there are shared business and branding concepts. It’s basic marketing 101 stuff
2. Doesn’t matter.. they can stop cheering and become soccer fans. The networks don’t care about getting all fans, they care about fans/$ paid. They know people love north-south polarization, red-blue lines, and will play that up to drive revenue
3.) stop comparing it to the NFL. That wasn’t what I did but it’s definitely what you’re doing

You mentioned the NFL. Why did you bring them up if not comparing them?

 

[WhoISthis]

You mentioned the NFL. Why did you bring them up if not comparing them?

Comparing and equating are far different.
So are equating shared business principals and equating overall.

By nature, they share a lot of marketing concepts. There is no denying that. Product identification and differentiation to begin with.

 

[HFCS]

I wonder if North Dakota State will make a jump to the Mountain west.

At least a dozen FCS teams have made the jump up recently with a lot less success. Seems like over half of CUSA and Sun Belt were FCS not many years ago, several American teams too.

Maybe ND State and Montana love it like it is. I think both would probably help the MWC to be honest. I imagine both programs easily exceed the stadium and attendance requirements.

 

[AuH2O]

But you've already said not much are watching now, certainly not enough to worry about if you're saving millions more from not having to pay them (because they don't care about CFB). Are you now changing your mind on that?

Those national implications will just be shifted to teams in the P40-P48.

The total network revenue per team goes up when you chop off any team that brings in below the average. Basic math.

Absolutely- they'll still have us in the slightly better than James Madison role, and as we draw less, they'll pay us less, until. 1-to-1. They aren't giving out money. The fans that won't pay carriage fees because there is no longer KSU football is offset by not having to pay KSU football. The carriage fee draw has been priced into the contract. If the elasticity were different, and KSU actually had that many viewers driving revenue, pulling in viewers, they'd be included. The networks have invested millions on forecasting this. It is coming if they have their way.

In the streaming, cord-cutting world, this is even more true, although will hurt the Rutgers adds, and I imagine someone like Iowa St, hurt primarily from linear in-market redundancy, will take their place.

I think you are confusing what I said. I did not say that remaining big 12 schools are not watching the Big 10 and SEC. I think there is a substantial number of cross-conference viewership. I think intra-conference and games of regional interest are more appealing, but there certainly is some level of viewership that comes from out of conference fans.

 

[WhoISthis]

I have to admire the outside of the box thinking on some of these scenarios. Couple of points:
1. Kansas isn't coming to the big ten. They bring so little to the table that they would have to take around a 70% cut with the new media deal to get an invite.
2. Big Ten really isn't that interested in moving to the west coast for all the reasons why the Pac is screwed. They also need the other 3 non SEC conferences in place for voting purposes so that they can control the narrative. USC and Oregon would be great fits but it would kill the conference.
3. USC isn't going to the SEC ever. USC doesn't want to associate with them for a number of reasons that don't need to be expanded upon again.
4. Big ten wont consider serious expansion until the ACC GOR is close to up and they have a better idea of the landscape of CFB 8ish years from now after NLI has really started to affect levels of competition.

Longtime realignment fan here, I admit. Better than the games themselves

1.) Maybe not, but perhaps they should be. Between streaming and likely changes to NCAA tournament revenue distribution, this is not only 2010 criteria. Their linear profile is not bad with KC. THere is also the fact the SEC could add them to lure UNC, Duke, UVa etc. KU-UNC basketball have a lot of ties. Those ACC schools lean SEC already, due the SEC brand being stronger, culture, politics, etc. Plus the SEC can always leverage the threat of inviting NC St and Va Tech, whereas I am not sure the BIG can.

2. The Pac12 is screwed because it lacks leverage to get its network in-market on enough subscribers, and years of poor time slots. Rolling 8-9 teams into the BIG (Network) solves both. The Pac12 brands valuation is likely much higher after a few years in the BIG. Adding 8-9 Pac 12 would strengthen the Big 12, as it forces a few Pac 12 teams to that conference.

3.) UT USC is not going to the SEC ever. $40 million per year more changes things.

4.) Will they be afforded that by the SEC? The SEC has leverage with Clemson, UNC, and UVa. They are the kingmakers of college athletics.

 

[khardbored]

That's awesome!!!

 

[WhoISthis]

I think you are confusing what I said. I did not say that remaining big 12 schools are not watching the Big 10 and SEC. I think there is a substantial number of cross-conference viewership. I think intra-conference and games of regional interest are more appealing, but there certainly is some level of viewership that comes from out of conference fans.

I likely was, my apologies, but I don't think it changes anything.

Say the new SEC valuation is an average TV revenue of $80 million/team. How much of that is a result of there still being college football fans from the Big 12 3.0 schools? Maybe $5 million? Certainly less than whatever the networks have to pay the Big 12 schools. Inherently it can't be much given even watching their own school/conference is likely $25 million valuation. Say the Big 12 valuation is $25 million/team, some of which is from the uber CFB passionate SEC and BIG fans, but lets ignore that portion.

Removing the Big 12 college football fans from being college football fans costs 16*5 in this example, but saves $25x12. That covers a lot of $7/month loss from cord cutters in middle of Kansas. That is if all the fans lost don't convert, or at least still watch big matchups. Which we know is false.

Unfortunately perception is powerful. Once it is viewed a P2 world, even the also-rans in the P2 will see a perception and valuation boost. What used to not be worth watching unless a fan of those teams, is now a top-tier matchup.

Imo, the key is for the leftovers to have success in the transition. If low-budget, low-recruiting anomalies like Iowa St, Cincy, and UCF for example, can win in the playoffs or win big non-conference matchups, it limits the ability for the networks to execute the plan. The Big 12, with the exciting style of play and proven success, added large metros, would see improved ratings. Add ACC and Pac12 leftovers but well-know brands in large cities like Phoenix, Pittsburg, Louisville etc and in the transition period the 3rd P3 can close the gap.

 

[scyclonekid]

I say poach the PAC with the blue bloods just go rogue **** it, lol

 

[WhoISthis]

@FriendlySpartan

What do you think about going all in on raiding the ACC? Clemson, GT, FSU, UNC, Duke, UVa, and any other you need to pull that off? Otherwise known as Delaney's wet dream.

Assuming as you say, USC to SEC is no threat.

This ends the SEC hegemony. Sacrifice the ACC to balance things out, but with Maryland also preserving a lot of the ACC. Add PSU and it is what the ACC should have been.

Also gets the BIG a ton of markets for their linear model, streaming and basketball tournament inventory for the future, and into the south population/recruiting area the BIG so desperately needs.

Also, maintains the pipe dream of ND to the BIG.