Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC

[intrepid27]

I found the perspective of the BIG12 being the "big bad guy" one I never considered before.

Written by the same PR Spin Doctor that suggested KU was a victim of the shoe companies.

 

[AuH2O]

You’ve given some good input this whole time. Curious what you think the most realistic fate we have is.

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 did and would not dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

I agree PAC is most likely (and my most preferred). Not that any of us has any ******* clue what’s going to happen, but glad I’m of the same thought process of someone that seems to understand the numbers at least.

 

[HFCS]

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

Only realistic outcome where everyone has a potential gain financially vs doing nothing and not relying on just forming leagues that make geographic/historical/competitive sense.

 

[AuH2O]

This is spot on. The biggest mistake people, specifically reporters, are making currently is stating their industry sources claim so and so "doesn't have value". That is a complete over simplification. Does Texas and OU have value? Sure, they are in a football crazy part of the world, that is growing in population, and they have a history of success. The difference between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State isn't population or cable audiences or that Oklahoma State isn't valuable or whatever, it is that Oklahoma is easier to market. Far less work for ESPN, because the brand is national.

The next round, and there will be another round in the next two years prior to a potential seismic shift within the next decade the way things are progressing, isn't about cable households, that was the last round where it was about forcing people who didn't watch your games to pay for your channel. That's done, these channels are national, this next round will be about who is marketable. Who will increase interest in what I already have.

In the Big 12, none left rival Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, as the big dogs, but neither does any other team in any other conference. That doesn't mean they're worthless.

I pulled all the numbers from last year's tv audiences to get a view of how they could be marketed. I don't have a place to post it all at the moment, so I'll try and keep this simple; of those five, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and West Virginia stood out as the highest potential.

West Virginia (#5 in B12): Closer numbers to the Hawkeye's audience, but draws big numbers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the DMV, far bigger than Pitt, UVA, and Maryland and behind only Penn State/Ohio State in the area. They did that without really playing anyone geographically around them, which reduces interest. Rivalry games are rarely in two different regions.

Oklahoma State (#3 in B12): Surprisingly their numbers put them at about 75% of Oklahoma's draw, which is pretty respectable. Fun fact, the average audience difference between Texas/Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is the same difference between Oklahoma State and Iowa/Nebraska.

Iowa State (#4 in B12): Slightly behind Oklahoma State's numbers, they averaged 500-600k more viewers, per game, than both Iowa and Nebraska, had the largest non-playoff post season audience for both the Big 12 and Big Ten, and they did that by not really playing anyone geographically around them. Like Oklahoma State, their numbers were actually closer to USC/Oregon than Iowa/Nebraska.

(Rounding it out for the curious: Kansas State [6], Texas Tech [7], TCU [8], Baylor [9], and Kansas [10])

As an example, the Big Ten (All other things aside, e.g. AAU, politics, "sources", etc) could add ISU and WVU and market a bunch more games to people already within the footprint they own. WVU would spark Maryland and Penn State and Iowa State could spark Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota. When the average CFB national audience is 2m people, you don't really need a big market to be successful. You just need people, regionally, to care enough to turn on the game.

I could likely write for days on viewership and/or how these media contracts work or how they could really make some money in the next deals, but this is already long enough to induce comas. The TLDR at this point: going forward value is based on marketability, not location. Look for those opportunities.

Good analysis. I think another good comparison is whether you include postseason or exclude it, ISU outdrew the average Fox family of network games in both scenarios. I'd say ISU was pretty evenly represented in network, ESPN, and second tier (ESPN2, FS1 and 2) channels. Of course we also know that Fox had Big 10, Big 12 and PAC games, so it's pretty fair to say that ISU performed well vs. the typical teams in those leagues.

Another addition to your analysis above, both on networks (ABC and Fox) at the same time, ISU and Okie St. outdrew Notre Dame - Pitt. Pitt is not a big draw of course, but this flies in the face of it being only OU and UT that create ratings. Outdrawing ND head to head is a big deal, and shows that Okie St. and ISU have value.

 

[Clonedogg]

This is spot on. The biggest mistake people, specifically reporters, are making currently is stating their industry sources claim so and so "doesn't have value". That is a complete over simplification. Does Texas and OU have value? Sure, they are in a football crazy part of the world, that is growing in population, and they have a history of success. The difference between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State isn't population or cable audiences or that Oklahoma State isn't valuable or whatever, it is that Oklahoma is easier to market. Far less work for ESPN, because the brand is national.

The next round, and there will be another round in the next two years prior to a potential seismic shift within the next decade the way things are progressing, isn't about cable households, that was the last round where it was about forcing people who didn't watch your games to pay for your channel. That's done, these channels are national, this next round will be about who is marketable. Who will increase interest in what I already have.

In the Big 12, none left rival Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, as the big dogs, but neither does any other team in any other conference. That doesn't mean they're worthless.

I pulled all the numbers from last year's tv audiences to get a view of how they could be marketed. I don't have a place to post it all at the moment, so I'll try and keep this simple; of those five, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and West Virginia stood out as the highest potential.

West Virginia (#5 in B12): Closer numbers to the Hawkeye's audience, but draws big numbers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the DMV, far bigger than Pitt, UVA, and Maryland and behind only Penn State/Ohio State in the area. They did that without really playing anyone geographically around them, which reduces interest. Rivalry games are rarely in two different regions.

Oklahoma State (#3 in B12): Surprisingly their numbers put them at about 75% of Oklahoma's draw, which is pretty respectable. Fun fact, the average audience difference between Texas/Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is the same difference between Oklahoma State and Iowa/Nebraska.

Iowa State (#4 in B12): Slightly behind Oklahoma State's numbers, they averaged 500-600k more viewers, per game, than both Iowa and Nebraska, had the largest non-playoff post season audience for both the Big 12 and Big Ten, and they did that by not really playing anyone geographically around them. Like Oklahoma State, their numbers were actually closer to USC/Oregon than Iowa/Nebraska.

(Rounding it out for the curious: Kansas State [6], Texas Tech [7], TCU [8], Baylor [9], and Kansas [10])

As an example, the Big Ten (All other things aside, e.g. AAU, politics, "sources", etc) could add ISU and WVU and market a bunch more games to people already within the footprint they own. WVU would spark Maryland and Penn State and Iowa State could spark Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota. When the average CFB national audience is 2m people, you don't really need a big market to be successful. You just need people, regionally, to care enough to turn on the game.

I could likely write for days on viewership and/or how these media contracts work or how they could really make some money in the next deals, but this is already long enough to induce comas. The TLDR at this point: going forward value is based on marketability, not location. Look for those opportunities.

Interesting... One thought I keep coming back to is that games featuring either Ou or uT, always have the prime TV spots. If you have OKST, ISU, TCU...filling those voids wouldn't the viewership for those games also go up, by "Filling the Void"? It may not be the same right away but overtime it might be close, especially if those teams make some noise in the postseason.

 

[Cyclonepride]

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

Getting into the Big Ten may have a steep short term price, but it won't take long for that to become more lucrative on balance than any other available option.

 

[AuH2O]

I agree PAC is most likely (and my most preferred). Not that any of us has any ******* clue what’s going to happen, but glad I’m of the same thought process of someone that seems to understand the numbers at least.

The only thing I'm certain of is that if JP comes out telling us about an agreement to join the AAC I'm bringing the jackhammer up to the ISU's Mt. Rushmore and taking him off.

If he comes out to say that we've joined the Big 10 and don't have to give up much in terms of media rights, I'm taking the jackhammer up to clear off whatever other three heads are up there so JP can have it all to himself.

 

[Cloneon]

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

"... conferences being around long enough ..." If that's true, the most logical approach in any scenario is to strategize the 'post conference' era and the best method for getting there. My ideas range from rebranding ISU to 'The Cyclones', aligning with major national sponsors (eg Amazon), introduce the 'Entertainment District' as a hub of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, continue to promote the Jack Trice story, and emphasize Iowa State's impact on the world today (ie digital computer). I'm sure all of you have additional ideas which could place even more focus on Cyclones and the surrounding Iowa State community.
I know ... waaayy out of the box thinking and way into the future, but gotta start somewhere.

 

[JP4CY]

Living down here in Orlando I can tell you that stinks of UCF fandom.

The local radio down here has been absolutely convinced that the AAC is the big dog and need to be raiding the Big XII. The common theme is that the Big XII stole WVU and TCU so turn about is fair play.

The local blowhards also see UCF as VASTLY superior to any of the remaining 8. There is a level of delusional down here only rivaled by the chest pounding found in Iowa City.

That's a weird thought. UCF was in the C-USA and then joined up with what was left of the Big East schools post realignment/Big East saying that they were done with football dictating their conference.
I could see it more if UCF was ever a member in the Big East.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Here is a report looking at the TV data back to 2015. We placed 40th overall, but it would be interesting to see where we would place over the last 3 not 5 years.

In his first article he looked at value of the teams, now there is no way in hell any AD, conference commissioner or Tv executive would rank S. Carolina, Iowa and Arkansas ahead of USC, Oregon and Washington, all things being equal, but this guy does. He linked his first article inside the second.

Man this guy hates ISU.

Which college football programs bring in the most TV viewers? | by Zach Miller | Zach Miller | Aug, 2021 | Medium

 

[cykadelic2]

The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.

Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:

- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.

Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.

I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.

I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.

A couple of comments about Pac12:

1) They have got to make a decision sooner than later on the future of PACN. Sell it to a new entrant like Apple? Decommission it completely? Keep FB on it? Use it only for non-rev sports? I think they are completely hosing themselves if they keep it as-is with FB.

2) If the P12 and B12 merge or enter into an Alliance and aggregate their FB inventory on the open market, FB on PACN cannot be part of that offer if the goal is to max out payouts.

3) Like the B12, they absolutely need at least two legit bidders beyond ESPN and Fox (e.g. CBS/Paramount+, NBC/Peacock, Apple+, Amazon Prime). If ESPN and Fox are the only legit bidders, both conferences are hosed.

4) To keep USC happy, the P12 needs to be creative with future revenue distributions whether as-is or merged with the B12. My idea would be 75% of the pool shared equally and 25% distributed based on TV ratings and Streaming numbers (50/50 split may be viable as well). B12 should do likewise if they remain intact and separate from the P12.

 

[AuH2O]

A couple of comments about Pac12:

1) They have got to make a decision sooner than later on the future of PACN. Sell it to a new entrant like Apple? Decommission it completely? Keep FB on it? Use it only for non-rev sports? I think they are completely hosing themselves if they keep it as-is with FB.

2) If the P12 and B12 merge or enter into an Alliance and aggregate their FB inventory on the open market, FB on PACN cannot be part of that offer if the goal is to max out payouts.

3) Like the B12, they absolutely need at least two legit bidders beyond ESPN and Fox (e.g. CBS/Paramount+, NBC/Peacock, Apple+, Amazon Prime). If ESPN and Fox are the only legit bidders, both conferences are hosed.

4) To keep USC happy, the P12 needs to be creative with future revenue distributions whether as-is or merged with the B12. My idea would be 75% of the pool shared equally and 25% distributed based on TV ratings and Streaming numbers (50/50 split may be viable as well). B12 should do likewise if they remain intact and separate from the P12.

I think a lot of schools would be in favor of a hybrid revenue model with some metric-based incentives. As long as the schools can agree on the metrics. If a league is pretty top-heavy, a 75/25 model like you describe would be pretty lucrative for the top schools.

If there's anything that will shake up the Big 10, in my opinion it would be the SEC implementing something like that, and schools like Alabama start blowing Ohio State's revenues out of the water. It's one thing to be all for equal distribution when you are keeping up on and off the field pretty well. If tOSU starts really lagging the top dogs in the SEC, look out. That's why all these fans of every school not named tOSU, PSU and Michigan in the Big 10 need to understand what a tenuous position pretty much everyone except the bluebloods may find themselves very soon.

 

[knowlesjam]

Here is a report looking at the TV data back to 2015. We placed 40th overall, but it would be interesting to see where we would place over the last 3 not 5 years.

In his first article he looked at value of the teams, now there is no way in hell any AD, conference commissioner or Tv executive would rank S. Carolina, Iowa and Arkansas ahead of USC, Oregon and Washington, all things being equal, but this guy does. He linked his first article inside the second.

Man this guy hates ISU.

Which college football programs bring in the most TV viewers? | by Zach Miller | Zach Miller | Aug, 2021 | Medium

Meh, everyone has an agenda and are going to use the statistics to prove their point. In this case, data from 2015-2019. Just this timeframe boosts Iowa viewers (the 2015 season where they received the extra championship game and pumped up viewer numbers) and a 2015 season at Iowa State that was awful. You can bet the real moneychangers are using current data, trend data, and projected data. This guy is just another guesser.

 

[jdoggivjc]

The only thing I'm certain of is that if JP comes out telling us about an agreement to join the AAC I'm bringing the jackhammer up to the ISU's Mt. Rushmore and taking him off.

If he comes out to say that we've joined the Big 10 and don't have to give up much in terms of media rights, I'm taking the jackhammer up to clear off whatever other three heads are up there so JP can have it all to himself.

As long as that hammer stays away from Campbell’s face, sure.

 

[NWICY]

Living down here in Orlando I can tell you that stinks of UCF fandom.

The local radio down here has been absolutely convinced that the AAC is the big dog and need to be raiding the Big XII. The common theme is that the Big XII stole WVU and TCU so turn about is fair play.

The local blowhards also see UCF as VASTLY superior to any of the remaining 8. There is a level of delusional down here only rivaled by the chest pounding found in Iowa City.

Don't know boo about UCF FB, but I would take ISU and give a TD bet without being worried about it. I think this yrs ISU FB team is going to be strong.

 

[AuH2O]

Meh, everyone has an agenda and are going to use the statistics to prove their point. In this case, data from 2015-2019. Just this timeframe boosts Iowa viewers (the 2015 season where they received the extra championship game and pumped up viewer numbers) and a 2015 season at Iowa State that was awful. You can bet the real moneychangers are using current data, trend data, and projected data. This guy is just another guesser.

When you are using averages, I’m not sure why he didn’t use 2020 data.

One thing that’s interesting is that it’s clear that fans from leagues that weren’t playing didn’t tune into other leagues. People pushing for the exclusive league better pay attention to that.

 

[NWICY]

This is spot on. The biggest mistake people, specifically reporters, are making currently is stating their industry sources claim so and so "doesn't have value". That is a complete over simplification. Does Texas and OU have value? Sure, they are in a football crazy part of the world, that is growing in population, and they have a history of success. The difference between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State isn't population or cable audiences or that Oklahoma State isn't valuable or whatever, it is that Oklahoma is easier to market. Far less work for ESPN, because the brand is national.

The next round, and there will be another round in the next two years prior to a potential seismic shift within the next decade the way things are progressing, isn't about cable households, that was the last round where it was about forcing people who didn't watch your games to pay for your channel. That's done, these channels are national, this next round will be about who is marketable. Who will increase interest in what I already have.

In the Big 12, none left rival Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, as the big dogs, but neither does any other team in any other conference. That doesn't mean they're worthless.

I pulled all the numbers from last year's tv audiences to get a view of how they could be marketed. I don't have a place to post it all at the moment, so I'll try and keep this simple; of those five, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and West Virginia stood out as the highest potential.

West Virginia (#5 in B12): Closer numbers to the Hawkeye's audience, but draws big numbers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the DMV, far bigger than Pitt, UVA, and Maryland and behind only Penn State/Ohio State in the area. They did that without really playing anyone geographically around them, which reduces interest. Rivalry games are rarely in two different regions.

Oklahoma State (#3 in B12): Surprisingly their numbers put them at about 75% of Oklahoma's draw, which is pretty respectable. Fun fact, the average audience difference between Texas/Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is the same difference between Oklahoma State and Iowa/Nebraska.

Iowa State (#4 in B12): Slightly behind Oklahoma State's numbers, they averaged 500-600k more viewers, per game, than both Iowa and Nebraska, had the largest non-playoff post season audience for both the Big 12 and Big Ten, and they did that by not really playing anyone geographically around them. Like Oklahoma State, their numbers were actually closer to USC/Oregon than Iowa/Nebraska.

(Rounding it out for the curious: Kansas State [6], Texas Tech [7], TCU [8], Baylor [9], and Kansas [10])

As an example, the Big Ten (All other things aside, e.g. AAU, politics, "sources", etc) could add ISU and WVU and market a bunch more games to people already within the footprint they own. WVU would spark Maryland and Penn State and Iowa State could spark Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota. When the average CFB national audience is 2m people, you don't really need a big market to be successful. You just need people, regionally, to care enough to turn on the game.

I could likely write for days on viewership and/or how these media contracts work or how they could really make some money in the next deals, but this is already long enough to induce comas. The TLDR at this point: going forward value is based on marketability, not location. Look for those opportunities.

Actually this was the 1st post in multiple pages that was any thing more than pure conjecture. Thanks for the time and effort you put into it.

Edit then @AuH2O pops in and put in a good post also.

 

[cykadelic2]

This is spot on. The biggest mistake people, specifically reporters, are making currently is stating their industry sources claim so and so "doesn't have value". That is a complete over simplification. Does Texas and OU have value? Sure, they are in a football crazy part of the world, that is growing in population, and they have a history of success. The difference between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State isn't population or cable audiences or that Oklahoma State isn't valuable or whatever, it is that Oklahoma is easier to market. Far less work for ESPN, because the brand is national.

The next round, and there will be another round in the next two years prior to a potential seismic shift within the next decade the way things are progressing, isn't about cable households, that was the last round where it was about forcing people who didn't watch your games to pay for your channel. That's done, these channels are national, this next round will be about who is marketable. Who will increase interest in what I already have.

In the Big 12, none left rival Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, as the big dogs, but neither does any other team in any other conference. That doesn't mean they're worthless.

I pulled all the numbers from last year's tv audiences to get a view of how they could be marketed. I don't have a place to post it all at the moment, so I'll try and keep this simple; of those five, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and West Virginia stood out as the highest potential.

West Virginia (#5 in B12): Closer numbers to the Hawkeye's audience, but draws big numbers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the DMV, far bigger than Pitt, UVA, and Maryland and behind only Penn State/Ohio State in the area. They did that without really playing anyone geographically around them, which reduces interest. Rivalry games are rarely in two different regions.

Oklahoma State (#3 in B12): Surprisingly their numbers put them at about 75% of Oklahoma's draw, which is pretty respectable. Fun fact, the average audience difference between Texas/Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is the same difference between Oklahoma State and Iowa/Nebraska.

Iowa State (#4 in B12): Slightly behind Oklahoma State's numbers, they averaged 500-600k more viewers, per game, than both Iowa and Nebraska, had the largest non-playoff post season audience for both the Big 12 and Big Ten, and they did that by not really playing anyone geographically around them. Like Oklahoma State, their numbers were actually closer to USC/Oregon than Iowa/Nebraska.

(Rounding it out for the curious: Kansas State [6], Texas Tech [7], TCU [8], Baylor [9], and Kansas [10])

As an example, the Big Ten (All other things aside, e.g. AAU, politics, "sources", etc) could add ISU and WVU and market a bunch more games to people already within the footprint they own. WVU would spark Maryland and Penn State and Iowa State could spark Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota. When the average CFB national audience is 2m people, you don't really need a big market to be successful. You just need people, regionally, to care enough to turn on the game.

I could likely write for days on viewership and/or how these media contracts work or how they could really make some money in the next deals, but this is already long enough to induce comas. The TLDR at this point: going forward value is based on marketability, not location. Look for those opportunities.

Thanks for posting here, Number Monkey! I remember you from the old Big 12 board when David Boren was on his foolish expansion debacle back in 2016.

 

[CascadeClone]

So what specific arguments are you referring to?

You are asserting that you have this information, please let us know

What a bunch of ****-measuring. "Are you an attorney?" "Are you a politician?" Is everyone 8 years old tonight? Is your dad gonna beat up my dad? Good grief. Settle down everyone.

With 0 inside information, but some familiarity with corporate contract bs, here's a simplified swag at "arguments":

ESPN is gonna say, we paid for OU and UT, and 45 conference games. Now you don't have OU and UT, even if you do come up with 45 conference games somehow. So what we bought and paid for isn't what you are giving us, so you broke the contract, and we want to pay less (or none). That's IF the Irate8 doesn't wet the bed and fold the conference first (which is of course what they hope).

The Irate8 will argue back "the only reason we don't have them is you interfered and stole them". It will be up to a judge to decide, based on the contract language (which I haven't seen and would not be qualified to decide anyway) - unless they settle it out of court, which is about a 99.9% chance.

Now can we all be civil please?