Unless they played ISU, I haven't watched a single Mizzou, Nebraska or Texas A&M bball or football game in the last 10 years. Same will be true for OU and Texas.
What if AD's value regional rivalires this time around...
- Thread starter cymonw1980
- Start date
Customers are a long-term and renewable resource to be cultivated.
Not a nonrenewable one to be strip mined while you still can.
Lotta sectors have learned that (or will learn that) the hard way.
As said before, unless an additional school, say TCU, adds $50 million-plus in TV revenue to Fox and the B10, they do not bring a financial benefit to the other members as their B10 distribution is already that number plus.
People are not going to tune in to see Ohio State v. TCU over the Bucks v. Michigan State or Minnesota, to my way of thinking. And TCU v. Illinois or Rutgers is not going to gather much interest or ad dollars.
So, the net revenue gain is likely near zero, more likely negative, by adding the Frogs, which would be the best available Texas program. Their share of the revenue distribution at year's end would mean a lower return to the other members, thus adding them is a non-starter.
Last edited:
I wish they could blow it all up and reset the conference alignments to about what they were in 1990.
I wondered if the Olympics were bad because of the time difference and NBCs insistence on showing very little variety.
Fixed it for you. In order to have "rational" regional rivalries and regional conferences, everybody needs to get an equal split of the TV money. When certain conferences can command much better TV deals than other conferences, those big TV deal conferences will need to be convinced that it is in their best interest to share their money with others who don't make nearly as much.
At this point, apparently no has made a convincing argument.
Timezone differential hasn't hurt the Olympics this badly in the past. As far as 'variety', maybe the SEC is following suit.
Agree to an extent. Yes rutgers, md happened due to money, tx/ou happened for money.
But... it doesn't mean that every decision good for the bottom line is also going to lead us toward a super conference with all the "others / non-brands" left out. I had much the same view as you do when I started to break down likely outcomes...
However, this weekend I spoke with a friend who works for a large acc school and knows about some (not all) of the conversations that are happening on this topic within the acc and with media partners / potential media partners. To me, it sounded like much of this is very fluid right now - nothing is guaranteed. But it was also interesting to hear that it sounded like TICKET revenue and desirable MATCH UPS for streaming partners, were becoming a bigger piece of the conversations (vs. cable boxes before - this is good for us). Decision makers are not as stupid as we may think, they realize that these things matter a lot and will drive revenues in the future.
Does it mean the b10 would not take 6 brands from the pac and create a conference ranging from coast to coast? No. But they are more likely to consider potential value of match-ups and ticket revenues this time around since these are the things that will impact streaming revenue in the future... rutgers brought cable boxes but they are unlikely to bring many eyeballs from the ny/nj media market. Even if they are successful on the field, those markets are not college football markets... they are dominated by pro sports.
The value of a team like wvu to the acc is built in rivals with former big east teams and regional rivals with vt, pitt, and uva.
The value for the big 10 is similar for isu, kan. These are much more valuable to AD's than adding a team 1000 miles away... how many Wash fans make the trip to Neb or Minn (closest current b10 members?).
For any of this to happen though, the Big 12 needs to dissolve. Otherwise, wvu, ISU, Kan will be stuck just like tx, ou. Based on what I can find on what it would take to dissolve the conf, it sounds like that may be as few as 6 schools finding a "Power 4" home... (however, it would be a legal battle for sure - and i am definitely not an expert on this).
So...
WVU > ACC (acc needs to reopen contract asap to get better tv money)
ISU, Kan > B10 (turns out, b10 does value regional rivalries, as long as they are between aau institutions?)
ou/tx > SEC
that's 5 of 10. To get to 6 it will be tricky unless PAC decides it wants to add teams like OSU/TT. Or, would B10 consider KSU (non-AAU) + Mizz from sec and go to 18? Then SEC adds OSU (to get back to 16)? That could get as many as 7 out of 10 in P4 conferences.
This all seems more reasonable to me today than it did last week... but clearly not a done deal....
Ironically, I think the key for us may be for the king makers (the media companies) that are motivated to dissolve the B12. To dissolve the conference and get OU/Tx out early, they may need as few as 6 (or as many as 8) to close the conference down. To do that they need homes for at least 4 of the "Big 8" in order to get a simple majority (6/10). If they need to find homes for 4 of the 8 I think we have a really good chance to make the cut. If they find homes for 6/8 we are basically a sure thing.
Last edited:
Agree with some of this... But who decides how much "new" revenue a school brings to a conference? The media companies...
Who is motivated to tear down the B12 ASAP? ESPN.
The point is, to make the other teams in the conference whole, ESPN needs to add money to the current deals to make them whole. Was the LH Network worth $10M/year? No. ESPN did that to keep the B12 alive last time around....
If ESPN needs 6 votes to dissolve the conference they need to make it worth while for ACC/PAC/B10 to add 4 more teams from the B12 in order to dissolve the league. they can do that and come out ahead.
Using your "$50M" example... ISU / Kan each got 37M from B12 payouts... to get ISU/Kan up to "$50M" that would be +$13M.... I can go into why that is overstating the gap... but let's just keep it simple... +$26M / yr to solve ISU/Kan. WVU is making MORE than ACC schools... So, to get WVU into ACC they basically could pay WVU LESS than they have to pay them if the B12 stays whole until 2025... same for TT/KSU/OSU if some combination of those 3 go to the PAC/ACC.
So, espn can come out ahead while still paying a bit more for a two schools and paying less for a couple others. As long as they can dissolve the B12 and
get ou/tex to sec asap, espn can come out ahead even if they "over pay" for a couple of the teams to leave.
Yeah that seems to be more apt.
It was a little boring watching an outcome that was already shown or viewable online elsewhere.
A lot of people keep saying we shouldn’t be blaming Oklahoma and Texas for this. Well the truth is, they are wrong. They are to blame. They have the opportunity to do what is right and they have chosen not to for their own personal gain. Instead of spearheading a campaign for the betterment of all of college football they chose the easy path. The blue blood programs are the only ones with the ability to make positive change happen and they choose not to.
Who else could start a college football governing body that supports the rights for all 130 D1 teams? Not Iowa State.Collectively those blue blood programs can make that sort ofchange but they won’t. They will continue to be short sighted and only look out for what is best for them in the short term. I hate them both.
Who else could start a college football governing body that supports the rights for all 130 D1 teams? Not Iowa State.Collectively those blue blood programs can make that sort ofchange but they won’t. They will continue to be short sighted and only look out for what is best for them in the short term. I hate them both.
One would think with such an impressive alumni base, that a few of them would actually attend a game or two, considering they are LAST in the Big 10 conference in attendence, about 20,000 less per game than ISU in 2019.
True, but also true is that Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue are making 50 million because of OSU, UM and PU. Just like Arkansas, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky are making the money they do because of LSU, Alabama and Georgia.
While I 100% agree with your opinion, I've yet to hear anyone (outside of the UT and OU fan base) say we should not blame them. I've read dozens and dozens of **** you UT and OU posts on here. And I'm right there with them, even though I think they're Adam and Eve and ESPN is the serpent who had to tempt them to sin.
But that is true for about 80% of the teams in power conferences. Top 20% drive majority of the value.
If ISU goes to another conference they will have those same match-ups (not tx, ou, but clem, fsu, ohio st, mich, usc, ore, etc.). The point is, put them in any power league, ISU has fans that will watch and the power conf have brands that will attract similar eyeballs to tx/ou.
Also, look up the numbers, ISU has had a similar number of people watching as ore, wash in the PAC (two of the top draws in the conf). Even if you exclude OU/Tx ISU is competive with their nubmers.
So, is ISU worth $50M/yr? It depends on how badly espn wants out of the B12, LHN contracts... Again, they will save a lot of money to close down the conference and get a lot of money if they can broadcast tex / tamu, ou/tx every year... there is motivation to over pay 4 schools in order to "under pay" (by your logic) 2 schools and end the B12 conf ASAP.
Also...
Why do the big brands have so many more people watching? It's not just the fan bases of those brands... it is the eco-system of college football. As you eliminate portions of that eco-system the overall value diminishes. They don't care about ISU, but they do want to keep the eco-system as healthy as possible.. we will see what happens... But, I don't think it is a done deal either way...
It's not "is ISU worth $50M/yr"... it's how much is it worth it to ESPN to shut down the conference?
4 yrs x $400M = $1.6B
Last edited:
