Big XII to add schools within days?

[WhoISthis]

My opinion is that what works well in CFB is a schedule that is heavy with regional and traditional ties with an occasional game outside those norms.

Isn't that an argument to add MORE Pac12 teams, not less?

Adding a Pac12 side to the BIG is the most feasible way to preserve regional and traditional ties, as opposed to let the Pac 12 wither to irrelevance, to the point USC and Co have no choice to jump to the SEC or BIG, removing any sense of regionalism or tradition (as the rest of the Pac12 brands worth anything would be in the Big 12).

It is basically bundling the two conference networks, but shedding some of the Pac12 fat to make it work. Maybe they just do that, bundle the two Networks, but I am not sure that is as effective as getting the BTN to be in-market in CA, WA, Oregon, AZ, and CO.

Perhaps USC and Oregon are more confident than OuT, thinking the recent exclusion in the postseason (in both sports) will be solved from an expanded playoffs. In that case, the Pac12 will sign a GOR and be 4th or 5th in revenue until Clemson gets lured (they are much more in the OuT positon)

 

[AuH2O]

Isn't that an argument to add MORE Pac12 teams, not less?

Adding a Pac12 side to the BIG is the most feasible way to preserve regional and traditional ties, as opposed to let the Pac 12 wither to irrelevance, to the point USC and Co have no choice to jump to the SEC or BIG, removing any sense of regionalism or tradition (as the rest of the Pac12 brands worth anything would be in the Big 12).

It is basically bundling the two conference networks, but shedding some of the Pac12 fat to make it work. Maybe they just do that, bundle the two Networks, but I am not sure that is as effective as getting the BTN to be in-market in CA, WA, Oregon, AZ, and CO.

Perhaps USC and Oregon are more confident than OuT, thinking the recent exclusion in the postseason (in both sports) will be solved from an expanded playoffs. In that case, the Pac12 will sign a GOR and be 4th or 5th in revenue until Clemson gets lured (they are much more in the OuT positon)

No, it's an argument to get the teams that actually have interest and not take a game like Indiana-Illinois that might have a little interest due to the traditional and regional tie and swap it out with Illinois-Cal. If you have to expand to the point to minimize swapping out regional games for bad cross-regional games, then you're just having to take too much junk to make it happen.

The most important question is would there be enough motivation (or requirement) to take some undesireable teams from the PAC to get USC and Oregon. I would actually argue that it would be much better for the Big 10 to try to do what they can to help the PAC stay viable on its own as an ally to balance the SEC.

Basically the Big 10 is a strong conference with great media value. The PAC is an unstable, weak conference with low media value. There's a massive gap between the two. If it's to the point that plucking the value out of the conference (USC and Oregon) requires you to take 2/3 or 3/4 of a weak, low-value conference I don't see how it makes any sense for the Big 10.

 

[Neptune78]

Andy Staples in the Athletic had that good college ball article today.......

But believe this:
'So don’t worry about whether the new Big 12 will be a Power 5 league. Instead, only try to realize the truth........'

That's deep.

 

[AuH2O]

Agree, but my question is, what other choice does the Pac12 elite have? Would they pick being SEC satellites for a few million/year more? Because staying in the Pac 12 won't get them that. Adding Big 12 schools wont. I think the decision is almost all on the BIG (although I would much prefer the SEC add the Pac 12 elite)

Why would the BIG do it? Is a good question. Does preserving the BIG-Pac12 romance count for anything? If they can add 8-9 Pac 12 without lowering the BIG side, and it is the best political (can you get only one California state school?) and logistical addition, and the alternative is the Pac 12 elite going to the SEC, why not? I think most presidents would vote to add that huge academic capital and brand, reduce travel (over just 4), if it is no cost to them (only opportunity cost from adding just 4). Trying to integrate just 4 teams from LA to Seattle into a conference from Neb to NJ seems like something the wealthiest conference could give up some revenue to avoid.

Yes, Big 10 holds the cards. I think the Big 10 can say we'll take X teams from the PAC, and that's it. If the CA, OR, WA legislators, or schools themselves make it to big a package deal, then the Big probably says no. I think our main disagreement is that you think you can add 8-9 teams from the PAC and not have the Big 10 take a hit. Adding Cal and Stanford is purely adding mouths to feed that bring zero. In fact it looks like adding them would take whatever game their in (vs. ANY Big 10 team) and you're going to reduce the ratings of that game.

If they can't agree with the Big 10, then the PAC has to look at marginal ways to boost stability and revenue. Heading into the central time zone and getting OSU and ISU are a good start. New footprint for whatever (if any) PAC network, and teams that come with top 1/3 of the league TV ratings. Then maybe look to the Big 10 to beef up non-con scheduling.

But in general I think people are underestimating the gap in Big 10/SEC money and what the PAC will get. It isn't going to be a few million more. It's going to be tens of millions more. The big thing that might keep USC and Oregon resistant to be a satellite to either conference is that they are not nearly as dependent on media dollars as others in the league. For USC to get even an extra $20 mil in media money would be big, but might not be big enough for them to bolt.

 

[WhoISthis]

Yes, Big 10 holds the cards. I think the Big 10 can say we'll take X teams from the PAC, and that's it. If the CA, OR, WA legislators, or schools themselves make it to big a package deal, then the Big probably says no. I think our main disagreement is that you think you can add 8-9 teams from the PAC and not have the Big 10 take a hit. Adding Cal and Stanford is purely adding mouths to feed that bring zero. In fact it looks like adding them would take whatever game their in (vs. ANY Big 10 team) and you're going to reduce the ratings of that game.

If we agree the BIG has all the cards, then why do you think they'll even need to take a hit?
If the math adds up to the incremental add being less than what the BIG will make, there is a solution in which the BIG does not take a hit, but the PAC12 8-9 go significantly up...unequal revenue sharing. Remember the BIG holds the cards, so it doesn't matter if USC thinks they should get WI pay (they could easily allow for that, and pay Cal less). Where else are they going to go that makes them millions more, but keeps their schedule largely the same? Think of it as an alliance or bundling, but getting the BIG inmarket to actually provide real financial gain.

Besides that fundamental difference (the BIG can add value to the Pac12 without losing value), I believe you're underestimating the gain of both the carriage fees, and gain in value the Pac12 has by playing in more market and time zones. There is a reason why the BIG-Pac12 are scheduling more matchups in the Alliance. It helps the Pac12! And even if it hurts the BIG, which I do not think it hurts as much as it gains the Pac12, if at all, doesn't that show your first point is diminished, and the BIG is willing to find a less than max profit solution?

 

[WhoISthis]

No, it's an argument to get the teams that actually have interest and not take a game like Indiana-Illinois that might have a little interest due to the traditional and regional tie and swap it out with Illinois-Cal. If you have to expand to the point to minimize swapping out regional games for bad cross-regional games, then you're just having to take too much junk to make it happen.

That's a false dilemma, and a more likely outcome of adding 4 rather than 8-9.
With a Pac12 side, you just schedule premium matchups, plus the conference title game, while getting in-market. Which is WAY more than $5million/year incremental to the Pac12.

The BIG gives up opportunity cost of adding 4 Pac 12, 4 -6 ACC etc. But like you said, there is value in preserving the regionalism and tradition

 

[AuH2O]

If we agree the BIG has all the cards, then why do you think they'll even need to take a hit?
If the math adds up to the incremental add being less than what the BIG will make, there is a solution in which the BIG does not take a hit, but the PAC12 8-9 go significantly up...unequal revenue sharing. Remember the BIG holds the cards, so it doesn't matter if USC thinks they should get WI pay (they could easily allow for that, and pay Cal less). Where else are they going to go that makes them millions more, but keeps their schedule largely the same? Think of it as an alliance or bundling, but getting the BIG inmarket to actually provide real financial gain.

Besides that fundamental difference (the BIG can add value to the Pac12 without losing value), I believe you're underestimating the gain of both the carriage fees, and gain in value the Pac12 has by playing in more market and time zones. There is a reason why the BIG-Pac12 are scheduling more matchups in the Alliance. It helps the Pac12! And even if it hurts the BIG, which I do not think it hurts as much as it gains the Pac12, if at all, doesn't that show your first point is diminished, and the BIG is willing to find a less than max profit solution?

If you consider unequal revenue sharing then I think that could make sense. I wasn’t getting that out of your post. But if that’s what you’re suggesting as a means for the Big 10 to not take hit I totally agree.

But I’m pretty sure I’m not underestimating carriage fees. I estimated 50% of total households in WA, OR, and CA would pay in market fees. That roughs out to $5-6 mil per team if they add 8 or 9 and get to 22 or 23 teams. That assumes just under current national avg with Sat/Cable, assumes ALL of those subs will get BTN and does not discount anyone in those markets currently getting it. And of course it assumes no further cord cutting or reduction in the carriage fee itself. If anything it seems highly optimistic.

I don’t think the alliance shows any indication of how willing the Big 10 would be to risk taking on low value teams in the PAC. The financial difference in those non con games over the status quo is going to in the noise. Taking on full members is a whole different thing.

 

[Cyclone5050]

It seemed like we have been hearing about invites for Memphis, Houston, SMU and BYU for a while......why is the Big 12 inviting UCF instead of Memphis? Just for Florida market share?

 

[CyLyte2]

Memphis fan base, alumni, market too small.

 

[AppleCornCy]

It seemed like we have been hearing about invites for Memphis, Houston, SMU and BYU for a while......why is the Big 12 inviting UCF instead of Memphis? Just for Florida market share?

Better academics, bigger school, more fans, bigger and faster growing market, better recruiting area, and better football for UCF.

Better basketball and closer geographically for Memphis.

I don’t think it was a tough choice.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Memphis fan base, alumni, market too small.

Plus their history of playing very loosely with the rules. On and off probation since the early 70s and they just hired Larry Brown as an assistant ffs...

 

[Die4Cy]

There's plenty of inertia at this time. I honestly think that the top of the Pac does not want to go elsewhere, for cultural and other practical reasons like time of play and distance. If they had wanted to expand themselves they would be doing it right now with Big 12 teams and they took a pass. I think they understand and may even accept that in that part of the country their product can be as good and still worth less. We in the Big 12 are going to have to come around on that also, it looks like.

The B1G will want some teams from the ACC as better fits for them geographically more than any PAC team. They can bide their time for that. Some ACC teams would never leave, like the NC schools, but there are others the B1G would covet I think.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

The PAC 12 is just so different culturally that at their core I think they'd love to get rid of the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado and just be the PAC 8 again. Play 10 games, send their champ to the Rose Bowl to play a Big Ten team and call it a year.

They're in this weird spot where they're trying to keep up with the Joneses while only being half hearted about it. They've never wanted to be a 'national brand' and now they're stuck there because of the population and TV markets that have exploded out there in the last 60 years.

 

[CyCrazy]

The PAC 12 is just so different culturally that at their core I think they'd love to get rid of the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado and just be the PAC 8 again. Play 10 games, send their champ to the Rose Bowl to play a Big Ten team and call it a year.

They're in this weird spot where they're trying to keep up with the Joneses while only being half hearted about it. They've never wanted to be a 'national brand' and now they're stuck there because of the population and TV markets that have exploded out there in the last 60 years.

O rly? You know this how?

 

[JP4CY]

The PAC 12 is just so different culturally that at their core I think they'd love to get rid of the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado and just be the PAC 8 again. Play 10 games, send their champ to the Rose Bowl to play a Big Ten team and call it a year.

They're in this weird spot where they're trying to keep up with the Joneses while only being half hearted about it. They've never wanted to be a 'national brand' and now they're stuck there because of the population and TV markets that have exploded out there in the last 60 years.

I would have expected this post from UNI1ISU2 but not 1UNI2ISU

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Maybe I'm off but that's just the vibe I get from them. It just doesn't seem like athletics are a big deal and that includes when I've gone to games out there.

Unlike the other one, I am at least self aware enough to realize that I could be reading things wrong.

 

[isucy86]

The PAC 12 is just so different culturally that at their core I think they'd love to get rid of the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado and just be the PAC 8 again. Play 10 games, send their champ to the Rose Bowl to play a Big Ten team and call it a year.

They're in this weird spot where they're trying to keep up with the Joneses while only being half hearted about it. They've never wanted to be a 'national brand' and now they're stuck there because of the population and TV markets that have exploded out there in the last 60 years.

I don't think USC, UCLA or Washington would agree with that statement looking back almost 60 years. All 3 schools strived to be a national brand in FB. Although with UCLA it leans more on its hoops tradition. If we go over the last 20 years, Oregon definitely views themselves as a national brand. Uncle Phil Nike didn't give all that money to Oregon to be a regional player.

Utah is unique in their fans take sports pretty seriously for a west coast school.

Schools like Stanford, Cal, AZ, ASU and Colorado beat to a different drummer for different reasons. But they get behind winning teams. Losing & mediocre teams, not so much.

Oregon State & Washington State are solid schools, but they could just as easily be MWC or WAC schools.

 

[AuH2O]

Plus their history of playing very loosely with the rules. On and off probation since the early 70s and they just hired Larry Brown as an assistant ffs...

Luckily we’ve got Kelvin Sampson in the league.

 

[WhoISthis]

If you consider unequal revenue sharing then I think that could make sense. I wasn’t getting that out of your post. But if that’s what you’re suggesting as a means for the Big 10 to not take hit I totally agree.

But I’m pretty sure I’m not underestimating carriage fees. I estimated 50% of total households in WA, OR, and CA would pay in market fees. That roughs out to $5-6 mil per team if they add 8 or 9 and get to 22 or 23 teams. That assumes just under current national avg with Sat/Cable, assumes ALL of those subs will get BTN and does not discount anyone in those markets currently getting it. And of course it assumes no further cord cutting or reduction in the carriage fee itself. If anything it seems highly optimistic.

I don’t think the alliance shows any indication of how willing the Big 10 would be to risk taking on low value teams in the PAC. The financial difference in those non con games over the status quo is going to in the noise. Taking on full members is a whole different thing.

I'm looking at incremental gain from adding Pac12 inventory to BIG- whatever the BIG will make without the Pac12 is constant, the incremental gain of however many Pac 12 teams is added to the Big 10 Network is added to the inherent Pac12 rev/team. If that combo is more than the BIG rev/team number, the PAC12 adds value to the BIG. If it is less, it would lower value, but I believe they would just do unequal rev sharing in that situation.

Say the best 8 Pac 12 are $35million/team on their own in a hypothetical new deal, and BIG $80 million/team. If rolling/bundling them into the BIG, so that BTN is now in market at $1.30/month in CA, OR, WA, CO etc, how much does that close the gap, ideally to the point it is higher than the BIG (unlikely), but somewhere in between would be a win for the Pac12. Adding the the Pac 12 to the BTN is no risk to the BIG with unequal rev sharing, and only an opportunity cost.

 

[aeroclone]

So this is why I don't understand the rush to add BYU, Cincy, UH, and UCF to the B12. Those schools will always be available to us. But if there is a likelihood of the P12 or ACC getting poached then why don't we let this play out first? I think the ACC and PAC will be well behind the B1G and SEC financially, so it seems very possible that their top tier teams make a move. No matter what that combination looks like, I would rather add remaining PAC or ACC schools to rebuild the B12.

And of course if none of that comes to pass, BYU, Cincy, UH, and UCF will still be there waiting. Again, no rush.