Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[FinalFourCy]

CBS and NBC do. Also again NFL and college are different.

Plus Netflix doesn’t have NFL playoffs, just regular season. Amazon started off regular season only

The fact Amazon was willing to pay a premium to get BIG rights and Apple made an offer for PAC 10 should stop this misinformation about duality and espn having CFP keeping other entrants away

Most of the gap is simply from the fact the inventory outside the P2 is not as valuable.

That’s not to say espn wasn’t able to leverage a good deal out of the Big 12, given the dynamics of playing three mid-tier conferences against each other

 

[cykadelic2]

Good luck successfully arguing that this minority bloc (in terms of constituent voters) has been destroyed while making more than ever before, with schools having the best access to top college football postseason

It sucks for us, but the consolidation of big brands adds value to the collective worth of CFB by making the sport more national, facilitating more big ratings, and better product identification.

Going back to very regional 8 or 10 team conferences lowers the total TV revenue when most of the nation DGAF about the legacy PAC, Big 8, SWC , Big East, and ACC conferences.

We saw what happened when the PAC 10 went to market. There is no white knight media provider coming to save the old era. It has nothing to do with CFP rights, either. Stop propagating that misinformation.

No media company stepped up to create a 3rd conference that was a peer to to P2 out of ACC, Big 12, and PAC. Yet, you think they’re going to want in the rump version of these conferences?

Simple response to your foolish rant => Copy what the NFL does with rights aggregation and bidding processes and the sport of CFB becomes richer and much better for all 70 existing P4 schools.

The ONLY reason for the 4 existing oversized clustereff conferences is for the benefit of ESPN and Fox and their obvious goal is to destroy 25-30 more athletic departments. The only benefit from this needless consolidation was a few more attractive regular season matchups, that was it. Every other sport gets effed up in the process.

And the PAC never really went to market. Once USC and Fox decided to they would go to the B10, they were dead. An orchestrated manipulation of PAC destruction by Fox and their puppet B10. Next up for Fox and ESPN are the B12 and ACC and unfortunately, that includes ISU. But I am confident that destruction will be averted by 2030.

 

[cykadelic2]

Plus Netflix doesn’t have NFL playoffs, just regular season. Amazon started off regular season only

The fact Amazon was willing to pay a premium to get BIG rights and Apple made an offer for PAC 10 should stop this misinformation about duality and espn having CFP keeping other entrants away

Most of the gap is simply from the fact the inventory outside the P2 is not as valuable.

That’s not to say espn wasn’t able to leverage a good deal out of the Big 12, given the dynamics of playing three mid-tier conferences against each other

Amazon was a sublicense deal for Fox like CBS and NBC were. Nobody in mainstream media knew it at the time until John Ourand broke the news.

Fox owns all B10 rights into the 2030s and did so prior to the NBC and CBS deals.

 

[Clonedogg]

It was never going to be an equal split no matter what size the pie was. And do you have a link or anything that reports that FOX wasn't allowed to bid?

I'm pretty sure the CFP decided to not go to open market, and just re-upped with the current contract partners. That's why everyone was surprised, they didn't even see what the market would bear on a 12 team playoff.

 

[2speedy1]

Yeah, it is also truth that the total revenue pie was lower than it should have been because of ESPN being the sole bidder, thus the resulting and intensified bullying from the SEC and B10 on unequal revenue sharing of that reduced pie.

While I am not saying you are wrong in this instance, your idea that if someone is the sole bidder makes it automatically a low bid is wrong.

Anyone that has taken part in an auction/bidding process knows that if you dont want to get in a bidding war, you bid higher to start than anyone else wants. In the end it may be higher than anyone is willing to go, or it could just be higher than anyone else wants to start, for fear if it gets into a bidding war it will quickly go higher than they want.

If you overbid to keep others out, then sublicense part of the product to the others interested it allows you to keep control of the product and what you want to have choice over, while giving others parts you are willing to let go. It also could be that others did not want or have the cash to pay for the entire product, but hoped to only bid on a part of it. So when ESPN bid on the entire content, it prevented them from bidding on part, and put them in a position to bid on a sublicense.

Again, not saying you are actually wrong, in this case, just that saying there is only one bidder means it is low is not necessarily correct. In a bidding war you are right it "could" have went higher, but in the end there really is no guarantee that it would have.

 

[cykadelic2]

While I am not saying you are wrong in this instance, your idea that if someone is the sole bidder makes it automatically a low bid is wrong.

Anyone that has taken part in an auction/bidding process knows that if you dont want to get in a bidding war, you bid higher to start than anyone else wants. In the end it may be higher than anyone is willing to go, or it could just be higher than anyone else wants to start, for fear if it gets into a bidding war it will quickly go higher than they want.

If you overbid to keep others out, then sublicense part of the product to the others interested it allows you to keep control of the product and what you want to have choice over, while giving others parts you are willing to let go. It also could be that others did not want or have the cash to pay for the entire product, but hoped to only bid on a part of it. So when ESPN bid on the entire content, it prevented them from bidding on part, and put them in a position to bid on a sublicense.

Again, not saying you are actually wrong, in this case, just that saying there is only one bidder means it is low is not necessarily correct. In a bidding war you are right it "could" have went higher, but in the end there really is no guarantee that it would have.

The only reason there was a sublicense to WBD for two games is that those two games were scheduled against NFL games, who is one of ESPN's partners.

And if it wasn't a such a ridiculous lowball bid, the SEC and B10 wouldn't have bullied the ACC and B12 into taking far less CFP money, so much so that it cost ISU $5M/yr and the postponement of renovating the AIA facility for wrestling.

Since ISU is JP's last job, maybe he can be the lead witness in a potential court case vs ESPN/SEC/Fox/B10. He doesn't care about the backlash and perhaps has been the most publicly outspoken regarding the ongoing BS from those 4 parties although he has been careful not to publicly implicate ESPN and Fox separately so far.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The only reason there was a sublicense to WBD for two games is that those two games were scheduled against NFL games, who is one of ESPN's partners.

And if it wasn't a such a ridiculous lowball bid, the SEC and B10 wouldn't have bullied the ACC and B12 into taking far less CFP money, so much so that it cost ISU $5M/yr and the postponement of renovating the AIA facility for wrestling.

Since ISU is JP's last job, maybe he can be the lead witness in a potential court case vs ESPN/SEC/Fox/B10. He doesn't care about the backlash and perhaps has been the most publicly outspoken regarding the ongoing BS from those 4 parties although he has been careful not to publicly implicate ESPN and Fox separately so far.

I’m gonna push back on the middle part, even if the bid was double what it is the SEC and Big Ten still would have 100% pushed for the ACC and Big Ten to take less money.

Which I’m also sure you know so that really has nothing to do with the “bid” that you still thing is too low regardless of lack of data to support it.

 

[cykadelic2]

I’m gonna push back on the middle part, even if the bid was double what it is the SEC and Big Ten still would have 100% pushed for the ACC and Big Ten to take less money.

Which I’m also sure you know so that really has nothing to do with the “bid” that you still thing is too low regardless of lack of data to support it.

LOL, a bid and rev share that results in B12 schools taking a $5M annual reduction from the US's 2nd most valuable sports TV property is a function of both a lowball single bid and resulting bullying by SEC/B10.

It is really weird that some of you are unable to process that multiple bidders for CFP rights would drive up the price of those rights like it does for the rights of every other major sports property.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Except there is precedent.

The NCAA re-upped with CBS/Turner (at the time) for men's basketball tournament rights without going to market. They also re-upped with ESPN for their championship portfolio (FCS football and Olympic sports) without going to market.

Sometimes there's value in doing business with the partner you know even if you don't get every single penny you can.

FOX's lack of a viable streaming service also hurts them as leagues look into the future.

WBD was knee deep in NBA rights negotiations and couldn't commit the money when they needed to.

Amazon/Apple/Netflix aren't viable as standalone rights holders yet.

 

[fcclone]

Sorry but equally splitting the money makes zero sense and would be completely unfair. The only reason ESPN bid whatever it was, $6.8 billion, was because of the SEC and B1G. Just the truth.

I haven’t read most of these comments but I did find it amusing that you commented that it ’would be completely unfair’.

Now we are concerned about fairness?

 

[cykadelic2]

Except there is precedent.

The NCAA re-upped with CBS/Turner (at the time) for men's basketball tournament rights without going to market. They also re-upped with ESPN for their championship portfolio (FCS football and Olympic sports) without going to market.

Sometimes there's value in doing business with the partner you know even if you don't get every single penny you can.

FOX's lack of a viable streaming service also hurts them as leagues look into the future.

WBD was knee deep in NBA rights negotiations and couldn't commit the money when they needed to.

Amazon/Apple/Netflix aren't viable as standalone rights holders yet.

Having a precedent doesn't remove the fact that a lowball CFP bid and SEC/B10 revshare bullying resulted in ISU taking a $5M hit which is unfathomable given rising live sports rights for other sports properties. And last I checked, ISU hasn't taken a revenue hit due to NCAA MBB tourney contract negotiations.

 

[FinalFourCy]

The only reason there was a sublicense to WBD for two games is that those two games were scheduled against NFL games, who is one of ESPN's partners.

And if it wasn't a such a ridiculous lowball bid, the SEC and B10 wouldn't have bullied the ACC and B12 into taking far less CFP money, so much so that it cost ISU $5M/yr and the postponement of renovating the AIA facility for wrestling.

Since ISU is JP's last job, maybe he can be the lead witness in a potential court case vs ESPN/SEC/Fox/B10. He doesn't care about the backlash and perhaps has been the most publicly outspoken regarding the ongoing BS from those 4 parties although he has been careful not to publicly implicate ESPN and Fox separately so far.

The P2 was going to, and will, bully everyone else regardless of how much the winning CFP bid.

How did ISU lose $5 million from the CFP bid? That’s on JP- spending CFP money before the CFP goes to market and actually has a deal? What next, he’s going to budget based on the same professor that told the PAC they’re worth $50/year ?

What cost ISU money is realignment and needing to help pay for adding schools

Are you trying to kill ISU? It wouldn’t be JP that deals with the backlash, it would be ISU and the Big 12

 

[Clonedogg]

LOL, a bid and rev share that results in B12 schools taking a $5M annual reduction from the US's 2nd most valuable sports TV property is a function of both a lowball single bid and resulting bullying by SEC/B10.

It is really weird that some of you are unable to process that multiple bidders for CFP rights would drive up the price of those rights like it does for the rights of every other major sports property.

I think even if the CFP got double, the SEC/B1G would have wanted a larger %. Just to keep others down, and increase the disparity.

 

[cykadelic2]

How did ISU lose $5 million from the CFP bid? That’s on JP- spending CFP money before the CFP goes to market and actually has a deal? What next, he’s going to budget based on the same professor that told the PAC they’re worth $50/year ?

Are you really that stupid to ask this question and then somehow blame JP?

It's called short-term and long-term budgeting/planning which all CFOs/ADs do as a normal course of business. I don't think any rational B12 or ACC AD would have forecasted the following to occur: 1) an unexpected lowball single bid for the US's 2nd most valuable sports property and 2) resulting bullying from the SEC/B10 for unequal revenue sharing of that less than expected CFP revenue pie.

JP's quote: "We were counting on $5 million more a year from the CFP, which we could then use with the bond counsel to tap into some low interest rate dollars that allowed us to front the wrestling building. When that went away, we didn't have any ability to say, here's how we could pay back that loan, so we couldn't do it."

 

[BCClone]

The P2 was going to, and will, bully everyone else regardless of how much the winning CFP bid.

How did ISU lose $5 million from the CFP bid? That’s on JP- spending CFP money before the CFP goes to market and actually has a deal? What next, he’s going to budget based on the same professor that told the PAC they’re worth $50/year ?

What cost ISU money is realignment and needing to help pay for adding schools

Are you trying to kill ISU? It wouldn’t be JP that deals with the backlash, it would be ISU and the Big 12

I think he means instead of an equal P5 split like before, the sec and big ten are getting a larger share. If the shares were equal, ISU would have 5MM more.

Other way could be that we are taking close to that on a haircut to add the other teams due to the sec and big ten raiding other conferences. There was no way for JP to know this would happen.

 

[CascadeClone]

There are already duopolies in America.

Coca Cola and Pepsi?
Apple and Android?
Boeing and Airbus?

Airbus would be surprised to learn they are an American company.

 

[CascadeClone]

I’m more optimistic big money like PE or Tech saves the sport by buying enough of the rights that it defacto gets major college football to being a single entity.

People hate on PE, but an industry that is cannibalizing itself with arms race spending and prisoner dilemmas, in which schools are struggling to make profit despite $100 to $200 million in revenue, needs some reorganization, even if from those looking to carve out a profit

Here's where PE could help, by providing a single entity to look out for everybody.

You've got a group of universities that could make more money overall (maybe 2x or 3x overall) by collectively negotiating for their media rights, rather than being played off each other by the media rights buyers. Imagine if the NFL let divisions bargain for their rights - the NFC East might make more, but overall everyone is much worse off.

The problem is that the B1G and SEC are making more than the other conferences, so why would they want to join? Even if they got an increase, others get more of an increase and get level with them. There is probably not enough money in the world for them to sign up for that, just more competition.

Maybe PE happens in the event of a superleague rapture- the top 20ish brands break off from the SEC and B1G, and then the left-behinds have to band together with the Big12 and ACC also-rans. Then you have ~40-50 teams, too many for a single conference, but all under the same PE umbrella, could get some good money by collectively bargaining.

 

[MugNight]

Maybe I’m a tin foil hat weirdo, but I saw the SEC propaganda wheels turning before selection and again after the first round blowouts of Indiana and SMU.

First it was posturing for 3 loss (two to unranked teams) Alabama. Then Lane Kiffin was saber rattling for his 3 loss Ole Miss (2 to unranked teams, plus a non-conference meat grinder of MTSU, Ga Southern, and Furman). Funny to see radio silence after Tennessee’s ass kicking.

I’m convinced these little narratives are calculated moves to sow doubt and consolidate power in the court of public opinion. It’s not about merit anymore. It’s not an equal footing.

When the system isn’t benefitting them, they won’t look inward and improve themselves. Instead they’ll reject the system and turn the screw further in their favor.

 

[isucy86]

Sorry but equally splitting the money makes zero sense and would be completely unfair. The only reason ESPN bid whatever it was, $6.8 billion, was because of the SEC and B1G. Just the truth.

How would it be unfair? For the entirety of the 4 team playoff the money was split equally among the P5 conferences. So for over a decade that formula was acceptable, even though the SEC and Big10 put more teams in the playoff.

So if in 5 years when Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Oregon, etc demand a bigger CFP payout split vs. the other Big10 schools that don't put teams in the 12 team CFP, that will be fair? I doubt Iowa, Purdue, MD, Rutgers, UCLA fans will feel that's fair!

What's after that? OSU, Michigan, Penn State, etc. demand a bigger share of the Big10 Media rights deal because their game TV ratings are double or triple the Hawks, Boilermakers, etc. After-all FOX, NBC and CBS are bidding $1B annually to show the Buckeyes and Wolverines vs. the Hawks. So I guess that's fair?

Sure the CFP power play by the Big12/SEC is better for those 2 conferences. It tilts the playing field toward those 2 conferences. But do you really think the Big10/SEC greed is better for College Football as a product? Do you think it will grow interest, attendance and viewership over the next decade?

 

[Sigmapolis]

I've always hated we call it "realignment."

Like you're moving from the NFL West to the NFL South out of scheduling convenience.

Going from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten isn't "realignment."

It's joining an entirely different league (even if that league has some common rulesets, games, and notionally a combined championship with some other rival leagues) most importantly with its own TV contract.

The Jacksonville Jaguars aren't making any more money if they realign to the NFL East with some big-name draws for the TV contract like the Cowboys, Eagles, and whatever we call the DC team.

But if Florida St. ends up in the SEC then everything changes for them.