Big XII to add schools within days?

[cyIclSoneU]

I figured we would add the new schools effective 2025 and wait for OU and UT to make their next move to leave early. I'm glad that we didn't. We are making the best moves for the conference as a whole. If that means OU and UT want out, they can pay us to do so.

No school has ever spent more than one full season as a conference lame duck. The previous long were schools that announced in September/October and then finished that season plus one more. We couldn't ask the AAC additions to do any more than that. And also this means that OU and UT would break this record if they're still here next season. Which would mean GORs work.

 

[Cyclad]

So the numbers from sicem was encouraging and not awful not as bad as anticipated, still moving parts to happen. If adding two more in Memphis and boise make money and sense then do it. Will be interesting. In the end if our conference has better football teams as a whole versus ACC and PAC then why should they get more?

Eyeballs
Also, they make $ by forcing their networks on to every bodies cable providers whether they get watched or not (reason for Rutgers to BIG). Yes - streaming will impact this, but I assume if ESPN owns the content, they still get $ from the streaming services. I admit, I do not know the landscape ahead.
This is a solid league. Unless we get shut out of the network coverage it has the potential to grow. Best likely scenario for us.

 

[Stormin]

Big 12 made the best decision possible given the circumstances. It is in the best interests of the PAC 12, ACC, and B1G to have a viable Big 12 to counteract the power of the SEC. Big 12 will retain the P5 status and an automatic qualifier. I really do not see how you take that status away under these circumstances.

ESPN appears to have overplayed their hand. Bowlsby could have the smoking gun. Cheaper to pay off the Big 12. Get their inventory of games which is needed. Meantime Texas and Oklahoma will be going to the SEC. Iowa State could actually be in a good position. Win the new Big 12. We should have adequate money to keep Campbell and Staff. This could be a fun league. We really have no other options.

 

[Cyclad]

Big 12 made the best decision possible given the circumstances. It is in the best interests of the PAC 12, ACC, and B1G to have a viable Big 12 to counteract the power of the SEC. Big 12 will retain the P5 status and an automatic qualifier. I really do not see how you take that status away under these circumstances.

ESPN appears to have overplayed their hand. Bowlsby could have the smoking gun. Cheaper to pay off the Big 12. Get their inventory of games which is needed. Meantime Texas and Oklahoma will be going to the SEC. Iowa State could actually be in a good position. Win the new Big 12. We should have adequate money to keep Campbell and Staff. This could be a fun league. We really have no other options.

Excellent post. Agree completely, except I am not positive we will remain a P5. Certainly hope we do, because that has many benefits.
I think theP4 have some motivation for us to go away - split the big pie less ways. I think retaining P5 status is a key to the success of the B12. Fingers crossed.

 

[AuH2O]

Eyeballs
Also, they make $ by forcing their networks on to every bodies cable providers whether they get watched or not (reason for Rutgers to BIG). Yes - streaming will impact this, but I assume if ESPN owns the content, they still get $ from the streaming services. I admit, I do not know the landscape ahead.
This is a solid league. Unless we get shut out of the network coverage it has the potential to grow. Best likely scenario for us.

PAC doesn't get eyeballs very well. That's the thing. Oregon and USC do and the rest mediocre to terrible. You can omit the Texas and Oklahoma games and do a direct comparison of ABC/Fox and ESPN games and ISU and Oklahoma St. were just off of USC and Oregon, and significantly better than the rest of the PAC. BYU will likely be up there as well. Hell, Cincy the last couple of years, same deal. People need to realize that USC and Oregon are good on TV. Utah, UW and UCLA are fine if they win. The rest of the league isn't very good on TV.

Now who knows who jumps into the TV deals. It's a bit of a wild card if CBS jumps back in, Amazon, etc. You could see someone pay something crazy. But anybody thinking the revised Big 12 is going to fall way behind the PAC are simply wrong. The PAC is in trouble. Just like the ACC and Big 10 the top 1/4 or so of the league carries the rest, but unlike the Big 10 they aren't making big money. If viewership is any indication they aren't going to make huge money the next deal either. Whether Oregon and USC make enough outside of media to stay happy will be the key. If not, they will look to bolt.

 

[houjix]

Sounds like a press conference is coming tomorrow and those four are a done deal.

 

[Cloneon]

In person attendance is an indication of who would buy subscriptions or who is ACTUALLY WATCHING tv or streaming. Rutgers/Maryland aren't actually bringing eyeballs compared to dozens of other schools, they brought big cable TV market in the waning years where TV market was calculated that overly simplistic way.

ISU (or Nebraska any other original Big 8 team) brings more in a subscription model than Rutgers beyond any doubt. 60K+ in our stands week after week is an easy way to know that.

The thing is new Big 12 has more than the Pac 12 either way now by adding 100% of Florida and Ohio if the "rutgers" model still hangs on.

If we're in a world where Rutgers brings NYC...the Big 12 just added Ohio and Florida in full and they already had Texas x3. That trio alone exceeds the entire Pac 12 population footprint.

If we're in a world about actual subscription purchases to actually view games regardless of cable market matters...new Big 12 has more actual fans as indicated in part by in person attendance. I think there are huge holes in the ACC by that metric too where half of their programs don't really care or show up.

Cincy might be the worst Big 12 team for "actual eyeballs" but they are probably the #2 team in the conference if people are still in that model where Rutgers is an ultimate cash prize.

Agree. But I'd add that the reason the B12 has such good representation is 'parity'. Kansas is the quantifier in that logic. All the other teams in the B12 have, over recent years, had some level of success. In the other conferences, you have your perennial bottom dwellers which not only correlates to fewer fans, but also to fewer eyeballs with the marque teams. That is why I continue to tout conference fairness which normally correlates to parity. Though OU was consistently at the top, the league presented 'alternative' challengers over the past couple of decades. This is good for the health of a conference and has been one of my arguments of why the B1G should be salivating to acquire ISU.

 

[Stormin]

Excellent post. Agree completely, except I am not positive we will remain a P5. Certainly hope we do, because that has many benefits.
I think theP4 have some motivation for us to go away - split the big pie less ways. I think retaining P5 status is a key to the success of the B12. Fingers crossed.

K-State just whipped Stanford. PAC 12 is actually perceived as possibly the weakest Conference. ACC is not really any better. Big 12 just needs to keep winning the non-conference games. The game with Iowa will be a big one. Iowa State wins and we elevate the profile of the Big 12.

 

[Cloneon]

I live in LA.

Trust me, nobody is actually watching college football on TV or streaming on the west coast. Nobody. I swear I might be the only college football fan I see for weeks at a time in the fall. The only way I see college football fans is if I go right downtown near USC's stadium. I used to live near UCLA's campus and now I live 10 minutes from the Rose Bowl. Nothing. Sometimes go into a bar and no Pac 12 games on TV even. It's just luck if they have it on ESPN, if Big Ten or ACC is on ESPN, they're playing that randomly rather than a Pac game.

There's a lot more to do outside in the fall...it makes them even less likely to watch any TV of any sort, not more likely.

I've only spent a few weeks in the PNW so it might be different up there...there also aren't a ton of people up there which is supposedly what this is all about. Where the people are in the west, they don't watch sports much, especially not college sports.

As mentioned before, when I lived at the beach in L.A. I sought out a bar to watch ISU early, but was on the beach the second the game was over. Pretty much everyone else I knew took the beach over being inside 9 times out of 10. And, of course at night, who'd be watching a game with so much nightlife everywhere? Not I.

 

[KnappShack]

PAC doesn't get eyeballs very well. That's the thing. Oregon and USC do and the rest mediocre to terrible. You can omit the Texas and Oklahoma games and do a direct comparison of ABC/Fox and ESPN games and ISU and Oklahoma St. were just off of USC and Oregon, and significantly better than the rest of the PAC. BYU will likely be up there as well. Hell, Cincy the last couple of years, same deal. People need to realize that USC and Oregon are good on TV. Utah, UW and UCLA are fine if they win. The rest of the league isn't very good on TV.

Now who knows who jumps into the TV deals. It's a bit of a wild card if CBS jumps back in, Amazon, etc. You could see someone pay something crazy. But anybody thinking the revised Big 12 is going to fall way behind the PAC are simply wrong. The PAC is in trouble. Just like the ACC and Big 10 the top 1/4 or so of the league carries the rest, but unlike the Big 10 they aren't making big money. If viewership is any indication they aren't going to make huge money the next deal either. Whether Oregon and USC make enough outside of media to stay happy will be the key. If not, they will look to bolt.

The media partner jumping in part is interesting. There are partners that seem like they would be a good fit. CBS and NBC as linear with a growing streaming brand.

Could the PAC network be rolled into CBS/Paramount+ like the WWE Network was with Peacock?

Maybe Peacock could have the same game plan.

This isn't all that different than rolling the Big 12 tier 3 into ESPN+

It's my understanding the PAC owns that network and went without a broadcast partner. They could pivot quickly if something (anything?!?) presented itself as an opportunity

 

[Halincandenza]

Big 12 made the best decision possible given the circumstances. It is in the best interests of the PAC 12, ACC, and B1G to have a viable Big 12 to counteract the power of the SEC. Big 12 will retain the P5 status and an automatic qualifier. I really do not see how you take that status away under these circumstances.

ESPN appears to have overplayed their hand. Bowlsby could have the smoking gun. Cheaper to pay off the Big 12. Get their inventory of games which is needed. Meantime Texas and Oklahoma will be going to the SEC. Iowa State could actually be in a good position. Win the new Big 12. We should have adequate money to keep Campbell and Staff. This could be a fun league. We really have no other options.

I wouldn't be so sure about P5 and auto qualifier.

 

[AuH2O]

Excellent post. Agree completely, except I am not positive we will remain a P5. Certainly hope we do, because that has many benefits.
I think theP4 have some motivation for us to go away - split the big pie less ways. I think retaining P5 status is a key to the success of the B12. Fingers crossed.

The problem for ESPN is that they have so much infrastructure and CRAZY dollars tied up in carriage fees. So they are highly motivated to make sure they have subscribers in a way that dwarfs Fox, BTN, etc. If ESPN (and to a lesser extent Fox) feel like relegation/promotion of teams is going to cost them subscriptions, then they are going to do everything they can to try to keep as many teams at a level where they are at least playing at the same division/level and playing games that are relevant to the playoff structure.

I used to think maybe that ESPN wanted to push some smaller league, but when you look at their infrastructure and carriage fees, it seems clear they would want the opposite. Getting OU and UT in the SEC cements their future league as clearly the best. Their play with the AAC was not just about getting the rest of the Big 12 to go away and be quiet. It was rather a play that a new AAC/Big 12 that they would own rights to could still be an autobid team in an expanded playoff and give them playoff-relevant games to put on ESPN2, ESPNU, Friday nights, etc. So it gives ESPN full rights to conferences with two of the autobids and assumes the SEC will dominate at-large, which they will. It makes no sense that ESPN would want to squeeze out the AAC/Big 12 from the playoff to open up an at-large spot that the SEC may or may not get.

The conferences can want fewer ways to split up the pie all they want, but ultimately the media companies decide how much value each teams have. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. ESPN holds the power, but they also have huge risk.

 

[AuH2O]

Agree. But I'd add that the reason the B12 has such good representation is 'parity'. Kansas is the quantifier in that logic. All the other teams in the B12 have, over recent years, had some level of success. In the other conferences, you have your perennial bottom dwellers which not only correlates to fewer fans, but also to fewer eyeballs with the marque teams. That is why I continue to tout conference fairness which normally correlates to parity. Though OU was consistently at the top, the league presented 'alternative' challengers over the past couple of decades. This is good for the health of a conference and has been one of my arguments of why the B1G should be salivating to acquire ISU.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the Big 10 should be salivating to add ISU. I think ISU would be a fine add for the Big 10 projecting long-term in terms of media. But I don't think the Big 10 has much reason to try to get too far out in front of getting a team on board. They have the luxury to wait until a program has established themselves as a good brand without a doubt before they need to bring them on.

I DO think the PAC should be falling all over themselves to add ISU and Oklahoma St. They need to get their teams in the viewership of some passionate fanbases. It's two teams that will instantly be in the top 1/3 of the league in on-the field performance and TV viewership.

While the gross value of ISU in the Big 10 is probably significantly more than it would be in the PAC, the relative value ISU would bring to the PAC is much higher than it would be in the Big 10.

 

[Cloneon]

The problem for ESPN is that they have so much infrastructure and CRAZY dollars tied up in carriage fees. So they are highly motivated to make sure they have subscribers in a way that dwarfs Fox, BTN, etc. If ESPN (and to a lesser extent Fox) feel like relegation/promotion of teams is going to cost them subscriptions, then they are going to do everything they can to try to keep as many teams at a level where they are at least playing at the same division/level and playing games that are relevant to the playoff structure.

I used to think maybe that ESPN wanted to push some smaller league, but when you look at their infrastructure and carriage fees, it seems clear they would want the opposite. Getting OU and UT in the SEC cements their future league as clearly the best. Their play with the AAC was not just about getting the rest of the Big 12 to go away and be quiet. It was rather a play that a new AAC/Big 12 that they would own rights to could still be an autobid team in an expanded playoff and give them playoff-relevant games to put on ESPN2, ESPNU, Friday nights, etc. So it gives ESPN full rights to conferences with two of the autobids and assumes the SEC will dominate at-large, which they will. It makes no sense that ESPN would want to squeeze out the AAC/Big 12 from the playoff to open up an at-large spot that the SEC may or may not get.

The conferences can want fewer ways to split up the pie all they want, but ultimately the media companies decide how much value each teams have. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. ESPN holds the power, but they also have huge risk.

What doesn't seem to have been talked about enough is the 'anti-trust' scenario you just described. They control both the market and the medium. That's similar to AOL buying Time Warner which despite happening came under tremendous scrutiny. And, though not a lot of people are aware, Microsoft floated Apple for a brief time back when Microsoft was being considered a monopoly. I see this as even more manipulative. If that's the case, it's just another reason for them to float the B12. There's so much in the stew it's hard to predict how it'll taste.

 

[greatshu]

This round of alignment is FAR from over. OU and UT wants Big12 to dissolve but this expansion gives conference stability for foreseeable future. I still think ISU and KU will eventually make their way to BIG in next 12 to 24 months and exit in 2025.

 

[CloneJD]

I wouldn't be so sure about P5 and auto qualifier.

Nothing is a certainty but our p5 status is written in ncaa bylaws and we have the same playoff access as the others in the current structure and the most recent proposal. Dennis Dodds piece talks about it a bit more.

 

[carvers4math]

The best way to keep P5 is for someone not OU or Horns Down to win conference and make playoffs, preferably us.

I certainly hope Big 12 refs don’t keep helping the OuT teams

 

[Clonehomer]

Excellent post. Agree completely, except I am not positive we will remain a P5. Certainly hope we do, because that has many benefits.
I think theP4 have some motivation for us to go away - split the big pie less ways. I think retaining P5 status is a key to the success of the B12. Fingers crossed.

I think the pressure is now back to the PAC. If their new TV package isn't good, then I think 4 PAC schools start looking at the Big10. That could leave the AZ, ASU, CU, UT group available for the Big12 to get to 16. Maybe even grab a couple more to get to 18 depending on who goes to the Big10? Basically, everyone outside of the schools in Washington and Oregon would fit nicely into a Western division.

 

[Stormin]

I wouldn't be so sure about P5 and auto qualifier.

Seriously? And what would be the basis for yanking P5 Status? Texas has largely been absent from Big 12 Championships. And there have been serious challenges to Oklahoma’s Championships. Iowa State won the Regular Season and narrowly lost in the Conference Championship and finished as a Top Ten Team and won their Fiesta Bowl Game versus PAC 12 Champion Oregon. Tell me how you just yank away P5 status and state the reasons for doing so.

 

[KnappShack]

Dodds has had some good stuff. This tells me that I have no idea what the end game is here....

The 4 adds make sense. Additional adds look desperate to me. Unless there is some kind of plan