Did Texas unintentionally save the Big 12?

[cykadelic2]

Can someone explain the underlined sentences below from the OP's linked column?

"ESPN and Fox were also not interested in a land of super conferences. They promised that the Big 12 TV deals would bring in money on par of the Big 10 and SEC. By creating super conferences (conferences with 16 teams or more) it actually cut down available inventory. In other words, there would be less “big money” programs, the programs that bring in viewers and hence advertising dollars, so many games would be harder to market to wide audiences. So, ESPN and Fox were willing to shell out more money and even put in a rider in a new contract that they would increase that money automatically if the Big 12 expanded no matter who the Big 12 added (whether it be Notre Dame, the Electoral College, or any one else)."

This doesn't make sense. 4 super conferences x 16 equals 64. There are currently 64 schools in the P5 conferences. How would the available inventory be cut? ESPN and Fox still would have the same available time slots for the inventory of games from 64 schools. Why would there be less "big money" programs? Texas would be a big money program even without the LHN deal.

I agree that the LHN deal did save the B12 and ISU. ESPN made it worthwhile for Texas to stay put in the B12 with the LHN deal and that deal runs through 2032 IIRC. While that deal is beneficial for Texas (and indirectly beneficial for ISU), there is no guarantee that OU will be able to again get ~$7M/yr when their T3 deal with FSSW expires at the same time that the B12's T1/T2 deals expire with ESPN and Fox. And there is no guarantee that ESPN, Fox and other producers will buy all of the B12's FB inventory in the new TV deals as they do now (with the exception of most FCS games). If they don't buy all the FB inventory, the B12 will need a centralized conference network and/or streaming service to most effectively/efficiently produce and monetize the leftover FB inventory.

 

[besserheimerphat]

@cykadelic2 I'm guessing they mean inventory of television programs. Just like the Big 10 already saw, trying to play everyone evenly means the big draw games like Michigan/Ohio State will happen less often. Commercials during that game are worth a lot more than during Ohio State/Rutgers. So they had to do weird things like protected rivalries to ensure people get to tune into Iowa/Purdue every year.

 

[chuckd4735]

I follow college football in general. Its the offseason. I live in Iowa and these figures are reported on by places like the Register. It's significant in terms of your schools resources to win or improve their program versus competitors. I also follow ACC, PAC12, Big 10, and SEC with the USA today rankings.

here's a link, I was off with some of the numbers:

https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2010/05/13/unequal-revenue-sharing-in-the-big-12

And btw, the "runts" comment is not a shot at Iowa St. I think everyone outside of Texas wants equal revenue sharing, the end of BevoTV and a shared conference network.

The problem is, with equal revenue sharing, Texas might as well go independent, and if Texas leaves, we're screwed. Knowing that, a majority of the Big 12 schools are OK with the LHN.

 

[chuckd4735]

Phoenix, Denver, and SLC are not bad markets to have outside of the seaboards.

Stop paying attention to markets. They won't mean anything in the near future.

 

[Knownothing]

I don't mind hitching our stuff to Texas. Look any conference Texas is in. They will be the King. Sometimes the King needs servants and that is our job and I am OK with it. We make good money in the big 12. I think we will eventually add a few teams to make it to either 12 or 14. The article gave me hope that we can keep it together. We have to be more attractive to teams like BYU and Notre Dame because of the 3rd Tier rights. I think anyway.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I don't mind hitching our stuff to Texas. Look any conference Texas is in. They will be the King. Sometimes the King needs servants and that is our job and I am OK with it. We make good money in the big 12. I think we will eventually add a few teams to make it to either 12 or 14. The article gave me hope that we can keep it together. We have to be more attractive to teams like BYU and Notre Dame because of the 3rd Tier rights. I think anyway.

If Notre Dame fully joins a conference it will be the ACC.

 

[Judoka]

Cable model is over. The next round of realignment will be about eyeballs. The Big 12 will always have a landing spot for 4-6 for the top Pac-12 Brands. Teams like Washington State with their "Mountain west" support, will be left out.

I wouldn't be too cocky about that. Washington State is probably our closest peer for the Pac-12 (maybe Oregon State).

 

[chuckd4735]

I wouldn't be too cocky about that. Washington State is probably our closest peer for the Pac-12 (maybe Oregon State).

In terms of fanbase size, absolutely not. We are more on par with ASU and Colorado. These numbers are from 2011, and Ill about guarantee out number is much higher now then it was then.

https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

ASU, AZ and CU would not be the end game in a Big12 poach of the Pac12. Realignment has ALWAYS been about bringing the max new viewers to the conference. In the future subscribers to a pay service might be the draw for adding teams. Texas/OU aren't staying put to add AZ, CU, Utah, etc. The targets would be big market teams like USC, UCLA, UW. Stanford would be attractive as a No. Cal team and academics.

The Big 12 still has a golden opportunity to create a conference network via a streaming package and I think that will happen in the next few years. People need to figure out that the next round (if it happens at all) of realignment won't place an emphasis on TV markets like it has in the past. Strong loyal and supportive fan bases who are willing to subscribe to a product will carry value during the next round of realignment as will enrollment numbers. I actually think Iowa State is sitting in a much better position than most people realize.

UT isn't going anywhere or they walk away from the LHN and lose millions. OU likes to talk and talk but when push comes to shove, I don't think they will be willing to give up their 3rd tier rights and move to the SEC where they are just another number living in Alabama's shadow.

 

[3GenClone]

The Big 12 still has a golden opportunity to create a conference network via a streaming package and I think that will happen in the next few years. People need to figure out that the next round (if it happens at all) of realignment won't place an emphasis on TV markets like it has in the past. Strong loyal and supportive fan bases who are willing to subscribe to a product will carry value during the next round of realignment as will enrollment numbers. I actually think Iowa State is sitting in a much better position than most people realize.

UT isn't going anywhere or they walk away from the LHN and lose millions. OU likes to talk and talk but when push comes to shove, I don't think they will be willing to give up their 3rd tier rights and move to the SEC where they are just another number living in Alabama's shadow.

I don't think the SEC wants either OU or Texas. Adding programs capable of competing at the top of the conference would further dilute their product and add to a mess of competition. Great for TV, but bad for the W-L records and potential playoff implications. A program like OK State on the other hand has the finances to keep-up with the SEC and is competitive enough to make games interesting but isn't really a threat to the "elite" SEC programs.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I don't think the SEC wants either OU or Texas. Adding programs capable of competing at the top of the conference would further dilute their product and add to a mess of competition. Great for TV, but bad for the W-L records and potential playoff implications. A program like OK State on the other hand has the finances to keep-up with the SEC and is competitive enough to make games interesting but isn't really a threat to the "elite" SEC programs.

The SEC would absolutely take OU in a heartbeat. They view themselves as the best conference in the country and would love to add a strong national brand like OU. OSU would go as well because they will be a package deal.

 

[Gorm]

I wouldn't be too cocky about that. Washington State is probably our closest peer for the Pac-12 (maybe Oregon State).

Link to where our AD publicly commented on the lack of support?

And yes, I'm trying to find the link to where Washington States AD said it. It was on a radio show podcast last year. Having issues finding it at the moment. I'm sure it was posted in a realignment thread somewhere.

 

[CycloneErik]

Link to where our AD publicly commented on the lack of support?

And yes, I'm trying to find the link to where Washington States AD said it. It was on a radio show podcast last year. Having issues finding it at the moment. I'm sure it was posted in a realignment thread somewhere.

That's worth finding. You're right, though, WSU's AD said that.

 

[Gorm]

That's worth finding. You're right, though, WSU's AD said that.

Not quite the link, but this article references it.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesp...ion-is-pac-12-membership-sustainable-for-wsu/

 

[KnappShack]

Link to where our AD publicly commented on the lack of support?

And yes, I'm trying to find the link to where Washington States AD said it. It was on a radio show podcast last year. Having issues finding it at the moment. I'm sure it was posted in a realignment thread somewhere.

Didn't ours basically say we're WAC bound if the Big 12 folds?

 

[Gorm]

Didn't ours basically say we're WAC bound if the Big 12 folds?

Mountain West...oh and that situation was 7 years ago. Things have changed a bit since then.

And that situation would have been Baylor (who in 2010 was still rising), Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and Iowa State.

Personally, I think had the Pac-16 deal had happened. We would have all joined the Big East as a group, and that would still be a conference. The ACC hadn't made its moves yet for Syc and Pitt, they may not have left that conference. That would have had 16 football schools.

Its fun to imagine what would have happened if the PAC-16 happened the way it was planned. You damn well know the SEC and B1G weren't going to sit at 12 teams a piece. The ACC was pretty unstable at that time, it could have easily been absorbed by the SEC and BIG with the leftovers starting a new conference with the remainder of the Big 12 and Big East leftovers.

 

[Gorm]

Just about any P5 school that isn't included in a reformed P5 will probably take legal action. Although I'm not sure to what ends. If 6 Pac-12 teams leave the Pac-12 to join the Big-12, about all the other 6 schools could do will be to sue the Big 12 for interference. Sort of like what Baylor threatened when A&M was talking with the SEC. This is why its so important for schools to LEAVE a conference and ask to be invited to another conference as opposed to another conference offering invitations.

Last time ISU faced an uncertain future Grassly started mentioning revoking college athletics non-profit status. Having a power senator works well for ISU in this situation.

 

[every_yard]

I've always felt the super conference idea is extremely short-sighted from a financial standpoint. With actual viewers starting to matter more, you need more high quality matchups. I think it helps the weaker teams more than the strong teams (could be wrong though...).

 

[KnappShack]

Mountain West...oh and that situation was 7 years ago. Things have changed a bit since then.

And that situation would have been Baylor (who in 2010 was still rising), Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and Iowa State.

Personally, I think had the Pac-16 deal had happened. We would have all joined the Big East as a group, and that would still be a conference. The ACC hadn't made its moves yet for Syc and Pitt, they may not have left that conference. That would have had 16 football schools.

Its fun to imagine what would have happened if the PAC-16 happened the way it was planned. You damn well know the SEC and B1G weren't going to sit at 12 teams a piece. The ACC was pretty unstable at that time, it could have easily been absorbed by the SEC and BIG with the leftovers starting a new conference with the remainder of the Big 12 and Big East leftovers.

From Oct 2016:

Adding teams that would prove non-competitive could force Texas and Oklahoma, the two highest-profile schools in the conference, to seek membership elsewhere. That, in Pollard's opinion, would make the Big 12 no better than the Mountain West Conference.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...ard-texas-oklahoma/1ctle7t9r7msr1e1fw3uclymez

 

[Gorm]

From Oct 2016:

Adding teams that would prove non-competitive could force Texas and Oklahoma, the two highest-profile schools in the conference, to seek membership elsewhere. That, in Pollard's opinion, would make the Big 12 no better than the Mountain West Conference.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...ard-texas-oklahoma/1ctle7t9r7msr1e1fw3uclymez

Pollard said what would be basically true about any conference. Remove the two tent poles, and the conference becomes a lesser conference. Washington States AD basically said his school is getting the support as if it was already in a lesser conference. Big difference.