Once again, conference deregulation is coming soon and you keep holding on conferences are going to tie themselves to pods/divisions even if they don't want to. They will schedule it however they please to maximize their content.
ISU and PAC12 Attendance and merger idea
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
Once conference deregulation occurs if it ever does, this whole debate becomes mute. No way will the Blue Bloods allow teams not pulling their weight to stay in this grand field just because they happen to be a member of the conference now.
I really doubt we will ever end up with this so called super conference of 20 to 30 teams. If they do, fine do it, ISU will not be included in the field, and neither will many other teams in the Big 10 and SEC that think they are safe just because they are currently a member of those conferences. Does a school like Iowa really want to play a schedule that has them playing OSU, Penn. St, Auburn, LSU, ND, USC, Texas, Michigan, Clemson, Oregon for a conference schedule? Really does any team? How many 2-7 conference seasons have to happen for those schools before they all realize this was not a good idea, no matter how much money they make. Is anyone of those schools hurting for money now?
Great question. So, I researched it. Admittedly, the details are way over my head, but here are some key points I saw:
- Anti trust exemption has only been granted in baseball, not football, basketball, or hockey
- Inherent to any leagues success, parity is built in. Which is supposed to be the non-monopolistic tool for teams.
- The ability to unionize players effectively eliminates them from the protection of anti-trust laws.
- There is a central governing body (aka NCAA) which governs the parity of teams through a combined rules and regulations agreement.
- Players enter into binding contracts prohibiting negotiations with other teams until said contract is up.
As stated above, I'm a neophyte in all this and welcome a lawyers perspective to clarify and/or add. Thanks!
I don't think there ever is only one super conference of 20-32 teams that forms a new division of football it shuts too many fans out of the process and gives them no desire to tune in to those games.
They probably will pay the B1G & SEC at levels much higher and try and pay 2-3 remaining leagues 33-50% of what the B1G/SEC get to try and keep those fans of the lower paid leagues "involved" to watch regular season nationally televised games, CFP and bowl games. I really hope all the fans of leagues not the SEC don't watch a single SEC game and maybe the B1G to a lesser extent also to send a message.
Is there anything the remaining leagues can do to get closer to 70-80% of revenues? I kind of doubt a ACC or PAC with B12 additions gets to 70/80% but would each of those leagues providing live content on primetime weeknights maybe even Tuesday & Wed. nights besides Thur. & Fri each week help? What would really suck is late night weekday games for fans but would that provide value to the networks? The games wouldn't have competition and would give exposure even if its on a different night. If ESPN is paying to move B12 to the PAC to free up OU & UT next year, the extra content of 4-6 schools help fill weeknights and even late night Saturday games(get ready for it if there is a move).
We're talking about almost all their conference road games requiring trips across the country vs maybe a couple each year, with a common sense divisional structure.
You don't think they will fly for an additional 30-35M? As well as bigger matchups to sell NIL$$ to recruits?
Maybe they don't but I see them having a hard time turning that down.
I mentioned the possibility of ESPN and maybe FOX sports too be willing to compensate the ACC & PAC more if they play games on weeknights that don't have live content like Tuesday and Wednesday nights. We already have Thursday nights but I think Friday could be beefed up more also heading into Saturday. An expanded PAC 12 gives more content for late night starts. The ACC & PAC won't like that but if its the difference between being at 50% or less of SEC/B1G revenues and instead this gets them to 70-80% of revenues will they accept it? Does that kind of money make USC stay? Do they require unequal revenue sharing to stay?
Another issue, IMO, is whether Fox wants to destroy one of their properties in the PAC 12 to increase the cost of another property in the Big Ten. Seems to me that they'd reach a broader audience for the same money by keeping the PAC 12 viable.
not necessarily. If they would say take the top half of the PAC 12 and add them to the Big 10 they still would have the West Coast viewers at possibly a reduced cost.
100% speculation numbers but just laying out the case:
If the current Big 10 deal is looking for 60$ mil per school and the PAC 12 will be looking for 45$ mil for a total for the content of 24 teams.
If the Big 10 merges with half the Pac 12 for for 90$ mil for the content of 20 teams and have roughly the same viewers over the entire country (East/Central/West) then FOX could easily chose the later even if it "only" is 10-15% cheaper. FOX is a business just like ESPN/Disney is a business.
I'd have to see concrete numbers to see if that makes sense at all (and they do, as a business, have to make sure that they don't destroy their product in seeking to increase profit).
That parenthetical doesn’t seem to be on the front of ESPN’s mind these days. Feels like they are pushing for short term profit and expecting that they can keep pushing through the popularity of the sport to everyone even when local schools are not at the big boy table.
I tend to agree that FOX’s best move, if they really wanna compete with ESPN (and maybe they don’t), is to try to get first pick of all the big USC/Ohio State/Oregon/Michigan/Penn State games. And even better, to have those schools play each other (on FOX). That can happen without a merger - it’s actually happening in a month, after all, with Oregon at Ohio State on FOX - but there are some ways to make it happen more often or to guarantee that FOX will get it. And I expect they are investigating them now - scheduling alliance and merger being two I can think of.
It may make business sense for those top Pac-12 properties to clear the way for the hangers-on to merge with the Big 12 leftovers as well, to provide a stream of content that FOX (and ESPN) can broadcast profitably while the pay those schools much less money. I’m not smart enough to do that math but it sure wouldn’t shock me.
Yeah airplanes make this country really small. AD's will have no problem spending a few extra hours a week on a plane for millions of dollars. Especially when you can charter flights to regional airports and make it super convenient.
Unfortunately, it probably becomes a wash to FOX. Fox moves 4-6 properties to the B1G where they pay a lot more(where total contracts are 75M per yr) but they also benefit financially because they own half of the BTN. They also turn around and pay the remaining 4-8 schools that join with the Big 12 a lot less(maybe 25M per yr). Some schools like Cal or possibly Stanford might not choose to play Division 1 football its rumored, who knows if that is true. Also, OSU & WSU very well could be left out if the Big 12 adds 4 of the leftovers from the PAC.
So in essence they just elevate some teams revenue and improve their game content and lower a similar number of teams.
I don't like it but if your asking why, this is the possible answer.
Or both conferences could gobble up the Big12 to get to 16 teams each, and then have a B1G PAC scheduling alliance where each team plays one or maybe even two games against the other conference.
Interesting idea. What packaging of teams makes the most sense for the media? 2 conferences (bid packages) of 20 teams each? Or 4 packages of 16? In the end, ESPN is still bidding for a conference. Do they, Fox, and others want more packages? The other extreme would be bidding for streaming of individual games or teams.
It won’t happen this way - but the cleanest outcome is ISU and KU to the B1G, Tech/OSU/KSU/dealer’s choice of TCU/Baylor/Houston to the Pac-12, and WVU and one more (Cincinnati?) to the ACC. Then the B1G/Pac-16 and SEC/ACC can both set up scheduling alliances in which there are 16 games apiece.
I think if all 3 conferences decide this would be best for CFB and sanity/civility vs what ESPN/SEC is pushing, it's likely this would happen. You'd end up with two semi-competing products, sort of Fox/NCAA/academia vs ESPN/SEC/money. The ACC isn't ready to do anything, but they would tip the balance down the road.
Note I am NOT saying that they WILL agree to fight that fight; it's probably not real likely, but it's possible.
The fact one of the presidents said the SEC/ESPN move kind of united everyone else - gives me some hope in a grand bargain that is good for the sport as well as good for ISU.
I just know the Big12 went to 9 conference games to add money(and it obviously worked perfect for scheduling). The B1G and PAC could even schedule all three non con games against each other. One-two would probably be more likely, and it’s really the PAC who needs to do something to get more money/eye balls.
