Perspective from the Big Ten and some much needed clarifications

[AuH2O]

IMO it is wrong to assume that the SEC is done with big moves. Clemson & FL State would be huge gets if they can get out of their GOR. I am sure they are waiting to see what happens with UT/OU path out of Big12 and it's GOR.

Also, I seriously doubt USC is just standing on the sidelines waiting on the Big10. Why wouldn't USC be in play for the SEC? If there was potential for OU/UT to join the Pac12 a decade ago. Seems like a really bold move for the SEC would be to add USC, UCLA, Arizona & Arizona State. An SEC "really West" division would be very attractive:

Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
UCLA

drop UCLA and Arizona and it would still be attractive. But if the SEC has a chance at Clemson & Florida State- then the above 8 makes a nice division or part of 4 six team divisions.

Why would the SEC want the Arizona schools? In terms of attendance, viewership and overall interest they are not good. They are a hell of a lot closer to Vandy in that regard than the top of the SEC. UCLA isn't a whole lot better. Start throwing out most of UCLA's rival games, combine that with getting their ass kicked every week and while it's hard for people to care less about UCLA football, that's one way to make that happen.

USC would be attractive to every conference. The Arizona schools aren't.

 

[Cloneon]

First step there is to keep the CFP at 4. This eliminates them from getting 4-6 teams in the CFP if it expands to 12. Addition of OU to the conference makes it more difficult for Alabama, A&M, LSU, Georgia, etc. to make it to the CFP and bumps the non-CFP bowl teams down a notch.

Not sure why people would disagree with this. It's simply a strategy that IF it comes to fruition, would likely be correct. BUT, imo, it won't come to fruition.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I think you both are right in that cable subs are diminishing rapidly and that new deals will be a mix of both traditional cable and streaming services.

However one important thing to know is that the streaming services that offer live tv are operating very much like cable and the prices are almost the same to what cable costs were. For example every single person that has youtube tv has the big ten network. Just like with cable it doesn't matter if you watch or not they are still getting a cut. So to say that streaming is so different then cable is a bit of an overstatement.

Now could amazon or apple come in and disrupt everything? Of course but they have been very slow to get involved and noting on the immediate horizon says they will. The Thursday night NFL thing was a trial that didn't go to well for amazon but they do have cash to burn.

They aren't operating like a cable subscription though. The consumer can pick and choose when they want certain packages or when they want to add or cancel a subscription. Streaming puts the power in the consumers hands while cable handcuffed them to subscriptions/contracts. Gen Z and millennials are all tech savvy and they consume television much differently than previous generations. In 10 years either DTV or Dish will fail to even exist.

Regarding cable costs, find me a satellite or cable subscription that can get me what I have through Youtube TV for anything close to $65 per month.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Everyone talks about 'splitting the pie'. That was the B12 argument for not adding teams and look where that got us. I look at it more as making the pie bigger and 'renegotiating' to compensate. Also, see how fragile the B12 was. To assume the B1G is any less fragile, I believe is a huge mistake. OSU leaves and either PSU or MU and that conference is hurting. The SEC (converted to a new division) would then cherry pick B1G to gain geographical exposure for 'brand' advertising and the dominos would fall similar to what we're seeing with the B12. Don't kid yourself. Brain trusts are strategizing all these possibilities.

Unless CFP Governance turns over the playoffs to ESPN, there is no reason for OSU or PSU to leave for the SEC. Teams from the B1G still have a path to the championship. There is a reason why ESPN doesn't want the CFP to go to the open market because they will likely lose control and impact their push to control multiple conferences.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nc...ome-leaders-wanting-to-press-pause/ar-AAMOSOL

 

[AuH2O]

I think you both are right in that cable subs are diminishing rapidly and that new deals will be a mix of both traditional cable and streaming services.

However one important thing to know is that the streaming services that offer live tv are operating very much like cable and the prices are almost the same to what cable costs were. For example every single person that has youtube tv has the big ten network. Just like with cable it doesn't matter if you watch or not they are still getting a cut. So to say that streaming is so different then cable is a bit of an overstatement.

Now could amazon or apple come in and disrupt everything? Of course but they have been very slow to get involved and noting on the immediate horizon says they will. The Thursday night NFL thing was a trial that didn't go to well for amazon but they do have cash to burn.

But the massive difference in the Youtube TV vs. cable model is that the cable model was dependent on a team being in a market. So, the value of adding a team in the streaming case still comes down to viewership and interest of a team. In the Youtube TV example, a new team only brings value to the conference if that teams membership would increase subscriptions to Youtube TV, thus adding BTN. It is market independent. The other change in cable and sat has been offering smaller and cheaper packages (a lot for old people) that include minimal or no sports channels.

Whether it's that model or something disruptive via Amazon, or network TV ad value, everything is rapidly shifting value to teams that have people watch them, and away from teams that no one watches but are in large markets. So it's less a distinction between "streaming vs. cable/sat" and more of a shift between passive/market size value and active/interest-based value.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

They aren't operating like a cable subscription though. The consumer can pick and choose when they want certain packages or when they want to add or cancel a subscription. Streaming puts the power in the consumers hands while cable handcuffed them to subscriptions/contracts. Gen Z and millennials are all tech savvy and they consume television much differently than previous generations. In 10 years either DTV or Dish will fail to even exist.

Regarding cable costs, find me a satellite or cable subscription that can get me what I have through Youtube TV for anything close to $65 per month.

You cant do that though. If you get youtube tv or hulu big ten comes with it. You cant opt out to save money or pick and choose. Its closer to cable then you think at this point.

Agree with your point on television consumption habits but as a millennial there really isn't much difference between streaming live tv and cable at this point.

 

[Number Monkey]

Not sure why people would disagree with this. It's simply a strategy that IF it comes to fruition, would likely be correct. BUT, imo, it won't come to fruition.

I think they'll stick at 4 through 2025 now just so they can take the playoffs to the market and, perhaps, divide them up between multiple networks. I wouldn't be shocked if this "alliance" cools their jets on playoff expansion for that reason alone.

However, I also wouldn't be shocked if they band together to cap participation in the CFB-12 at 3 total teams, while leaving in top 6 champs as an auto qualifier with top four champs getting the byes.

Even if the Big 12 stayed together by adding Cinci/Memphis, they'd get at least one auto bid along with the ACC and Pac 12 and the AAC.

It would then be knife fight between the Big Ten and SEC to fill 4 of the 6 remaining spots, with two other conferences at least landing a second team. (Oh, and don't forget Notre Dame) That would seriously muck up the SEC's move as it would become harder for SEC brands to consistently make the big games.

 

[cymonw1980]

The "alliance" is nothing more than the B1G, Pac, and ACC working together to block the SEC from stacking the playoff deck in their favor. This whole deal caught the SEC with their pants down and they are going to block the current 12 team playoff expansion plan until they can agree on a fair setup. Of course these three want the Big 12 to fall apart, that opens up an auto bid that could eventually be an at large for their conference. The end goal here will be for the B1G and Pac to pick up remaining B1g 12 teams but they can't say that right now. There is NO way the Pac can afford to sit this round out or they will be financially screwed. The whole Amazon deal needs to be factored in here as well. Either way it's all moot, I don't see either one of those schools breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC.

There is no "auto" bid for any conference in the playoff today or in the proposed 12 team playoff. In fact, that was a key point "top 6 rated conference champs" are the only auto bids. If the B12 falls apart, then another conference champ gets in.... so, 2 G5 teams would make it or they drop it to 5 conf champs and 1 more at large bid.. There were also no plans to payout playoff revenue based on number of invites from a specific conference.

So, I disagree that the b10 wants the B12 to fall apart immediately. In the short term the B12 remaining in tact delays the SEC's expansion (tx/ou would have a legal battle before they could leave to get their tv rights away from the B12 - not clear how this would go or if they would win..). So, forming an alliance with the pac/acc and saying "let's not expand right now" is to keep the B12 in tact for as long as possible.

Then, when tx/ou provide the blueprint for getting out of the GOR (either win in court, or wait it out) the others will see what they need to do.

B10 would likely prefer teams from the ACC that fit better geographically than the pac. They also want to delay any revenue increases the sec would get once ou/tx join (I believe the sec per school money is very likely to increase once ou/tx join).

So, b10, pac could still take the b12 schools, but would prefer to slow this down to make a decision. B12 folding allows tx/ou to bolt immediately. The alliance is to slow this as much as possible... potentially to the end of the GoR.

 

[deadeyededric]

The only thing you could say about UCLA is maybe the SEC schools would be able to recruit in Southern California a little easier. I do think conference recruiting footprints are relevant. I mean why wouldn't part of your strategy be to try add as much talent to your conference as possible to improve the product?

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Everyone talks about 'splitting the pie'. That was the B12 argument for not adding teams and look where that got us. I look at it more as making the pie bigger and 'renegotiating' to compensate.

Okay, take the B1G as an example. If it is true that Ohio State, Michigan, and maybe Penn State together drive 50% of the value, then you already have 11 No votes for “renegotiating” the even money split, absent a credible threat that those schools will leave the B1G. So it’s not going to happen.

“Splitting the pie” is not a Big 12 exclusive and if you think the league would have survived longer after adding Cincinnati and UCF five years ago then I just completely disagree.

Every school is looking out for its own self interest. If you were actually correct that it would make sense for all 16 schools involved to add ISU and KU to the B1G, then it will happen. If it won’t make money for the 14 existing schools, then it won’t. And most people (who aren’t praying for ISU or KU to land there) think it won’t, so I am forced to conclude that’s likely.

Would love to hear details about how “renegotiation” would make sense for all 16 schools involved in this hypothetical.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Why would the SEC want the Arizona schools? In terms of attendance, viewership and overall interest they are not good. They are a hell of a lot closer to Vandy in that regard than the top of the SEC. UCLA isn't a whole lot better. Start throwing out most of UCLA's rival games, combine that with getting their ass kicked every week and while it's hard for people to care less about UCLA football, that's one way to make that happen.

USC would be attractive to every conference. The Arizona schools aren't.

If anything the OU and UT moves show that there are only a handful of Pac-12 and ACC schools that would add to the B1G or SEC $$ and those schools would also profit by jumping. The only things stopping them are geography and a long GOR.

I imagine by the mid 2030s, when the ACC GOR expires, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia, and UNC will be in the B1G or SEC. Maybe there will be another school or a few more in that mix as well.

$$$ is radically changing the landscape

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If anything the OU and UT moves show that there are only a handful of Pac-12 and ACC schools that would add to the B1G or SEC $$ and those schools would also profit by jumping. The only things stopping them are geography and a long GOR.

I imagine by the mid 2030s, when the ACC GOR expires, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia, and UNC will be in the B1G or SEC. Maybe there will be another school or a few more in that mix as well.

$$$ is radically changing the landscape

I 100% agree with this take. Also gives more time to see how things play out by having a shorter GOR. ACC is really really screwed for the next decade+

 

[SolarGarlic]

Can we please stop referring to the 8 remaining schools as 'hateful 8' - instead can we just refer to ourselves as the Big 8?

Annoys me too. As if we don't have something to be angry about. The arrogance and condescension of this whole fiasco is disgusting.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Quick Update

Big ten-Pac-ACC are entering an alliance in hopes to postpone any more expansion for the next few years. Jim Delany (former big ten commish) has been heavily involved talking with all three conferences and the consensus seems to be that maintaining the status quo of the conferences. While there will never be a formal agreement talking about not poaching teams the conferences all feel that it is generally in their best interest to stay where they are for the next few years. For the ACC they were stuck due to their GOR. The Pac agreed because they cant afford to lose their top teams and the big ten is hoping to sign a short 5-7 year media rights deal that would be up right around the ACC's is and then realignment talks might start again with some teams that they actually want.

Part of the reason the big ten is interested in staying put for the time being is that their new rights deal will bring in around 80mil per school and talks about adding pac12 teams would result in a lower per school payout. In addition many AD's are under the impression that even with texas and OU that the SEC payout could still be less then the big tens due to them owning part of the big ten network vs the SEC network which is owned entirely by espn.

What this means for the big 12 is that it seems likely that texas and OU will be forced to stay in the big 12 for the next few years unless a payout agreement can be reached. The alliance schools wouldn't be adding any of the hateful 8 and the big 12 would be forced to expand with some other schools such as BYU that would need access to the playoff.

Could this all change overnight? Of course but that is what i am currently hearing.

If this is true, those conferences are sheep negotiating with a wolf, and the wolf is making sure that the sheep don't get strong enough to fight them off in the future. The PAC 12 is as good as dead without expansion, as they will be picked apart in the next round.

 

[AuH2O]

If anything the OU and UT moves show that there are only a handful of Pac-12 and ACC schools that would add to the B1G or SEC $$ and those schools would also profit by jumping. The only things stopping them are geography and a long GOR.

I imagine by the mid 2030s, when the ACC GOR expires, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia, and UNC will be in the B1G or SEC. Maybe there will be another school or a few more in that mix as well.

$$$ is radically changing the landscape

If the Big 10 and SEC want to actually boost their finances, each would dissolve and dump a good portion of each league in favor of a variety of others. At the current sizes of the leagues and dollars adding teams is not going to boost per team payouts. Of the list above if it were to happen today, USC and Clemson are probably the only schools that would add to the per team payout in the Big 10 in any significant way. UCLA and Virginia for sure would detract from per team value.

People keep talking about there being drastic changes to chase $, but far and away the best way the top teams in the conference to boost their finances is to dump a bunch of teams.

If you look at viewership on something of an apples to apples basis (regular season network games), Ohio State is way above everyone in the big 10. There's a big gap, then there's Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin. Then there's another huge gap. If these teams wanted to really make money, they'd find the right time to dissolve the league and start a new one with those four at the core, then start negotiating membership at reduced returns. Right now those four teams are absolutely taking a bath supporting the other teams in the league.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If the Big 10 and SEC want to actually boost their finances, each would dissolve and dump a good portion of each league in favor of a variety of others. At the current sizes of the leagues and dollars adding teams is not going to boost per team payouts. Of the list above if it were to happen today, USC and Clemson are probably the only schools that would add to the per team payout in the Big 10 in any significant way. UCLA and Virginia for sure would detract from per team value.

People keep talking about there being drastic changes to chase $, but far and away the best way the top teams in the conference to boost their finances is to dump a bunch of teams.

If you look at viewership on something of an apples to apples basis (regular season network games), Ohio State is way above everyone in the big 10. There's a big gap, then there's Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin. Then there's another huge gap. If these teams wanted to really make money, they'd find the right time to dissolve the league and start a new one with those four at the core, then start negotiating membership at reduced returns. Right now those four teams are absolutely taking a bath supporting the other teams in the league.

When you have the highest payouts of any school in the country I don't know if you can say they are "taking a bath". Those 4 schools are very happy where they are currently and really don't have any reason to consider leaving.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If this is true, those conferences are sheep negotiating with a wolf, and the wolf is making sure that the sheep don't get strong enough to fight them off in the future. The PAC 12 is as good as dead without expansion, as they will be picked apart in the next round.

Completely agree. The ACC doesn't have any cards to play because they negotiated a horrible deal that lasts until 2035 but the Pac could at least try to do something. This just puts the big ten in a power position for playoff negotiations which in the end will hurt the rest of the alliance partners.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Completely agree. The ACC doesn't have any cards to play because they negotiated a horrible deal that lasts until 2035 but the Pac could at least try to do something. This just puts the big ten in a power position for playoff negotiations which in the end will hurt the rest of the alliance partners.

If I'm the PAC 12, the only way I agree to such a thing is if A) the B1G promises not to pursue any of the teams in my league, and B) they promise not to impede my intention to expand (adding Big 12 teams) whenever the Big 12 reaches an agreement with OU and UT on their exit fees and sorts out the remaining questions for the balance of their media contracts.

 

[RustShack]

The PAC will add, and ACC will add West Virginia. B1G just needs to decide if they want the best of what’s left in the Big12 before they go to the PAC.

 

[CascadeClone]

If I'm the PAC 12, the only way I agree to such a thing is if A) the B1G promises not to pursue any of the teams in my league, and B) they promise not to impede my intention to expand (adding Big 12 teams) whenever the Big 12 reaches an agreement with OU and UT on their exit fees and sorts out the remaining questions for the balance of their media contracts.

I would guess something along the lines of a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was discussed at these alliance talks.

Let's cooperate to deal with the SEC/ESPN, work together to make the playoff work to OUR advantage not theirs.
Let's not poach each other, period.
Let's hold off on the Big8 leftovers until they get their pound of flesh out of OuT and their SEC/ESPN masters. That will help them all stand firm too, if we are not sniffing around. Once the check clears, then we can divide them up like Poland.
Meanwhile let's play some games against each other to raise some more cash.