Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Al_4_State]

The way you get the blue bloods to agree to full-on rights pooling is with a financial structure that's based on ratings. An "earn what you keep" type of compensation package.

If the Big 10 took their package and distributed it based on the percentage of revenue each school generated, Ohio State and Michigan would make way more money than they currently do.

Your just applying the same principle on a bigger level by doing this nationally, and that's how you get blue bloods to gamble on it.

The only schools who would oppose this are the middle and lower tier Big 10 and SEC schools who are being heavily subsidized by their more popular conference mates.

 

[BCClone]

The way you get the blue bloods to agree to full-on rights pooling is with a financial structure that's based on ratings. An "earn what you keep" type of compensation package.

If the Big 10 took their package and distributed it based on the percentage of revenue each school generated, Ohio State and Michigan would make way more money than they currently do.

Your just applying the same principle on a bigger level by doing this nationally, and that's how you get blue bloods to gamble on it.

The only schools who would oppose this are the middle and lower tier Big 10 and SEC schools who are being heavily subsidized by their more popular conference mates.

The easy first step is letting teams keep a bigger cut for making the playoffs. It just takes one thing like that to crack the door open.

 

[MugNight]

The way you get the blue bloods to agree to full-on rights pooling is with a financial structure that's based on ratings. An "earn what you keep" type of compensation package.

If the Big 10 took their package and distributed it based on the percentage of revenue each school generated, Ohio State and Michigan would make way more money than they currently do.

Your just applying the same principle on a bigger level by doing this nationally, and that's how you get blue bloods to gamble on it.

The only schools who would oppose this are the middle and lower tier Big 10 and SEC schools who are being heavily subsidized by their more popular conference mates.

I agree with you, though I wonder what type of infighting you’d see with those lower tier schools. It’s becomes a self fulfilling prophecy: big team plays at prime time with more eyeballs. They attract more interest. They get the bigger payouts. It’s not always tied to on field performance either.

It gets sticky when 9-1 Purdue is relegated to streaming while 5 win USC gets to play at 7pm on cable TV.

 

[Clonehomer]

Wonder if the ACC and Big12 TV rights merger would do anything? ESPN needs content. They can probably get away with losing one, but not both. Having only the SEC keeps their prime time numbers, but they have a lot more time slots to fill than what the SEC can offer. Fox, CBS, and NBC would be in the same boat. So, if you could pool those rights, how much leverage can you get when negotiating when the TV networks can’t play one conference against the other knowing one of them will take a low ball deal?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The easy first step is letting teams keep a bigger cut for making the playoffs. It just takes one thing like that to crack the door open.

Nah that’s a different prospect that I see happening in the near future. I’m not even sure how much push back that would get in any conference especially with the playoff being expanded

 

[FinalFourCy]

Wonder if the ACC and Big12 TV rights merger would do anything? ESPN needs content. They can probably get away with losing one, but not both. Having only the SEC keeps their prime time numbers, but they have a lot more time slots to fill than what the SEC can offer. Fox, CBS, and NBC would be in the same boat. So, if you could pool those rights, how much leverage can you get when negotiating when the TV networks can’t play one conference against the other knowing one of them will take a low ball deal?

How big are the P2? Because if it’s 48, the networks don’t need much inventory past that now, let alone in the future with cord cutting

Past that, there wouldn’t be much leverage, because what’s left are the sub-premium tv windows. Those don’t make as much for the networks, so they are not going to pay much for the M conference regardless

It is crucial though that there are not two M conferences that the networks can play against each other for the little air left after the P2

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Wonder if the ACC and Big12 TV rights merger would do anything? ESPN needs content. They can probably get away with losing one, but not both. Having only the SEC keeps their prime time numbers, but they have a lot more time slots to fill than what the SEC can offer. Fox, CBS, and NBC would be in the same boat. So, if you could pool those rights, how much leverage can you get when negotiating when the TV networks can’t play one conference against the other knowing one of them will take a low ball deal?

They don’t need to fill those timeslots though, that’s why so many other games get put on streaming with almost no one watching. They pay for the massive prime time games getting big ratings, not the espn+ game with 150K viewers.

 

[FinalFourCy]

They don’t need to fill those timeslots though, that’s why so many other games get put on streaming with almost no one watching. They pay for the massive prime time games getting big ratings, not the espn+ game with 150K viewers.

ESPN isn’t losing money on the current Big 12 deal despite its limited massive prime time games

They pay for off-peak linear games, it’s just going to be more in the $30 million to $40 million range imo

 

[Clonehomer]

They don’t need to fill those timeslots though, that’s why so many other games get put on streaming with almost no one watching. They pay for the massive prime time games getting big ratings, not the espn+ game with 150K viewers.

The Big12 and ACC are filling more than just the ESPN+ games today. Those go away and you’re showing some pretty ****** games in primetime, even if they’re in the P2.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

ESPN isn’t losing money on the current Big 12 deal despite its limited massive prime time games

They pay for off-peak linear games, it’s just going to be more in the $30 million to $40 million range imo

I never said they were losing money, they just got some great ratings from big12 games in OTA slots. My point is that they don’t need inventory to just dump on streaming. Big 12 teams provide great value and that’s not even counting basketball

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The Big12 and ACC are filling more than just the ESPN+ games today. Those go away and you’re showing some pretty ****** games in primetime, even if they’re in the P2.

Totally agree that’s why I don’t see them going away but I don’t think a rights merger would happen (mainly due to the opening that would allow ACC teams to bolt) but it makes a ton of sense

 

[Clonehomer]

I never said they were losing money, they just got some great ratings from big12 games in OTA slots. My point is that they don’t need inventory to just dump on streaming. Big ten teams provide great value and that’s not even counting basketball

No one counts basketball when talking Big10. Outside of MSU, no one cares in that conference.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

No one counts basketball when talking Big10. Outside of MSU, no one cares in that conference.

That was 100% a mistype, that’s supposed to say Big12, just edited it

 

[isucy86]

See a number of recent posts that assume that CFB distribution will follow existing format.

I'll be curious how quickly the current live sports landscape changes.

All the major media players are pushing ahead with subscription based platforms/apps. IMO the huge unknown is whether OTA games remain the home of the "big" games. ABC, NBC, CBS don't own local OTA stations. So is it just a matter of time before the best games are on the Subscription Apps like: ESPN DTC, FOX One, Peacock & HBO/Max.

Congruently, distribution via apps makes the linear cable timeslot bottlenecks a thing of the past. A platform like Amazon/Apple or App like FOX One or Peacock can support pretty much an unlimited inventory of games. Plus they aren't restricted by limited start times- 11a, 2:30p, 6:30p. Streamers could go with 11a, 12:30p, 2p, 3:30p, 5p, 6:30p & 8p kickoffs. Basically, the next round of games starts at halftime of the prior game.

 

[cykadelic2]

The way you get the blue bloods to agree to full-on rights pooling is with a financial structure that's based on ratings. An "earn what you keep" type of compensation package.

If the Big 10 took their package and distributed it based on the percentage of revenue each school generated, Ohio State and Michigan would make way more money than they currently do.

Your just applying the same principle on a bigger level by doing this nationally, and that's how you get blue bloods to gamble on it.

The only schools who would oppose this are the middle and lower tier Big 10 and SEC schools who are being heavily subsidized by their more popular conference mates.

Those mid tier B10 and SEC schools are still going to make at least double what they make now. The formula would be fairly easy. 70%-80% of the total P7 pie gets shared equally amongst all 70 schools. The rest is distributed to the conferences based on TV ratings including CFP games. It would be up to the conferences to share equally amongst their schools or utilize a similar formula to distribute unequally based on the ratings.

The G5 portion of the pooled pie could be allocated to them based on the same % of total FBS revenues currently earned or something similar. Each G5 school would see their revenues at least doubled by bundling G5 regular season and G5 playoff rights into multiple P7 rights packages. Those packages could be offered as follows assuming 15 P7 CFP Games and 7 G5 playoff games:

1. SEC/ACC/4 P7 CFP Games/2 G5 Conferences/2 G5 Playoff Games (Give ESPN/ABC the right to match any offer)

2. B10/PAC/4 P7 CFP Games/ 1 G5 Conference / 2 G5 Playoff Games (Give Fox the right to match any offer)

3. SWC/B12/4 P7 CFP Games/ 1 G5 Conference / 2 G5 Playoff Games (At least one SWC or B12 GOTW on OTA so CBS could partner with Amazon on this one or put games on Paramount)

4. ND/Big East/Other FBS Indies/3 P7 CFP Games/ 1 G5 Conference/ 1 G5 Playoff Game (Give NBC/Peacock the right to match any offer)

G5 rights get bumped up exponentially in this packaging I.e. if you want SEC or B10, you take on 1 or 2 G5 conferences .

 

[Die4Cy]

Can somebody show their work on the assertion that payouts will instantly double? That's doing all of the heavy lifting on how far the argument for pooling rights gets and I don't know where that came from.

 

[Cloneon]

They don’t need to fill those timeslots though, that’s why so many other games get put on streaming with almost no one watching. They pay for the massive prime time games getting big ratings, not the espn+ game with 150K viewers.

I realize the point you're making, but if 150k viewers is trivial, then from an advertising standpoint, 60k in the stands is even more so. So, why the exorbitant contracts in sponsoring stadium/field names, marque banners, program advertisements, etc? Also, just curious, is that 150k a legit number? I'd be curious what percentages of eyeballs are on the 'media promoted' game vs all the other games in the same timeslot.

As an aside, while everyone bickers here, I often look at my own life experience to model something larger. 35 years ago, living in S.F. and being the true definition of a die-hard fan, I'd seek out a sports bar/restaurant. There were just so many TV sets (and satellite dishes) to go around so competition was challenging. Especially in light of how bad ISU was at the time. So, it came down to lobbying. I'd make it a morning event for my friends in the area to come on down for breakfast (my sample of advertising). The owner would gladly put the TV on because of the patronage I brought in with me. So, modeling that against this whole media discussion, the challenge was number of TV sets in the bar (no longer a problem with the internet). The next challenge was the popularity of the feature game in that time slot. Hypothetically, with enough TV sets to support people watching their own alma mater fewer eyes in that bar would be on the 'feature' game. Taking it one step further and one I believe most would agree, the next most popular game of interest would be the one most influential to ISU; say an inter-conference game or upcoming opponent. Then, for us geographically separate folks, we'd jump on our friend's alma mater's game. And, then the 'underdog' game. My whole point is the growing ubiquitous nature of being able to access games will only trend eyeballs away from the 'feature' game and hence the blue-bloods. IMO monopolistic practices is the only way ESPN can keep the percentage eyeballs.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Can somebody show their work on the assertion that payouts will instantly double? That's doing all of the heavy lifting on how far the argument for pooling rights gets and I don't know where that came from.

Cody Campbell said it. Trust him, bro.

He's trying to make this big stretch based on the NBA while completely ignoring that the NBA gives you nightly highly rated content from October through June. Even as the NBA has declined, it still wins cable almost every night and pops decent numbers OTA.

 

[cykadelic2]

Can somebody show their work on the assertion that payouts will instantly double? That's doing all of the heavy lifting on how far the argument for pooling rights gets and I don't know where that came from.

Not sure what you mean by "show their work" but there have been multiple reports of CFB media revenues doubling/tripling with media rights pooling along with rational geographic realignment. Industry sources have long pointed out that, in the current CFB setup, broadcasters have the leverage because conferences compete against each other for their dollars. In pro sports, there is only one NFL or one NBA, keeping leverage with the league and compelling broadcasters to compete for their rights.:

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

Meet Cody Campbell, the billionaire Texas Tech booster with plan to save college sports

A billionaire and capital investment savant, Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell has a plan to save college sports from itself.

www.usatoday.com

 

[cykadelic2]

Cody Campbell said it. Trust him, bro.

He's trying to make this big stretch based on the NBA while completely ignoring that the NBA gives you nightly highly rated content from October through June. Even as the NBA has declined, it still wins cable almost every night and pops decent numbers OTA.

Campbell's comments are based on what media industry experts are telling him and FBS Presidents/ADs as multiple outlets have reported.