Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[isucy86]

Involved in getting Cal included as a transaction cost, perhaps. They may not be able to prevent move, but they could make it unprofitable

Make it unprofitable for the Big10? The Big10 is not going to add Cal just because the Governor made some comments. And Newsom has said nothing reportible since.

By making UCLA share Big10 monies with other Cal State Universities? I am sure that will go over well among UCLA alumni, who happen to vote just like Cal alumni. I am sure his support in So Cal would take a hit

If Newsom's intent was to get Cal included in realignment, he has no leverage with the Big10. The Big10 invited UCLA and USC after being approached by those schools. The Big10 acted under the assumption that UCLA had support within its governance structure.

If California politicians are going to inject themselves into the matter, the Big10 could say: "We'd love to have UCLA in our conference, but if that now isn't in UCLA's best interest, UCLA can withdraw its request to join the Big10." That isn't going to happen!! But if it did, it would be maybe a week and the Big10 would turn around and invite Stanford or Washington or ASU.

 

[WhoISthis]

He can't force the B1G to take Cal.

I didn't say he could force, but politics can be a factor.

Don't think of it as force, but rather convince. A much more plausible political path than preventing UCLA from moving.

 

[State2015]

I said this in another thread but CW's podcast with Wilner really has me wishing the B12 would have explored a merger/alliance more with the PAC. Something more substantial than the crayon contract of 'The Alliance'.

IMO it's becoming more evident that B1G is staying put and not adding anyone at the moment, meaning UO/UW would stay put. I'm starting to get afraid that Fox/CBS/NBC blew their CFB load on the B1G contract and might not have much more money to spend. If we would have merged, we keep the regionality but also have one huge package for the networks to bid on, and it's essentially the last quality football option they have, and it covers every timezone.

Just my opinion - I definitely didn't feel this way a few weeks ago and believed we would be poaching some corner schools in no time. I believe as long as Oregon and Washington stick around, there's really not much incentive for anyone to bolt, and they are just competition for the dwindling TV slots available.

 

[isucy86]

OTA is the top of the mountain, its how you build fans for generations to come. Its why MLB is dying (hardly on OTA), and NFL and college football keep rising. And that pesky Big 10, they are not dumb, everything they do is smart, and of course they go and grab every good time slot on OTA for their next deal.

Not sure I buy that argument on "its how you build fans for generations to come".

How much TV do you watch on OTA? I am 58 and other than live sports, I watch almost zero. And what I do watch is the local or national news. If I happen to follow a Network show, I watch it on demand with my streaming service (Fubo).

I agree that OTA is the preferred route in 2022 and maybe the next decade to capture the most views. But I don't think that will be the case for generations to come.

And to be honest, I don't understand it today Even though nielsen #'s support OTA strength. If a person has Cable or Streaming (Hulu, YouTube) is it any easier to select ABC or Fox vs. ESPN2 or FS1? No. Do people's TV's turn on to channel 2 and people scroll up? And their thumb gets tired after 4 pushes!

It would be an interesting experiment if the Alabama vs Auburn or Ohio State vs Michigan games where on ESPNU and FS2 respectively. How much of a ratings decline would occur? Maybe significantly- but I have a tough time explaining.

 

[exCyDing]

I said this in another thread but CW's podcast with Wilner really has me wishing the B12 would have explored a merger/alliance more with the PAC. Something more substantial than the crayon contract of 'The Alliance'.

IMO it's becoming more evident that B1G is staying put and not adding anyone at the moment, meaning UO/UW would stay put. I'm starting to get afraid that Fox/CBS/NBC blew their CFB load on the B1G contract and might not have much more money to spend. If we would have merged, we keep the regionality but also have one huge package for the networks to bid on, and it's essentially the last quality football option they have, and it covers every timezone.

Just my opinion - I definitely didn't feel this way a few weeks ago and believed we would be poaching some corner schools in no time. I believe as long as Oregon and Washington stick around, there's really not much incentive for anyone to bolt, and they are just competition for the dwindling TV slots available.

Chill. The corner schools haven’t budged because the PAC hasn’t received bids from the open market yet. That’s currently happening, as it was one the back burner until the Big 10 deal was completed. Everyone’s staying in the PAC until 2024, so it doesn’t really matter if they make a decision today or in a couple of months.

The PAC schools aren’t going to make any decisions until they have all of their options laid out. That’s hasn’t happened yet .

 

[WhoISthis]

By making UCLA share Big10 monies with other Cal State Universities? I am sure that will go over well among UCLA alumni, who happen to vote just like Cal alumni. I am sure his support in So Cal would take a hit

If Newsom's intent was to get Cal included in realignment, he has no leverage with the Big10. The Big10 invited UCLA and USC after being approached by those schools. The Big10 acted under the assumption that UCLA had support within its governance structure.

Your vote count math is bad. In this hypothetical he is able to sell it to more voters taking action, where as doing nothing only sells with UCLA. UCLA alumni unlikely to be motivated enough to vote based on UCLA being in the BIG but making PAC money. That is a big DGAF to most voters. More likely it garners him favor with all the other PAC alumni in CA that he did the one thing he could to "attempt" to stop UCLA from going, and hence help the PAC.

These are deals with very few people making the decisions- so you're kidding yourself if you don't think politics are a factor. UCLA was not a money add and not the ideal partner for networks who were actually the ones brokering (which is how it was known well before June 30th), but USC wanted them, aka politics.

I don't think it is a lot of leverage, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be. And it certainly is the best political action to take.

 

[BCClone]

Chill. The corner schools haven’t budged because the PAC hasn’t received bids from the open market yet. That’s currently happening, as it was one the back burner until the Big 10 deal was completed. Everyone’s staying in the PAC until 2024, so it doesn’t really matter if they make a decision today or in a couple of months.

The PAC schools aren’t going to make any decisions until they have all of their options laid out. That’s hasn’t happened yet .

Until someone waives a GORs in their face that they have to sign, nothing will happen. They don’t have an exact number and we can’t give them an exact number. Time is on their side right now. Wait it out as long as possible and collect as much concrete data as they can.

 

[timinatoria]

Your vote count math is bad. In this hypothetical he is able to sell it to more voters taking action, where as doing nothing only sells with UCLA. UCLA alumni unlikely to be motivated enough to vote based on UCLA being in the BIG but making PAC money. That is a big DGAF to most voters. More likely it garners him favor with all the other PAC alumni in CA that he did the one thing he could to "attempt" to stop UCLA from going, and hence help the PAC.

These are deals with very few people making the decisions- so you're kidding yourself if you don't think politics are a factor. UCLA was not a money add and not the ideal partner for networks who were actually the ones brokering (which is how it was known well before June 30th), but USC wanted them, aka politics.

I don't think it is a lot of leverage, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be. And it certainly is the best political action to take.

It’s not happening. It just isn’t.

And who cares if it did? Goodbye UCLA, take your pick between Stanford/Oregon/Washington and move on.

The B1G wouldn’t even blink.

 

[OregonCyclone]

I throw this out there just as a personal perspective, but I'm sure I'm not alone in this respect. I'm a college sports junkie. I cut the cable cord some time ago and get my TV via Hulu + Live TV for about $70 a month. ESPN+ and Disney+ are part of the package. Hulu in my area also includes the B1G, SEC, and ACC Networks. At any given time, I have an absolutely eye-popping array of games available for my sports viewing pleasure in whatever season - FB, MBB, WBB, baseball, softball, wrestling, golf, whatever - and Hulu consolidates them on their menu screens. Often I don't even notice what channel or service the game is on. I also subscribe to Prime, Paramount+, and Peacock for their other content and would welcome Big 12 games on those services also.

My point is that my over-the-air channels come through Hulu, a streaming service, and everything else I watch is streamed. Sure, I get that the conferences can maximize their viewership by putting their games on OTA and cable channels, but cable subscriptions are plummeting. Where will they be in 5 years or 10 years when these new media agreements expire? I think streaming will be way more prominent than some people think.

After living in what is now Big 12 and Pac 12 country for the last 50 years, I moved to Ohio last fall. (Kept my CF user name because I like it!) I am right in the heart of B1G country with rabid Ohio State fans all around me. In fact, my grandfather was Woody Hayes's first high school coach, so I should have a Buckeye lean, but I don't. Like many other Big 12 and Pac 12 fans, I despise the B1G and SEC for their arrogance and sense of entitlement, and I am planning to completely boycott their games this fall (although I'll make an exception for Alabama's upcoming thrashing of Texas). I'd love to see a nationwide boycott of Big 10 and SEC games. Personally, I would rather watch Idaho State play Southern Utah than Georgia and their Chump of the Week.

I've made this point before on CF, that streaming channels could have amazing potential for digital archives of games that can be accessed by subscribers on demand or PPV. The content is already there. The conference networks already rerun past games to fill air time and hype current and upcoming seasons. It wouldn't be a significant revenue producer, but every bit helps.

Just one guy's thoughts. We now return you to our regular programming.

 

[Gonzo]

I didn't say he could force, but politics can be a factor.

Don't think of it as force, but rather convince. A much more plausible political path than preventing UCLA from moving.

He can't prevent UCLA from moving to the B1G.

 

[GoldCy]

Voters in CA couldn't care less about college sports. No one there would lose an election over it.

 

[jbhtexas]

Not sure I buy that argument on "its how you build fans for generations to come".

How much TV do you watch on OTA? I am 58 and other than live sports, I watch almost zero. And what I do watch is the local or national news. If I happen to follow a Network show, I watch it on demand with my streaming service (Fubo).

I agree that OTA is the preferred route in 2022 and maybe the next decade to capture the most views. But I don't think that will be the case for generations to come.

And to be honest, I don't understand it today Even though nielsen #'s support OTA strength. If a person has Cable or Streaming (Hulu, YouTube) is it any easier to select ABC or Fox vs. ESPN2 or FS1? No. Do people's TV's turn on to channel 2 and people scroll up? And their thumb gets tired after 4 pushes!

It would be an interesting experiment if the Alabama vs Auburn or Ohio State vs Michigan games where on ESPNU and FS2 respectively. How much of a ratings decline would occur? Maybe significantly- but I have a tough time explaining.

I don't watch OTA through my streaming service (Sling), because they don't have the local OTA channels. And I don't want Sling to jack up their price to carry the OTA channels, because I get those just fine through my antenna.

Just anecdotal...when the Texas Rangers were on OTA, I watched their games 1 or 2 times a week. Since they moved all their games to cable, I haven't watched a game (other than if they were in playoffs on OTA).

 

[isucy86]

I throw this out there just as a personal perspective, but I'm sure I'm not alone in this respect. I'm a college sports junkie. I cut the cable cord some time ago and get my TV via Hulu + Live TV for about $70 a month. ESPN+ and Disney+ are part of the package. Hulu in my area also includes the B1G, SEC, and ACC Networks. At any given time, I have an absolutely eye-popping array of games available for my sports viewing pleasure in whatever season - FB, MBB, WBB, baseball, softball, wrestling, golf, whatever - and Hulu consolidates them on their menu screens. Often I don't even notice what channel or service the game is on. I also subscribe to Prime, Paramount+, and Peacock for their other content and would welcome Big 12 games on those services also.

My point is that my over-the-air channels come through Hulu, a streaming service, and everything else I watch is streamed. Sure, I get that the conferences can maximize their viewership by putting their games on OTA and cable channels, but cable subscriptions are plummeting. Where will they be in 5 years or 10 years when these new media agreements expire? I think streaming will be way more prominent than some people think.

After living in what is now Big 12 and Pac 12 country for the last 50 years, I moved to Ohio last fall. (Kept my CF user name because I like it!) I am right in the heart of B1G country with rabid Ohio State fans all around me. In fact, my grandfather was Woody Hayes's first high school coach, so I should have a Buckeye lean, but I don't. Like many other Big 12 and Pac 12 fans, I despise the B1G and SEC for their arrogance and sense of entitlement, and I am planning to completely boycott their games this fall (although I'll make an exception for Alabama's upcoming thrashing of Texas). I'd love to see a nationwide boycott of Big 10 and SEC games. Personally, I would rather watch Idaho State play Southern Utah than Georgia and their Chump of the Week.

I've made this point before on CF, that streaming channels could have amazing potential for digital archives of games that can be accessed by subscribers on demand or PPV. The content is already there. The conference networks already rerun past games to fill air time and hype current and upcoming seasons. It wouldn't be a significant revenue producer, but every bit helps.

Just one guy's thoughts. We now return you to our regular programming.

IMO the potential tipping point is when cable & streaming services start to push back on Disney and Fox carriage bundles. Disney is going to need to pay for ESPN owning SEC coverage. Somehow Disney is going to need to pay for ESPN televising all or a share of a 12 or 16 team CFB Playoff.

Sling took this approach with it's 3 versions of its platform- 1 version that includes ESPN, 1 version that includes FOX/Universal and 1 combined.

 

[Klubber]

There are over 200 million Prime customers. About 40% watch the streaming service. That is still more than have cable.

And that 40% will go way up once Amazon starts streaming big time sporting events.

It's a good point you make here: large amounts of people already have it (Prime/Video). And those who currently are Prime members just for the merch/ship discounts can easily pick up a FireStick for less than $20 for sports streaming if they're cable/OTA viewers.

 

[Trice]

Sigh. Can someone reconcile this with all the other data that's out there? Number of viewers seems to be a pretty objective metric - obviously context matters, but the numbers should be the numbers - and yet people keep arguing it back and forth.

 

[PickSix]

Sigh. Can someone reconcile this with all the other data that's out there? Number of viewers seems to be a pretty objective metric - obviously context matters, but the numbers should be the numbers - and yet people keep arguing it back and forth.

I imagine the main counter argument is what we've already heard. Timeslots matter. It's easier to get more viewers if you're a PAC team playing at 10:00 pm with no other games on compared to a Big 12 teams going up against SEC and Big Ten games.

The PAC-12 will act like this is their saving grace, but it doesn't really matter, because time zones follow the school, not the conference. These pacific coast games would draw just as well, if not better, if they were a part of the Big 12.

 

[StLouisClone]

Sigh. Can someone reconcile this with all the other data that's out there? Number of viewers seems to be a pretty objective metric - obviously context matters, but the numbers should be the numbers - and yet people keep arguing it back and forth.

Go back about 100 pages. This was discussed. The P12 and B12 schools are about equal when you compare games on like networks. But the trends and most recent viewership numbers favor the B12 schools.

 

[MJ271]

Sigh. Can someone reconcile this with all the other data that's out there? Number of viewers seems to be a pretty objective metric - obviously context matters, but the numbers should be the numbers - and yet people keep arguing it back and forth.

In addition to the time slot/network context that others have mentioned, I think the biggest issue with these straight averages is that Pac-12 Network viewership isn't published (neither is ESPN+, but the Big 12 has had a lot fewer games on ESPN+ in any relevant time period). Presumably those games have significantly lower viewership than the rest of the conference games. So any straight average comparison between the conferences is like taking the bottom 30% (just a guess) of Pac-12 games and removing it while including nearly all of the Big 12 data.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

If SDSU was so valuable, they would already be in a major conference. We could have taken them instead of UCF…we didn’t. The PAC could have added them a year ago…they didn’t. I don’t see any reason to add them. The Big 12 should only be focused on making the Big 12 stronger long-term. We don’t want to add the equivalent of a Rutgers.

Right. Pac12 is in negotiations right now and they haven’t added SDSU.

 

[theshadow]

Sigh. Can someone reconcile this with all the other data that's out there? Number of viewers seems to be a pretty objective metric - obviously context matters, but the numbers should be the numbers - and yet people keep arguing it back and forth.

In addition to ignoring the variables of network, time slot, and competing games, these people -- by simply throwing out games involving departing schools -- have also arbitrarily decided that 100% of the viewers of ISU-OU (for example) are tuning in just to see OU.