Big 12 to meet to consider 6 new teams(PAC)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Dec 19, 2012
1,152
477
1,713
37
Radio was saying total (Fox,CBS,NBC & Streaming) media deal for BIG is being rumored at $1.25B/yr for approx 8 years
Will be interesting to see how this affects PAC and Big XII Contracts if this happens. Keep in mind ESPN kept trying to break Big XII up to feed less mouths, maybe they give up on that and keep low bling the PAC to break them up and take the best remaining to the Big XII.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
16,722
6,013
1,743
Katy, TX
Will be interesting to see how this affects PAC and Big XII Contracts if this happens. Keep in mind ESPN kept trying to break Big XII up to feed less mouths, maybe they give up on that and keep low bling the PAC to break them up and take the best remaining to the Big XII.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewMarchand/status/1556704004536664064
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
11,427
1,525
1,743
39
Edmond, OK
that is a ton of money. B1G is going to leave SEC in the dust with that money, and it is going to be hilarious. B1G has 3 networks vs SEC with just ESPN
Actually that is less than the "$100 mil per team" that was rumored. However, I'm not sure if that number includes the B1G Network or not. It is definitely big, but one needs to keep it in context.
 
Sep 6, 2014
453
278
613
No B1G games on ESPN

https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1556800899430825985?s=20&t=V5vx--PdoPz7_Q4Ym8IbMQ

So what exactly does this mean for the Big 12 tv deal, tv contract and expansion? I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, I kept seeing us getting a contract with CBS and playing before/after Notre Dame
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
11,427
1,525
1,743
39
Edmond, OK
Big TV deal can only be negative for big 12. That will lock up all national broadcasters except abc.
Fox does national broadcasts on their main network now too. Also, ESPN will do national broadcasts, though that is admittedly cable and not over the air.

I think Fox will continue to be a big bidder for the Big 12. B1G content is not enough for them. Also, still a chance that our lower tier rights get bought up by someone like an Amazon.
 
Mar 30, 2005
2,400
684
1,743
7 Island Suite
So what exactly does this mean for the Big 12 tv deal, tv contract and expansion? I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, I kept seeing us getting a contract with CBS and playing before/after Notre Dame
If true, it can’t be good for the Big 12 or Pac 12. Takes out the possibility of having an exclusive partner. I’m guessing this means both conferences will end up with more or less the same distribution for less money.
 
Jun 4, 2014
1,341
823
743
Dallas, TX
It's reported that the Big 10 has guaranteed time slots on the national networks (3:30 CBS, Prime Time NBC and Big Noon Fox). That leaves 6 available time slots (depending on ND home games) on national networks other than ABC if they are going to bid for other conferences. We really need CBS and NBC to bump up their CFB commitment to allow for the Big 12 to have air time.

This also could force the SEC/ESPN to gobble up more brands to expand it's TV slots. But we will have to wait till next summer for that to happen.
 
Jul 9, 2004
841
454
1,613
Interesting take from a reddit post:

The thing to remember here is that the XII has no research consortium (a la the B1GAA or the PAC-ALC) to encourage that sort of cooperation.

If there was a research consortium in place, Cal could bring zero athletics whatsoever and still be an easy take; Berkeley has famously been the largest contributor to the PAC-ALC RSS pool by a sizable margin since the association was formalized as a consortium in 2015.

As a former higher ed administrator, I'd be quaking in my boots if I was the provost/president at WSU, OSU, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, or Arizona State, and I was looking at the prospect of all of my researchers losing their courtesy access to Berkeley's RSS assets. Those schools have all made major academic gains in recent years without the commensurate spend, largely based on their increased access to the PAC-ALC RSS pool that Berkeley, UCLA, and USC have largely provided. Utah probably keeps their access because Berkeley's administration has basically adopted the University of Utah (Berkeley's administration spoke up quite strongly for Utah's admission to the AAU two years ago, and Berkeley had made a point to encourage STEM research with UU), but the schools that have been desperately trying to get to get up to the big leagues, like Arizona, are going to be set back by a solid decade or more.

Parallel to that, if I were the provost/ president at OKST, Baylor, UH, or Texas Tech, the Big XII schools that have been working the hardest to establish themselves as real players in the research game, I'd be salivating at the chance to be in a research consortium like that with Cal. Those schools have all been working hard for years now to stretch their own RSS assets as far as possible for their own researchers, and suddenly having access to Cal's RSS would change the game for them. OKST could, quite viably, pass OU in the research game in just four or five years, and it would only take that long because OU has the National Weather Center and all of the NOAA/NWS/OAR research money that comes from that.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 
Jul 9, 2011
3,033
1,670
1,743
67
Carlos, TX
It's a blend. The ideal candidate has amazing popularity/big known brand/viewership and brings big TV market additions too, but there aren't many of those left and Big XII is behind BIG and SEC are first in order.

Just look at the Big Ten- they added Rutgers and Maryland for TV markets only, not because they were good programs with good viewership.

Several people have reported that an AZ school and CU move the needle in value per team. I think both AZ schools and Utah plus CU barely do though. Because of the duplicating TV markets.
The networks don't generate income from a "blend". They generate income from tv viewership; the more viewers, the more they can charge per ad and that is where they get the income to justify the $ they are paying conferences. The blend is potential, but only potential, and ultimately the blend must generate tv viewers or there is not value to the the networks. Period. It's business.

Location close to media markets, tradition/helmet logo, w/l record, all of that only counts to networks if the games generate viewers. The network people are not idiots, and they aren't a NCAA football charity - they fully expect to make a profit off the deals and they won't pay big bucks if they don't believe people will watch. It is absolutely that simple.
 
Nov 27, 2007
3,268
1,535
1,743
36
Tulsa
The networks don't generate income from a "blend". They generate income from tv viewership; the more viewers, the more they can charge per ad and that is where they get the income to justify the $ they are paying conferences. The blend is potential, but only potential, and ultimately the blend must generate tv viewers or there is not value to the the networks. Period. It's business.

Location close to media markets, tradition/helmet logo, w/l record, all of that only counts to networks if the games generate viewers. The network people are not idiots, and they aren't a NCAA football charity - they fully expect to make a profit off the deals and they won't pay big bucks if they don't believe people will watch. It is absolutely that simple.
Please explain Rutgers and Maryland’s acceptance in the Big10 in 2014.

For reference: Rutgers is ranked 75th with an average of 276k viewers. Maryland is 54th with 584k. Plus those numbers are bumped from playing teams like tOSU, Michigan, etc.

An excerpt from the Washington post back in 2014:
“ Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference beginning in 2014 for one reason: money. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, who would sell his soul to anyone to make an extra buck, saw many extra bucks in getting into the New York and Washington markets — the better to enhance his Big Ten TV network.”
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,187
17,467
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I'm sure these networks are looking at long term potential as well as immediate gain. It's not just how many viewers a team gets right now, it's how many viewers they may get in the future as well. A team averaging a million viewers in a market with 1.5 million people is pretty well saturated. A team with 400K viewers in a market with 5 million people has room to grow.

Getting our product into big markets is important, I can't imagine any network saying otherwise.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
23,242
15,568
1,743
ESPN would love to expand the Longhorn Network into a Big 12 network.
I have not yet decided if that would allow me to remove my curse I put on UT at the creation of the LHN.

Scoff it you want, but how successful has UT been in the biggest revenue sports since I instilled my curse?

1660225962382.png


=
1660226021562.png
 
Dec 19, 2012
1,152
477
1,713
37
The networks don't generate income from a "blend". They generate income from tv viewership; the more viewers, the more they can charge per ad and that is where they get the income to justify the $ they are paying conferences. The blend is potential, but only potential, and ultimately the blend must generate tv viewers or there is not value to the the networks. Period. It's business.

Location close to media markets, tradition/helmet logo, w/l record, all of that only counts to networks if the games generate viewers. The network people are not idiots, and they aren't a NCAA football charity - they fully expect to make a profit off the deals and they won't pay big bucks if they don't believe people will watch. It is absolutely that simple.
Your saying the same thing mostly, by blend, I mean a blend of factors that contribute to viewership.
But like it was posted previously, TV markets are still one of the biggest factors- that's why Maryland and Rutgers got invites to the Big Ten (that and research capability which is a Big Ten req).

As someone else pointed out, future value has to be calculated too. A good coach makes all the difference in the world. I'm nervous for when Gundy retires, hopefully we've already planted ourselves in some good TV deals. Look at Texas, they are still valuable, but if they win 10+ games a season or a national title they skyrocket in viewership and popularity. USC is another great example of this. It's become increasingly difficult to compete at a high level with these conferences saturated with name brands, which could benefit the new Big XII (+ PAC schools possibly).
 
Dec 19, 2012
1,152
477
1,713
37
Interesting take from a reddit post:

The thing to remember here is that the XII has no research consortium (a la the B1GAA or the PAC-ALC) to encourage that sort of cooperation.

If there was a research consortium in place, Cal could bring zero athletics whatsoever and still be an easy take; Berkeley has famously been the largest contributor to the PAC-ALC RSS pool by a sizable margin since the association was formalized as a consortium in 2015.

As a former higher ed administrator, I'd be quaking in my boots if I was the provost/president at WSU, OSU, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, or Arizona State, and I was looking at the prospect of all of my researchers losing their courtesy access to Berkeley's RSS assets. Those schools have all made major academic gains in recent years without the commensurate spend, largely based on their increased access to the PAC-ALC RSS pool that Berkeley, UCLA, and USC have largely provided. Utah probably keeps their access because Berkeley's administration has basically adopted the University of Utah (Berkeley's administration spoke up quite strongly for Utah's admission to the AAU two years ago, and Berkeley had made a point to encourage STEM research with UU), but the schools that have been desperately trying to get to get up to the big leagues, like Arizona, are going to be set back by a solid decade or more.

Parallel to that, if I were the provost/ president at OKST, Baylor, UH, or Texas Tech, the Big XII schools that have been working the hardest to establish themselves as real players in the research game, I'd be salivating at the chance to be in a research consortium like that with Cal. Those schools have all been working hard for years now to stretch their own RSS assets as far as possible for their own researchers, and suddenly having access to Cal's RSS would change the game for them. OKST could, quite viably, pass OU in the research game in just four or five years, and it would only take that long because OU has the National Weather Center and all of the NOAA/NWS/OAR research money that comes from that.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
I just don't understand why these types of alliances are done through athletic conferences. Why don't schools build an "academic conference" that is separate from athletics. Makes no sense... However, I do see the value of association as academic prestige mostly comes from perception and research dollars (which many times comes at the expense of actual education in the classroom).