Thee PAC 12, Big 10, and ACC (Alliance) are Dividing Up tOrphaned 8 As We Plorst.

huskers1217 said:
how are they going to drop this big announcement today? which i guess won't amount to anything other than playing 2 games against each other a year
Click to expand...
Baylor bout ta git relegated to the D-1-A equivalent of the Friendzone, news at 11
 
Wild Turkey said:
The problem with working something out is that it’s a 15 year commitment so it would take 20 million a year for 15 years or 300 million total over the life of the contract to make it work.

300 million.

Now what do you think happens?
Click to expand...
They’d be adding an extra conference game. They’d have to renegotiate unless you think the ACC would go for the networks paying the same rate as they would a game with one of the 1-AA teams.
 
Deep Creek said:
I can see that. But I'm afraid what the networks and/or streaming folks are willing to pay the "good" money for are the matchups that are more attractive "everywhere"...which means there needs to be a more attractive brand playing. I'd say there are really only these categories.

Marquee brand vs Marquee brand - HUGE viewership
Marquee brand vs non Marquee brand but decent team - Not HUGE but enough viewership to pay up for
Non Marquee brand but decent team vs Non Marquee brand but decent team - Decent viewership
Marquee brand vs Non Marquee brand but NOT a good team - Again, Decent Viewership
All the others are only worth discounted offerings.

This is kind "duh" as my grandkids say, but I'll say it anyway. The more inventory a conference has in the top three categories, the larger the financial offering. If it more heavily weighted in the bottom categories, the less. If it is only us die hard CFB fans that are watching, that doesn't move the needle enough for those entities to fork over large amounts of cash. The K-State/USC game is much more likely to draw the eye of a casual B1G fan in Zanesville, Ohio. K-State/Arizona, not so much.

It sure looks like the more "marquee/brand" names a conference has the better the financial offering will be. And not just to the PAC. The freight payers want an inventory of a lot of those 4 million viewer games that @WhosYourDawggy posted the article about.

Hell, I hope I'm wrong but it sure looks like that's the way it is going.
Click to expand...
Well, the Pac-12 can stand pat if they like.

Funny because the non-sexy branded Iowa State Cyclones and the Oklahoma State Cowboys have larger stadiums, sell more tickets, have larger crowds and travel better for Bowl Games than the Pac-12 Power branded Oregon Ducks. We are not talking about considering 30,000 something casual programs like Washington State and Oregon State here.

It's up to the Pac-12. If they want to get into the Central Time-Zone, they have an excellent opportunity to grab some quality programs. I am fairly certain that a Pac-16 with four new schools in 4 new states in 4 additional good "football" markets stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River will be able to gain a more lucrative TV deal than what they currently have.

If not, that's their business.
 
ralphiewvu said:
They’d be adding an extra conference game. They’d have to renegotiate unless you think the ACC would go for the networks paying the same rate as they would a game with one of the 1-AA teams.
Click to expand...
You seriously are not following what I am saying so it's important that you try and focus. Here are the general facts (note I was wrong and working off old data because the ACC schools split 33mm instead of 20mm) :

1. ACC schools get 33mm from the conference each year
2. Current deal is for 15 years
3. To add a school the ACC would have to add 495 million over 15 years in revenue to breakeven
4. Renegotiation with the Network is going to be incredibly hard because there isn't anything on the table to really bargain with except one new game a year.
5. They are announcing the "Alliance" today and we don't know what that looks like yet but if it involves games against other conferences then they are going to have their hands full integrating that into schedules without adding a team.
6. I just don't see your three-pod solution to scheduling being that attractive to the other schools and I really don't see them doing it just to add WV.
7. I don't see the other conferences banning together and forcing ND's hand (although I would be in favor of that) because the B1G wants to stay in contention and I don't think the PAC wants the ACC to get any stronger and surpass them in revenue.

I get you want this to happen so very badly and honestly, I hope it happens for you but I don't think it is going to. I just don't see where it makes economic sense.

I don't see the B1G expanding unless the AAU money (which I really do not understand that well) makes it worthwhile.

I do see where the PAC could make it work but it would take a lot of negotiation and luck to pull it off and I think they should at least try or they will eventually regret it.

This is literally the last email I'm posting on this and you either accept what I'm saying or you don't.

Best of luck.
 
78Cyclones said:
Well, the Pac-12 can stand pat if they like.

Funny because the non-sexy branded Iowa State Cyclones and the Oklahoma State Cowboys have larger stadiums, sell more tickets, have larger crowds and travel better for Bowl Games than the Pac-12 Power branded Oregon Ducks. We are not talking about considering 30,000 something casual programs like Washington State and Oregon State here.

It's up to the Pac-12. If they want to get into the Central Time-Zone, they have an excellent opportunity to grab some quality programs. I am fairly certain that a Pac-16 with four new schools in 4 new states in 4 additional good "football" markets stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River will be able to gain a more lucrative TV deal than what they currently have.

If not, that's their business.
Click to expand...
If the PAC 12 can do that and not lower their per school share, they'd be nuts not to do it. And you hit the nail on the head. All are perceived as "non sexy" brands. Truth be told, some of those that are considered "sexy" brands are really just a bunch of arrogant pricks IMHO.

Hell, Texas Tech's stadium is also larger than Oregon's as well. K-State is about the same as Oregon.
 
78Cyclones said:
It's not just about watching those teams though. If the Pac expanded into the Central Time Zone in the Des Moines, Kansas City, Oklahoma City and West Texas markets, there would be a bunch of folks (in football watchin' states) watching not only their teams play but watching the current Pac teams with a newfound interest too. There may not be as many people in those four markets as the Western markets, but they are all solid college football markets.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. If the PAC doesn't take a hard look at this and try to find a way to make it work and be revenue neutral then the commissioners aren't doing their job and I believe they will regret it.
 
The B1G and Pac12 academic snobbery is so hilarious and hypocritical. Isn't the basic function and goal of academics to improve and expand education to everyone? You would think it would be a great idea to bring in a non-AAU school and try to help them get on their feet to become AAU instead of just being snobs about it.

I do think the B1G can stay pat and be fine so it is probably more than just Academics for them. However, Pac12 needs to do something to survive.
 
Deep Creek said:
If the PAC 12 can do that and not lower their per school share, they'd be nuts not to do it. And you hit the nail on the head. All are perceived as "non sexy" brands. Truth be told, some of those that are considered "sexy" brands are really just a bunch of arrogant pricks IMHO.

Hell, Texas Tech's stadium is also larger than Oregon's as well. K-State is about the same as Oregon.
Click to expand...

That's the issue. Right now the PAC 12 doesn't believe that any of the teams out there will increase their payout per team. 4 more teams means 4 more mouths to feed. The upcoming scheduling alliance will boost the value of the TV deal without splitting the pie more ways.
 
duckboy33 said:
That's the issue. Right now the PAC 12 doesn't believe that any of the teams out there will increase their payout per team. 4 more teams means 4 more mouths to feed. The upcoming scheduling alliance will boost the value of the TV deal without splitting the pie more ways.
Click to expand...

Easy fix, dump Oregon State and Washington State... add Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Problem solved.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Easy fix, dump Oregon State and Washington State... add Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

I'm all for that but we both know that's not going to happen.
 
Volbound1700 said:
The B1G and Pac12 academic snobbery is so hilarious and hypocritical. Isn't the basic function and goal of academics to improve and expand education to everyone? You would think it would be a great idea to bring in a non-AAU school and try to help them get on their feet to become AAU instead of just being snobs about it.

I do think the B1G can stay pat and be fine so it is probably more than just Academics for them. However, Pac12 needs to do something to survive.
Click to expand...
As a lifelong public school educator, I love your idealism. But, that isn't the case. Elite academic institutions aren't interested in "everyone". Hell, even non elite academic institutions have admission criteria.
 
duckboy33 said:
That's the issue. Right now the PAC 12 doesn't believe that any of the teams out there will increase their payout per team. 4 more teams means 4 more mouths to feed. The upcoming scheduling alliance will boost the value of the TV deal without splitting the pie more ways.
Click to expand...
I'm not a media expert by any means but I think you are correct. But, one would think a scheduling alliance will only help if they schedule a lot of "must see" games like Washington/Ohio State or USC/Penn State, etc. I'm not sure a Cal/Purdue match up will move the needle any more than an Arizona State/Oklahoma State match up would. But, that's just me. Maybe Cal/Purdue is a sexy one in the eyes of the bill payers.
 
Deep Creek said:
As a lifelong public school educator, I love your idealism. But, that isn't the case. Elite academic institutions aren't interested in "everyone". Hell, even non elite academic institutions have admission criteria.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily mean acceptance of students but different schools should accept each other. A classic example is the snobbery towards West Virginia. The state has a "reputation" to them. Well admit the school, up its standards, and improve the region. That is the ACADEMIC MISSION.
 
Deep Creek said:
I'm not a media expert by any means but I think you are correct. But, one would think a scheduling alliance will only help if they schedule a lot of "must see" games like Washington/Ohio State or USC/Penn State, etc. I'm not sure a Cal/Purdue match up will move the needle any more than an Arizona State/Oklahoma State match up would. But, that's just me. Maybe Cal/Purdue is a sexy one in the eyes of the bill payers.
Click to expand...

Lower tier games don’t move the needle but the high profile games do. And Cal/Purdue is no different than Cal/Arizona (the type of game it’s replacing)
 
OlyDuck said:
that seems like a push
Click to expand...

Nah. New markets and better programs. But they aren’t going to kick out any existing members so it doesn’t really matter
 
Even the lower tier games still have more viewership than seeing them play SE Louisiana State Tech type games or even lower tier conference games. You also, always get those years where a low tier team is in the top ten and a contender so that would drive eyeballs to the matchup.
 
78Cyclones said:
Well, the Pac-12 can stand pat if they like.

Funny because the non-sexy branded Iowa State Cyclones and the Oklahoma State Cowboys have larger stadiums, sell more tickets, have larger crowds and travel better for Bowl Games than the Pac-12 Power branded Oregon Ducks. We are not talking about considering 30,000 something casual programs like Washington State and Oregon State here.

It's up to the Pac-12. If they want to get into the Central Time-Zone, they have an excellent opportunity to grab some quality programs. I am fairly certain that a Pac-16 with four new schools in 4 new states in 4 additional good "football" markets stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River will be able to gain a more lucrative TV deal than what they currently have.

If not, that's their business.
Click to expand...
bigger stadiums =more tickets sold.
bigger stadiums does not = better team.
Washington state and Oregon State both won the conference in the 2000s when was the last Iowa State conference championship?
OK state had one in 2011 at least.
Iowa State has two 9 win seasons since 2000 and act like they should have been in on the SEC deal.
 
duckboy33 said:
Lower tier games don’t move the needle but the high profile games do. And Cal/Purdue is no different than Cal/Arizona (the type of game it’s replacing)
Click to expand...
That's 100% true. So, they are going with one less conference game to schedule an additional OOC game among the three conferences? Or, are they going to replace some crummy OOC match ups with new OOC games among the three conferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top