College Football Expansion - Who is Next and Why

[Volbound1700]

Markets are shrinking and it is because more people are tuning out from Sports. Sports, in general, don't have the strangle hold that they had in the 1990s era. I think the athletes back then were more personable: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Shaq, etc. You can see how they are personable because most are involved in broadcasting or other public images today. Lebron James is probably the face of NBA, for example, and he is very divisive.

People are also tuning into Politics more today. It is no surprise that sports talk hosts like Clay Travis have pivoted to primarily talking about politics now because political talk shows bring the $$$ and ratings.

You laugh, but I see more attendance at video game conferences like E3 and more hype for that than I see for Pac12 football. Let that fact sink in. That sums up LA market in general.

I have relatives that lived in San Diego and most of them couldn't even name the teams in the Pac12. You don't see that in the Southeast with the SEC. Even the people not into sports still know about the teams.

There is plenty of competition in sports. I do think winning brings eyeballs and fans. Tennessee's fanbase has shrunk. I know a lot of people that moved to other teams or just don't watch right now. If Tennessee got good again, they would come crawling back.

USC would have to get Pete Carroll good again or UCLA get John Wooden good to tap into their market. If this doesn't happen, the B1G may start to see the profits shrink in LA region.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

For Cable packages, yes. But less and less people are getting cable. For YTTV, every customer gets the Big Ten, SEC and ACC networks regardless of location. Being in the geographic footprint of the conference isn't relevant for YTTV. So they're going to value their inventory based on viewership.

But if you really measured it, it probably wouldn't be all that different from what cable offers at this point. I doubt you'd get a cable package without at least ESPN and the B10 network in most states at this point. What is shifting is the actual networks that are partnering with conferences/sports. ESPN is forcing YouTube to carry certain things that they've negotiated for and forcing every subscriber to pay for it no matter what. It's the same cable model, it's just slightly different in that EVERY person gets these things nationally. But the leverage they have in forcing it, still dramatically depends on market. ESPN ponied up a shit ton of money for the SEC network rights, and they're going to force that onto anyone that carries the channel. And that's what's being negotiated with the B10 right now. Because it's not just about the stand alone channel, but all the other games that appear on fox/cbs/espn or whatever network gets the rights. And those still will very much depend on where you are regionally.

What shows up on your local fox station on Saturday at noon in the fall will likely be entirely different than what someone in NYC is getting. It's the same thing ESPN does with ABC. That's where "region" becomes extremely important. And those local channels are still local channels even on YTTV.

 

[Volbound1700]

But if you really measured it, it probably wouldn't be all that different from what cable offers at this point. I doubt you'd get a cable package without at least ESPN and the B10 network in most states at this point. What is shifting is the actual networks that are partnering with conferences/sports. ESPN is forcing YouTube to carry certain things that they've negotiated for and forcing every subscriber to pay for it no matter what. It's the same cable model, it's just slightly different in that EVERY person gets these things nationally. But the leverage they have in forcing it, still dramatically depends on market. ESPN ponied up a shit ton of money for the SEC network rights, and they're going to force that onto anyone that carries the channel. And that's what's being negotiated with the B10 right now. Because it's not just about the stand alone channel, but all the other games that appear on fox/cbs/espn or whatever network gets the rights. And those still will very much depend on where you are regionally.

What shows up on your local fox station on Saturday at noon in the fall will likely be entirely different than what someone in NYC is getting. It's the same thing ESPN does with ABC. That's where "region" becomes extremely important. And those local channels are still local channels even on YTTV.

CFB is more national know, though. Sure sometimes ABC does regional splits but for the most part, the ABC, CBS, and NBC game is the same game nationally. That wasn't the case until the last 10 years (the exception being CBS and the SEC which really helped the SEC and NBC with Notre Dame).

ESPN is regional broadcast but ESPN is a cable/streaming subscription.

NFL is another story entirely though. I get primarily Titans and Falcon games (which doesn't bother me because I cheer for both teams). We also sometimes get Cowboy focus because they are "America's team".

 

[duckboy33]

But if you really measured it, it probably wouldn't be all that different from what cable offers at this point. I doubt you'd get a cable package without at least ESPN and the B10 network in most states at this point. What is shifting is the actual networks that are partnering with conferences/sports. ESPN is forcing YouTube to carry certain things that they've negotiated for and forcing every subscriber to pay for it no matter what. It's the same cable model, it's just slightly different in that EVERY person gets these things nationally. But the leverage they have in forcing it, still dramatically depends on market. ESPN ponied up a shit ton of money for the SEC network rights, and they're going to force that onto anyone that carries the channel. And that's what's being negotiated with the B10 right now. Because it's not just about the stand alone channel, but all the other games that appear on fox/cbs/espn or whatever network gets the rights. And those still will very much depend on where you are regionally.

What shows up on your local fox station on Saturday at noon in the fall will likely be entirely different than what someone in NYC is getting. It's the same thing ESPN does with ABC. That's where "region" becomes extremely important. And those local channels are still local channels even on YTTV.

I had cable not that long ago on the West Coast and the BTN was not included in their standard package. But it was included in my buddy's package in Pennsylvania.

As for FOX or CBS, when's the last time they did a regional split for a college football game? I certainly can't remember. I know ABC/ESPN2 would create regional matchups for the 3:30 game and show the regional game on ABC and the out of region game oN ESPN2. I don't remember FOX or CBS ever doing that.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I had cable not that long ago on the West Coast and the BTN was not included in their standard package. But it was included in my buddy's package in Pennsylvania.

As for FOX or CBS, when's the last time they did a regional split for a college football game? I certainly can't remember. I know ABC/ESPN2 would create regional matchups for the 3:30 game and show the regional game on ABC and the out of region game oN ESPN2. I don't remember FOX or CBS ever doing that.

I can tell you this, we don't see shit for Pac12 games out here.

 

[duckboy33]

I can tell you this, we don't see shit for Pac12 games out here.

I live on the East Coast. Every PAC 12 game is on national TV unless it's on the PAC 12 Network. There are no regional splits

 

[Volbound1700]

I can tell you this, we don't see shit for Pac12 games out here.

I live in Middle Tennessee and I get Pac12 games on Fox. They are later games. We generally get Big12 or B1G in the mornings. I can basically see most major matchups in all leagues if I wanted (I generally tune in more for preference to the SEC matchups). All I have is the SEC Network, ESPNs, and basic cable.

Heck, I can even get most major basketball matchups.

 

[duckboy33]

Markets are shrinking and it is because more people are tuning out from Sports. Sports, in general, don't have the strangle hold that they had in the 1990s era. I think the athletes back then were more personable: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Shaq, etc. You can see how they are personable because most are involved in broadcasting or other public images today. Lebron James is probably the face of NBA, for example, and he is very divisive.

People are also tuning into Politics more today. It is no surprise that sports talk hosts like Clay Travis have pivoted to primarily talking about politics now because political talk shows bring the $$$ and ratings.

You laugh, but I see more attendance at video game conferences like E3 and more hype for that than I see for Pac12 football. Let that fact sink in. That sums up LA market in general.

I have relatives that lived in San Diego and most of them couldn't even name the teams in the Pac12. You don't see that in the Southeast with the SEC. Even the people not into sports still know about the teams.

There is plenty of competition in sports. I do think winning brings eyeballs and fans. Tennessee's fanbase has shrunk. I know a lot of people that moved to other teams or just don't watch right now. If Tennessee got good again, they would come crawling back.

USC would have to get Pete Carroll good again or UCLA get John Wooden good to tap into their market. If this doesn't happen, the B1G may start to see the profits shrink in LA region.

Ratings and attendance are down but that's largely due to their being more entertainment options than ever before.

One advantage live sports has it still has a captive audience. With the rise of DVR and Streaming, almost nobody watches new TV shows on cable. With the commercials, it's a bad product compared to streaming services and anything good can get recorded and the advertisers know this. However, with live sports, people don't typically want to watch it after the game ended. Most people still watch it live, so even with a smaller audience, their value to advertisers is still going up.

 

[Volbound1700]

Ratings and attendance are down but that's largely due to their being more entertainment options than ever before.

One advantage live sports has it still has a captive audience. With the rise of DVR and Streaming, almost nobody watches new TV shows on cable. With the commercials, it's a bad product compared to streaming services and anything good can get recorded and the advertisers know this. However, with live sports, people don't typically want to watch it after the game ended. Most people still watch it live, so even with a smaller audience, their value to advertisers is still going up.

Live sports is primarily keeping cable/satellite alive and they know it. I can get a non-sports package for under $ 50 a month but as soon as I add sports stations, it shoots up to $ 80 to $ 100 depending on the service.

I recently ditched satellite for streaming. A couple of years ago when I reviewed it satellite won the fight with sports but now streaming has won it. I will probably never go back to cable/satellite since I have taken the plunge.

Agree about West Coast but it has been trending that way for decades. Pac12 teams desperately needs to win to get fans in the seats or the stadiums start to look empty. Same is true with Northeastern/New England teams. Fanbases in Big12, B1G, and SEC regions tend to be more loyal and CFB has more cultural reference. This is why I was arguing that Oklahoma may not be that far behind USC in media attention for CFB a year ago and got trolled for it.

Pac12 also travels more than any other league. There are several reasons for that:

1. Pac12 teams don't make as much money off stadium attendance due to smaller stadiums (exception being LA schools) and low fan support

2. Lack of a lot of mid-major options in their region. SEC has Sunbelt, American, and Conf USA teams all over its footprints. Most SEC schools have 3-5 mid-majors within stone throw. Pac12 has Boise State, UNLV, San Diego State, San Jose State, and Fresno State. That is about it.

3. Pac12 teams need the money from playing away games to survive. It also helps recruiting and television market more so than a B1G and SEC team who can still draw eyeballs when the play an MTSU, Austin Peay, UAB, etc.

Pac12 has it tough in modern era due to a lot of outside factors. It is only going to get worse with UCLA and USC leaving. If you look at Pac12's reach, it expands a geographic distance far greater than any of the other traditional conferences. Oregon playing at Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, or USC is equivalent to Tennessee playing at Minnesota or Wisconsin for example.

 

[Thiefery]

Big 12 commish says they are open for business... sounds like he was talking to a couple schools

 

[duckboy33]

Big 12 commish says they are open for business... sounds like he was talking to a couple schools

Hopefully they take Colorado

 

[duckboy33]

Live sports is primarily keeping cable/satellite alive and they know it. I can get a non-sports package for under $ 50 a month but as soon as I add sports stations, it shoots up to $ 80 to $ 100 depending on the service.

I recently ditched satellite for streaming. A couple of years ago when I reviewed it satellite won the fight with sports but now streaming has won it. I will probably never go back to cable/satellite since I have taken the plunge.

Agree about West Coast but it has been trending that way for decades. Pac12 teams desperately needs to win to get fans in the seats or the stadiums start to look empty. Same is true with Northeastern/New England teams. Fanbases in Big12, B1G, and SEC regions tend to be more loyal and CFB has more cultural reference. This is why I was arguing that Oklahoma may not be that far behind USC in media attention for CFB a year ago and got trolled for it.

Pac12 also travels more than any other league. There are several reasons for that:

1. Pac12 teams don't make as much money off stadium attendance due to smaller stadiums (exception being LA schools) and low fan support

2. Lack of a lot of mid-major options in their region. SEC has Sunbelt, American, and Conf USA teams all over its footprints. Most SEC schools have 3-5 mid-majors within stone throw. Pac12 has Boise State, UNLV, San Diego State, San Jose State, and Fresno State. That is about it.

3. Pac12 teams need the money from playing away games to survive. It also helps recruiting and television market more so than a B1G and SEC team who can still draw eyeballs when the play an MTSU, Austin Peay, UAB, etc.

Pac12 has it tough in modern era due to a lot of outside factors. It is only going to get worse with UCLA and USC leaving. If you look at Pac12's reach, it expands a geographic distance far greater than any of the other traditional conferences. Oregon playing at Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, or USC is equivalent to Tennessee playing at Minnesota or Wisconsin for example.

It's easier to say now but the PAC 12 really should have expanded after UT and OU left the Big 12. They should have picked up Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. This would have given them a strong presence in Texas. I doubt it would have kept USC or UCLA from leaving but they would still be sitting pretty with 14 teams. Right now there aren't a lot of expansion options for the PAC 10 so survival is based on not losing any more members.

 

[temptresstoo]

Gonna leave this right here...

 

[Deep Creek]

The lucky ones will be the Vandy's and NWs who are in and probably shouldn't be.

I can't believe YOU would even mention such a thing!

 

[Volbound1700]

It's easier to say now but the PAC 12 really should have expanded after UT and OU left the Big 12. They should have picked up Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. This would have given them a strong presence in Texas. I doubt it would have kept USC or UCLA from leaving but they would still be sitting pretty with 14 teams. Right now there aren't a lot of expansion options for the PAC 10 so survival is based on not losing any more members.

It would have helped but I think OU and Texas would have eventually gone to SEC no matter what and you would be scrambling right now.

The move was probably inevitable once Texas A&M went to the SEC. Texas was starting to lose the recruiting war with A&M and frankly there are just better matchups and rivals in the SEC for Texas. No one really gets that wild about Baylor-Texas but games like Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-Arkansas, and Texas-LSU bring eyeballs.

Oklahoma is in a similar boat. Big12 lost a lot of energy with them once Nebraska took off. OU had no real rivals in Big12 other than Okie State and Texas. Going to SEC creates more regional rivals people are interested in.

To me, big mistake for Pac12 was doing 3/9. You should have stuck with 4/8 so you could control 4 games on your schedule and used those 4 games to schedule more intriguing National matchups that people would want to see. No one cares about Oregon-Arizona.

This is why I am starting to think going independent might be the best bet for Oregon. You definitely need out of the 3/9 scheduling.

Expand your stadium as well. Sure TV deals make big $$$ but so do home games in large stadiums with ticket and concession sales. Tennessee makes a killing off home games, this is why we have to schedule the mid-majors to get the free home game.

 

[duckboy33]

It would have helped but I think OU and Texas would have eventually gone to SEC no matter what and you would be scrambling right now.

The move was probably inevitable once Texas A&M went to the SEC. Texas was starting to lose the recruiting war with A&M and frankly there are just better matchups and rivals in the SEC for Texas. No one really gets that wild about Baylor-Texas but games like Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-Arkansas, and Texas-LSU bring eyeballs.

Oklahoma is in a similar boat. Big12 lost a lot of energy with them once Nebraska took off. OU had no real rivals in Big12 other than Okie State and Texas. Going to SEC creates more regional rivals people are interested in.

To me, big mistake for Pac12 was doing 3/9. You should have stuck with 4/8 so you could control 4 games on your schedule and used those 4 games to schedule more intriguing National matchups that people would want to see. No one cares about Oregon-Arizona.

This is why I am starting to think going independent might be the best bet for Oregon. You definitely need out of the 3/9 scheduling.

Expand your stadium as well. Sure TV deals make big $$$ but so do home games in large stadiums with ticket and concession sales. Tennessee makes a killing off home games, this is why we have to schedule the mid-majors to get the free home game.

I don't think Oregon is going to expand Autzen. Demand for Duck tickets has been in decline since 2015. I'm hopeful they do a better job this year. It's the best home schedule in a while (2019 and 2021 home schedules were bad, 2020 should have been great) and it's a talented team. Oregon likely wants to see what makes more sense financially, the Big 12 or the PAC 12. They're also going to want flexibility for when the Big Ten expands again.






a

 

[Volbound1700]

I don't think Oregon is going to expand Autzen. Demand for Duck tickets has been in decline since 2015. I'm hopeful they do a better job this year. It's the best home schedule in a while (2019 and 2021 home schedules were bad, 2020 should have been great) and it's a talented team. Oregon likely wants to see what makes more sense financially, the Big 12 or the PAC 12. They're also going to want flexibility for when the Big Ten expands again.






a

. In my opinion, your best bet is push for your own Network separate from Pac12 because you can probably make more money solo than with a league. If you can't do this, go independent.

You also need more option for OOC games. Ditch that 3/9 schedule so that you can play big-time games. The Ohio State game was great for you this past year.

You definitely need to stay competitive as well. I think we are going to hit a 10-to-12year gap and then there will be new expansions again. The landscape will change in that span. Teams like Clemson and Oklahoma State may not be as attractive if they don't continue to win at a high level.

Boise State is a great OOC matchup for you because they draw eyeballs and are very close geographically (closer than most of the Pac12). It seems like a win-win.

Try to build something with Notre Dame as well. Get on their schedule regularly.

 

[duckboy33]

. In my opinion, your best bet is push for your own Network separate from Pac12 because you can probably make more money solo than with a league. If you can't do this, go independent.

You also need more option for OOC games. Ditch that 3/9 schedule so that you can play big-time games. The Ohio State game was great for you this past year.

You definitely need to stay competitive as well. I think we are going to hit a 10-to-12year gap and then there will be new expansions again. The landscape will change in that span. Teams like Clemson and Oklahoma State may not be as attractive if they don't continue to win at a high level.

Boise State is a great OOC matchup for you because they draw eyeballs and are very close geographically (closer than most of the Pac12). It seems like a win-win.

Try to build something with Notre Dame as well. Get on their schedule regularly.

I think there's a good chance the league goes to 8 conference games when the current contract is up. It sounds like George wants to do that.

As for Boise, they are currently on Oregon's schedule in 2024-2026

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I live in Middle Tennessee and I get Pac12 games on Fox. They are later games. We generally get Big12 or B1G in the mornings. I can basically see most major matchups in all leagues if I wanted (I generally tune in more for preference to the SEC matchups). All I have is the SEC Network, ESPNs, and basic cable.

Heck, I can even get most major basketball matchups.

Right. We got pac12 at night or whatever, but games that started earlier were hit and miss unless it was a good matchup.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

That was a lot.

but I don't agree with the "market" idea that it's shrinking. People are cutting cable, and then going to things like Hulu or YoutubeTV and they're now bundling ESPN into those just like anything else. Hell, ESPN+ has now bundled in with my Verizon bill. There was a time when the ala carte model might have meant huge problems for ESPN, and other sports networks, but I don't think that's true anymore because the ala carte model went away real quick. And they ARE geographically matched. I don't have the same YouTubeTV channels that someone in California has; especially local channels. When you log into a new location and it senses you're not at your home, it will even prompt you "are you visiting or did you move?". You can say you are visiting and have that channel lineup for 30 days only. So I think this point is just wrong. Markets are important and you better believe it was the driving force for the B10 adding UCLA and USC; now basically controlling the LA, Midwest and NY markets.

Yes, yes it was.

Open to your ideas on the market, but that's not really a novel stance I am taking. You can read about it all over the place.

I addressed cutting cable and streaming TV like YTTV. I believe you are mistaken about the geographic nature of the lineup. The YTTV package is the same everywhere except the local stations. I get BTN, ACCN, and SECN (part of ESPN/Disney), and I live in North Carolina. That part of the basic package is everywhere. I don't have to live in the geographic footprint of a conference to get the channels. There are no SEC nor B1G schools in NC.

The log-in issue you raised doesn't deal with the national channels available. It serves two purposes ... local channels so you can get local news and programming, and to make sure that you aren't sharing your subscription. My son lived in LA where he was going to school there. After a month, he could no longer use our YTTV account. Same with my son at Bama. My younger son has moved back and is going to UNC which is about 20 minutes away. He can use it there.

I actually listed the amount the B1G was making from the LA market. It's $17.5 million per year. And shrinking. 90 million households to 40 million by 2026-27. For a conference that is making a billion now, and will be at $1.5 billion in a year, $17.5 million is not the "primary" reason they are taking over the LA market. "Small streams make for large rivers," so they won't turn that money down. And picking up markets like Seattle, San Fran and Portland (even Atlanta @rfjeff9) would be part of the equation. But, it's not close to the driving force it was in 2014. So you have a twofer here: (1) the base of basic cable has dramatically shrunk since 2010 when the new conference networks were the drivers of the contracts and revenue, and (2) people are moving to streaming TV that is no longer geographically relevant. If you disagree with me, which is fine, explain why the no. 2 TV market in the US is only worth $17.5 million dollars to the B1G.

@rfjeff9 has pointed out that "markets" are important for recruiting and that makes some sense. You could see that the B1G would want to be in Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Cali which are the largest recruiting markets. But when a team coming into the league is getting $100+ million they have to bring more than an extended recruiting ground. LA happens to have two storied programs, one a blue blood. And Hollywood. And beaches and the Rose Bowl where UCLA plays. USC v. most B1G schools will drive viewership. Not so sure about UCLA but you had to have a traveling buddy. And USC certainly could contribute to the CFP pool of money which is going to e a main driver of the $100 million pay days.