Big Ten 2023

[Farfromgeneva]

At least 7 ACC schools are looking for a way out of the GOR. The major ACC football schools are also looking for a bigger share of ACC revenue.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... r-reports/

The clock is ticking on both the GOR and the revenue deal with ESPN. I doubt either will stand. I suspect both will be renegotiated with the ACC football powers coming out on top.

DocBarrister

With Bob Iger back running Disney and having to make a decision this year to either punt on ESPN (Spin off or sell) or double down and ultimately migrate it all to ESPN+ I think he’s going to have to aggressively spend money to protect the franchise value either way. What that means for FBS and the ACC I don’t know but despite having issues the past 5-10yrs structurally they won’t be easy to deal with.

[wgdsr]

The media rights deals at that point were speculation. Now it's tangible. That's changing the thinking. Getting USC/UCLA was a wake up call.

This also isn't taking account of Clemson and FSU. They aren't going to see their football programs toil away if they can help it. The game has changed significantly since the last round of musical chairs.

the gor is short for grant of rights. which is... granting rights for all of your home football tv $$ (the majority of revenue) until the end of term. 2036. plus a nine figure exit fee. estimate $400+ mill if you buy it out cheap, +/- 50% more if you don't.

unless your lawyers are better than their lawyers, that is the deal. clemson/fsu would've been shopping themselves and been sold if this was as simple as talking about visions and new paradigms. honestly, the fsu guy sounds desperate. have the terps and rutty even paid off their loans yet 8 years later? they were chicken feed.

then there's... these 2 cash generating machines looking around, seeing what a cluster this may be to take on new weight and comping it vs. the upside. if any. it's not altogether clear they'd be up for it rather than just count checks.

GOR contracts are negotiation points, as Oklahoma and Texas have proven with their exits. Again, we saw this all play out in the old Big East days. The more certain schools try to hold other school's feet to the fire, the more resentment builds creating an even faster ending.

It's simple economics. The Big Ten and the SEC have set themselves far a part from the rest of the punters. And that's only going to grow larger. A few million, sure, not maybe that's not worth the effort. $30MM-$40MM per year? That's a game changer. The Acc's biggest hope is creating a bigger pie, but that is highly unlikely to happen. Cutting up pieces of the smaller pie isn't sustainable to conference health. History tells us that.

The B1G is most certainly up for it, as is the SEC. That's very obvious at this point.

yes, it's economics. do you forfeit $400 million or probably more (and take on debt in lieu of) so you can bank more money a decade plus down the road? a game of chicken if you want to play that game, and i don't believe many (if any) schools are gonna want to play it with that much meat on the bone.

texas and okla are taking an approx $20 million hit for one year. a 13 year deal that is flat or more possibly negative isn't all that enticing.

neither the b1g nor the sec has pried anyone with a very long gor. so we have no idea if they're up for it.

We will have to see how that shakes out. If schools want out of a conference because another conference wants them, we are going to see how those grant of rights deals hold up. Going to be a boon for some lawyers that's for sure.

I would disagree with your comment about it being malfeasance if they weren't looking into breaking the GOR agreement. The reason they are looking into is they may want to get out. It's 7 schools. The 7 schools that would likely have options. Schools like Syracuse and Wake Forest aren't considering options because they have no where possible to go.

You wouldn't need a GOR in the first place if the conference was on solid footing. It was a reactionary move to the last round of acquisitions the Big Ten and SEC made.

We will see if they get held up in court at some point.

this "news" is the least surprising thing for any fan of an acc team that follows this stuff. the only thing surprising is that there's not a new hot take article on it every week.

of course the higher rev football schools are now having buyer's remorse. of course they are looking for ways to get out from under a deal they no longer like, and/or find other avenues. of course when there is acrimony, and it's tied to a deal that members no longer like, then it's "not healthy".

none of that changes the actual facts of the case. the gor for the big 12 was worth $50 million/yr per team after negotiation, and that was at a $75 million payout (to sec schools) # when the average of sec/b1g schools payouts will be substantially more than that thru 2036. 13 years. that is some major cheddar to try to negotiate down from. $800 m? a billion? i don't know who wake forest's lawyers are, but i can assume here that they are salivating and aren't incented to cry tears for fsu, etc.. this contract might be the most valuable thing they've had ever. it will be interesting how it plays out. likely messy.

[Farfromgeneva]

The media rights deals at that point were speculation. Now it's tangible. That's changing the thinking. Getting USC/UCLA was a wake up call.

This also isn't taking account of Clemson and FSU. They aren't going to see their football programs toil away if they can help it. The game has changed significantly since the last round of musical chairs.

the gor is short for grant of rights. which is... granting rights for all of your home football tv $$ (the majority of revenue) until the end of term. 2036. plus a nine figure exit fee. estimate $400+ mill if you buy it out cheap, +/- 50% more if you don't.

unless your lawyers are better than their lawyers, that is the deal. clemson/fsu would've been shopping themselves and been sold if this was as simple as talking about visions and new paradigms. honestly, the fsu guy sounds desperate. have the terps and rutty even paid off their loans yet 8 years later? they were chicken feed.

then there's... these 2 cash generating machines looking around, seeing what a cluster this may be to take on new weight and comping it vs. the upside. if any. it's not altogether clear they'd be up for it rather than just count checks.

GOR contracts are negotiation points, as Oklahoma and Texas have proven with their exits. Again, we saw this all play out in the old Big East days. The more certain schools try to hold other school's feet to the fire, the more resentment builds creating an even faster ending.

It's simple economics. The Big Ten and the SEC have set themselves far a part from the rest of the punters. And that's only going to grow larger. A few million, sure, not maybe that's not worth the effort. $30MM-$40MM per year? That's a game changer. The Acc's biggest hope is creating a bigger pie, but that is highly unlikely to happen. Cutting up pieces of the smaller pie isn't sustainable to conference health. History tells us that.

The B1G is most certainly up for it, as is the SEC. That's very obvious at this point.

yes, it's economics. do you forfeit $400 million or probably more (and take on debt in lieu of) so you can bank more money a decade plus down the road? a game of chicken if you want to play that game, and i don't believe many (if any) schools are gonna want to play it with that much meat on the bone.

texas and okla are taking an approx $20 million hit for one year. a 13 year deal that is flat or more possibly negative isn't all that enticing.

neither the b1g nor the sec has pried anyone with a very long gor. so we have no idea if they're up for it.

We will have to see how that shakes out. If schools want out of a conference because another conference wants them, we are going to see how those grant of rights deals hold up. Going to be a boon for some lawyers that's for sure.

I would disagree with your comment about it being malfeasance if they weren't looking into breaking the GOR agreement. The reason they are looking into is they may want to get out. It's 7 schools. The 7 schools that would likely have options. Schools like Syracuse and Wake Forest aren't considering options because they have no where possible to go.

You wouldn't need a GOR in the first place if the conference was on solid footing. It was a reactionary move to the last round of acquisitions the Big Ten and SEC made.

We will see if they get held up in court at some point.

this "news" is the least surprising thing for any fan of an acc team that follows this stuff. the only thing surprising is that there's not a new hot take article on it every week.

of course the higher rev football schools are now having buyer's remorse. of course they are looking for ways to get out from under a deal they no longer like, and/or find other avenues. of course when there is acrimony, and it's tied to a deal that members no longer like, then it's "not healthy".

none of that changes the actual facts of the case. the gor for the big 12 was worth $50 million/yr per team after negotiation, and that was at a $75 million payout (to sec schools) # when the average of sec/b1g schools payouts will be substantially more than that thru 2036. 13 years. that is some major cheddar to try to negotiate down from. $800 m? a billion? i don't know who wake forest's lawyers are, but i can assume here that they are salivating and aren't incented to cry tears for fsu, etc.. this contract might be the most valuable thing they've had ever. it will be interesting how it plays out. likely messy.

Wait you thought you were getting expert inside info on this stuff here previously??

[wgdsr]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

[Farfromgeneva]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

I mean look I’ve been in rooms with all the top Ga Tech donors and there’s a denial of the reality you can see on their faces despite what they try to project. They all are nervous that their relevance in athletics holding into a 20yr old championship game in BB and 33yr old FB title. Horrid management by the last two ADs, high academic standards unlike any large athletics “peers” nearby (RDU is an 8hr drive so calling that not “nearby”, wake is 4-5hr drive and different animal basically a liberal arts college wrapped around a university). Still young for the last two BB coaches. In fact I might’ve told a famous old QB who’s basically a CRE/land bank and ride demographics rockstar in Atlanta they won’t be more relevant than a D3 program in 15yrs slightly inebriated about 6mo ago.

[coda]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

The ACC is in serious trouble. College athletics seems to be going to Big 10/SEC model. It is all about those football dollars. For lacrosse it may not be as big of an issue, outside the Big 10 likely picking up a team or 2 in the future (ND, Virginia, or UNC). Even if UVa and UNC end up in the SEC, they would probably put together a similar collaboration to the current ACC configuration. The Holy Grail for lax would be an SEC lacrosse conference, but that would be a long shot and take time.

[Farfromgeneva]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

The ACC is in serious trouble. College athletics seems to be going to Big 10/SEC model. It is all about those football dollars. For lacrosse it may not be as big of an issue, outside the Big 10 likely picking up a team or 2 in the future (ND, Virginia, or UNC). Even if UVa and UNC end up in the SEC, they would probably put together a similar collaboration to the current ACC configuration. The Holy Grail for lax would be an SEC lacrosse conference, but that would be a long shot and take time.

There’s this assumption in ten years that even the SEC and Big Ten will exist as “conferences”. Big picture we’re heading to a world of 55-75 programs playing major Football and BB and the rest are whatever and the pie will be chopped up by those inside and all the non-revenue sports future existence and funding considerations will be up in the air between now and then.

[1766]

That's a pretty easy assumption to make at this point.

[Farfromgeneva]

First three letters

[Wheels]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

The ACC is in serious trouble. College athletics seems to be going to Big 10/SEC model. It is all about those football dollars. For lacrosse it may not be as big of an issue, outside the Big 10 likely picking up a team or 2 in the future (ND, Virginia, or UNC). Even if UVa and UNC end up in the SEC, they would probably put together a similar collaboration to the current ACC configuration. The Holy Grail for lax would be an SEC lacrosse conference, but that would be a long shot and take time.

Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent.

[wgdsr]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

The ACC is in serious trouble. College athletics seems to be going to Big 10/SEC model. It is all about those football dollars. For lacrosse it may not be as big of an issue, outside the Big 10 likely picking up a team or 2 in the future (ND, Virginia, or UNC). Even if UVa and UNC end up in the SEC, they would probably put together a similar collaboration to the current ACC configuration. The Holy Grail for lax would be an SEC lacrosse conference, but that would be a long shot and take time.

as was alluded to below your post, we likely haven't seen nuthin' yet. there will be any number of twists and turns in the acc in the short to intermediate term. and all of nc$$. just look at the last 5-10 years. or last couple of years.

what's gonna happen when all the football players go on strike and the conferences as they're now called don't have the rev stream for a year to cover interest on all their debt as that's happening? not to mention the 20-50% of revenue share those players are going to demand going forward? have they modeled that?

ish is gonna get messy. and the bed that was made by admins for all those years keeping all the dough will be unavoidable. amateur athletics. and fans will howl at players and "the good ole days".

personally, not really interested in an sec lax conference.

[Farfromgeneva]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

The ACC is in serious trouble. College athletics seems to be going to Big 10/SEC model. It is all about those football dollars. For lacrosse it may not be as big of an issue, outside the Big 10 likely picking up a team or 2 in the future (ND, Virginia, or UNC). Even if UVa and UNC end up in the SEC, they would probably put together a similar collaboration to the current ACC configuration. The Holy Grail for lax would be an SEC lacrosse conference, but that would be a long shot and take time.

Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent.

In a subscriber based world have you read up on what’s going on w ESPN and cable in general? This sub model is wildly anachronistic that folks keep insisting is the future. I can only speak for being inside a room with the top 100 athletics donors a half dozen times in the last 15 months with respect to Ga Tech (because as of 2yrs ago my FIL was #71 on that list, he’s may even slipping as he’s got an issue with the how they dealt with the prior women’s BB coach that he was close to). But that’s still better than every single other person here speculating about Ga Tech. The people who run and are influencing institutional decisions at Ga Tech don’t believe what you speculators are all insisting is the case. That’s primary source word spoken directly to me.

Markets are irrelevant in streaming…


Disney CEO Bob Iger says ESPN will 'one day' be streaming only

Feb 9, 2023, 10:49 AM ET

Bob Iger
Disney CEO Bob Iger is reorganizing the company, but doesn't plan on immediately spinning off ESPN.
Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images for Vanity Fair
Disney CEO Bob Iger predicts that ESPN will "one day" shift to a streaming-only model.
He said that it would be a "phenomenal product for the sports fan."
ESPN+, the unit's current streaming arm, ended 2022 with nearly 25 million subscribers.
Speculation has long-swirled that Disney would spin off ESPN, but that's not in the cards for newly returned Disney CEO Bob Iger — at least not right now.

Iger, who was reinstated as the company's top exec in November, is quickly making changes at the House of Mouse, including a reorganization that splits the company into three units. They include Disney Entertainment, which consists of the movie studios and streaming platforms; parks, experiences, and products; and ESPN, which encompasses both the linear ESPN network, and the ESPN+ streamer.

During an interview on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" Thursday morning, Iger said that he predicts ESPN will "one day" become a streaming-only platform.

"I think the model ultimately will change," Iger said, regarding a shift for Disney's sports content from linear to streaming. "I think it will become an over-the-top model."

"A so-called over-the-top model — a streaming model — it would be a phenomenal product for the sports fan," he added.

When asked directly if ESPN will one day largely be a streaming service, Iger said that "there's an inevitability to it."

But he cautioned that Disney wouldn't do anything "reckless" and would "time it right."

During Disney's fiscal-year Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Iger said that Disney's streaming business "is the future," a point he reiterated during Thursday's CNBC interview, adding that Disney has to turn streaming "into a growth business."

Disney reported on Wednesday that ESPN+ ended 2022 with 24.9 million subscribers, up from 24.3 million the prior quarter.

Iger replaced his successor Bob Chapek after stepping away from the role in early 2020. Chapek himself reorganized the company — including by creating a new unit called Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution — which Iger quickly began to unravel.

"It created a huge divide between the creative side of the company — the content engines, movies and television — and the monetization and distribution side of the company," Iger said on Thursday. "It was very, very apparent to me, both while I was out and when I came back, that that was a mistake."

NOW WATCH: Popular Videos from Insider Inc.

[pcowlax]

"Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent."


This is certainly the conventional thinking. I have often wondered what the data is to back it up. Given that GT football doesn't move a needle, what does it mean to give the Big10 access to the Atlanta market? Will people there start caring more about a Minnesota-Iowa game than the Florida-LSU game because Georgia Tech in is the Big 10? People in that area can already watch Big10 games and support those teams if they want, it's not like the market is "closed" because the league doesn't have a team there. I don't see why TV deals would go up significantly because there is now a team in Atlanta; again, Big10 games were already televised in Atlanta. There aren't millions of GT fans who are now going to watch Fox when they otherwise wouldn't just so they can catch the Tech game. Honest question about something I know little of. Why would the Big10 expect significant financial gain by adding Georgia Tech?

[Farfromgeneva]

silver lining doc b is also back warning of the imminent demise of the acc.

The ACC is in serious trouble. College athletics seems to be going to Big 10/SEC model. It is all about those football dollars. For lacrosse it may not be as big of an issue, outside the Big 10 likely picking up a team or 2 in the future (ND, Virginia, or UNC). Even if UVa and UNC end up in the SEC, they would probably put together a similar collaboration to the current ACC configuration. The Holy Grail for lax would be an SEC lacrosse conference, but that would be a long shot and take time.

as was alluded to below your post, we likely haven't seen nuthin' yet. there will be any number of twists and turns in the acc in the short to intermediate term. and all of nc$$. just look at the last 5-10 years. or last couple of years.

what's gonna happen when all the football players go on strike and the conferences as they're now called don't have the rev stream for a year to cover interest on all their debt as that's happening? not to mention the 20-50% of revenue share those players are going to demand going forward? have they modeled that?

ish is gonna get messy. and the bed that was made by admins for all those years keeping all the dough will be unavoidable. amateur athletics. and fans will howl at players and "the good ole days".

personally, not really interested in an sec lax conference.

Conferences have what value in NLI again? Or the NCAA? All this speculation is backwards looking and lacks any professional vision by most. (I’m agreeing with your comments) and the more assertive and definitive they are the more you know it’s just wild and unfounded speculation.

Clear some arguing for the BigTen are doing so because their own existence is very much tied to the conference and not their own successes.

[Farfromgeneva]

"Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent."


This is certainly the conventional thinking. I have often wondered what the data is to back it up. Given that GT football doesn't move a needle, what does it mean to give the Big10 access to the Atlanta market? Will people there start caring more about a Minnesota-Iowa game than the Florida-LSU game because Georgia Tech in is the Big 10? People in that area can already watch Big10 games and support those teams if they want, it's not like the market is "closed" because the league doesn't have a team there. I don't see why TV deals would go up significantly because there is now a team in Atlanta; again, Big10 games were already televised in Atlanta. There aren't millions of GT fans who are now going to watch Fox when they otherwise wouldn't just so they can catch the Tech game. Honest question about something I know little of. Why would the Big10 expect significant financial gain by adding Georgia Tech?

Atlanta is a wholly owned subsidiary of UGA. It’s like 40-45mi away and every alum ends up in Atlanta. Tech fans don’t even show up in person. I sit in the 50 8 rows up and most fo the games attendance is no more than 70% of capacity. Probably closer to 50%.

[coda]

"Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent."


This is certainly the conventional thinking. I have often wondered what the data is to back it up. Given that GT football doesn't move a needle, what does it mean to give the Big10 access to the Atlanta market? Will people there start caring more about a Minnesota-Iowa game than the Florida-LSU game because Georgia Tech in is the Big 10? People in that area can already watch Big10 games and support those teams if they want, it's not like the market is "closed" because the league doesn't have a team there. I don't see why TV deals would go up significantly because there is now a team in Atlanta; again, Big10 games were already televised in Atlanta. There aren't millions of GT fans who are now going to watch Fox when they otherwise wouldn't just so they can catch the Tech game. Honest question about something I know little of. Why would the Big10 expect significant financial gain by adding Georgia Tech?

I am not sure that is what is driving this round of realignment. That made sense when cable was king and you got to charge the NYC area extra for Rutgers joining. This time I think it is about viewers and marquee names. Latest names to move have been UCLA, Texas, OU, and USC. I believe this round is more about fanbase and alumni size, than adding a new state/area. Whether is subscription model or steaming a la carte, you need to have content, brand names, and marquee match-ups to drive wallet share. The best way to secure that is to have a conference assembled with Blue Bloods.

[1766]

First three letters

npc

[pcowlax]

This is certainly the conventional thinking. I have often wondered what the data is to back it up. Given that GT football doesn't move a needle, what does it mean to give the Big10 access to the Atlanta market? Will people there start caring more about a Minnesota-Iowa game than the Florida-LSU game because Georgia Tech in is the Big 10? People in that area can already watch Big10 games and support those teams if they want, it's not like the market is "closed" because the league doesn't have a team there. I don't see why TV deals would go up significantly because there is now a team in Atlanta; again, Big10 games were already televised in Atlanta. There aren't millions of GT fans who are now going to watch Fox when they otherwise wouldn't just so they can catch the Tech game. Honest question about something I know little of. Why would the Big10 expect significant financial gain by adding Georgia Tech?


I am not sure that is what is driving this round of realignment. That made sense when cable was king and you got to charge the NYC area extra for Rutgers joining. This time I think it is about viewers and marquee names. Latest names to move have been UCLA, Texas, OU, and USC. I believe this round is more about fanbase and alumni size, than adding a new state/area. Whether is subscription model or steaming a la carte, you need to have content, brand names, and marquee match-ups to drive wallet share. The best way to secure that is to have a conference assembled with Blue Bloods.

Agree. And if Big10 were looking to add Georgia that would make sense. But, as FFG notes, there is no large GT fanbase, there is not a huge alumni base, it does not bring a "state" with it as a large state U does and it is not a Blue Blood (sorry FFG) in either football of MBB. It's not surprising that there is a push to move from the old model. It never made sense that NY would pay more for Fox because Rutgers is in the Big10. No one in NY cares a whit about Rutgers football and there is not a bigger audience for OSU-Michigan because Rutgers is now in the same conference. States with huge, dominant state schools will change their conference viewership if that school moves conferences. I suppose LA will when USA and UCLA move, to the extent LA cares about college football. Viewership patterns for cities like Atlanta and NY are not driven the conference affiliation of local schools.

[1766]

"Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent."


This is certainly the conventional thinking. I have often wondered what the data is to back it up. Given that GT football doesn't move a needle, what does it mean to give the Big10 access to the Atlanta market? Will people there start caring more about a Minnesota-Iowa game than the Florida-LSU game because Georgia Tech in is the Big 10? People in that area can already watch Big10 games and support those teams if they want, it's not like the market is "closed" because the league doesn't have a team there. I don't see why TV deals would go up significantly because there is now a team in Atlanta; again, Big10 games were already televised in Atlanta. There aren't millions of GT fans who are now going to watch Fox when they otherwise wouldn't just so they can catch the Tech game. Honest question about something I know little of. Why would the Big10 expect significant financial gain by adding Georgia Tech?

I am not sure that is what is driving this round of realignment. That made sense when cable was king and you got to charge the NYC area extra for Rutgers joining. This time I think it is about viewers and marquee names. Latest names to move have been UCLA, Texas, OU, and USC. I believe this round is more about fanbase and alumni size, than adding a new state/area. Whether is subscription model or steaming a la carte, you need to have content, brand names, and marquee match-ups to drive wallet share. The best way to secure that is to have a conference assembled with Blue Bloods.

USC and UCLA check all of those boxes, including a big new market. Cords are still king. Those boxes in Maryland/NJ/NY are generating significant revenue.

[Farfromgeneva]

"Think it was Andy Staples in The Athletic that said this, but the best way to think about what's happening with college football right now is similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Each conference has a primary and lucrative deal with a major network (Fox, CBS). Right now, Fox is locking up the B1G, and ESPN is locking up the SEC. Every other rights deal will be dwarfed in comparison. That's why USC/UCLA hopped on board to Fox...er, I mean, the B1G. That's why Clemson and FSU want in on ESPN...er, I mean, the SEC. There's going to be a finite point for expansion. When the revenue from new TV markets added no longer exceed the individual payouts of existing members, expansion will stop. Contra FFG, that's why GT will be a target for the B1G (and was rumored to be be back when MD and RU joined). Whether or not anyone watches GT football in ATL doesn't really matter. The size of the ATL market does matter.

When the musical chairs stop, I bet Duke follows UConn basketball's route to the Big East while football goes independent."


This is certainly the conventional thinking. I have often wondered what the data is to back it up. Given that GT football doesn't move a needle, what does it mean to give the Big10 access to the Atlanta market? Will people there start caring more about a Minnesota-Iowa game than the Florida-LSU game because Georgia Tech in is the Big 10? People in that area can already watch Big10 games and support those teams if they want, it's not like the market is "closed" because the league doesn't have a team there. I don't see why TV deals would go up significantly because there is now a team in Atlanta; again, Big10 games were already televised in Atlanta. There aren't millions of GT fans who are now going to watch Fox when they otherwise wouldn't just so they can catch the Tech game. Honest question about something I know little of. Why would the Big10 expect significant financial gain by adding Georgia Tech?

I am not sure that is what is driving this round of realignment. That made sense when cable was king and you got to charge the NYC area extra for Rutgers joining. This time I think it is about viewers and marquee names. Latest names to move have been UCLA, Texas, OU, and USC. I believe this round is more about fanbase and alumni size, than adding a new state/area. Whether is subscription model or steaming a la carte, you need to have content, brand names, and marquee match-ups to drive wallet share. The best way to secure that is to have a conference assembled with Blue Bloods.

Yes, analysis based on a dead business model as basis for projections. Anchored thinking going on a lot here.