Realignment thread

[FoCoSooner]

It appears that people who pretended to be so sure the Big 12 leadership had beaten the PAC are now afraid they were wrong.


The psychology here is just fascinating

I remember FWTX talking about how the PAC was a crack house, asian tranny, etc.. But now is afraid to say the Big 12 is going to beat them on $. So if they are a crack house asian tranny and beat the Big 12 then what is the Big 12???


HouClone talked about how the Big 12 was better, PAC might only get low 20's, etc is also afraid to go on record and say the PAC gets less than the Big 12.



So basically a bunch of you are anti PAC, pro Big 12, and are now afraid the Big 12 ends up dead last in $. Which is funny as you said the new Big 12 deal was done by a genius, great timing, etc.. Same thing happens with the anti ACC crowd, who gets quiet when I talk about them making more $. lol.



I am going to get a good laugh if the Big 12 does not get 4 corners, does not get Pacific football, does not get gonzaga, does not have better exposure, and gets less $ than the PAC. That will be a complete failure at every level on this round of realignment.

[FoCoSooner]

Foco, a friendly advice, from me to you. Please shorten your posts. If the site combined all your posts since you started in May,2022 (?) ,the combined would give "War and Peace" a run for its money.

Do you notice how you always change the subject to personal chatter. So predictable

So time to man up son, no more running, no more changing the subject, etc...

Who do you think wins the $ game? PAC or B12?

[FoCoSooner]

They are sewing the Big 12 logos on all the Arizona Wildcat uniforms right now.

Ok, so we have you down for Big 12 taking PAC schools.



I expect you will be wrong, as usual. That's what happens when you post what you want to happen, not what you think will happen.

[HouClone]

There is a huge difference in the fanbases of OU/UT vs USC/UCLA. OU/UT have rabid fans, at least for FB. USC and UCLA have disengaged fans who are never coming back. They will live off the B1G fans who travel to games and live close enough to attend.

Its so bad UCLA had to give away tickets to an OU game.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/columns/berry-tramel/2019/09/11/temple-professor-says-ucla-ticket-giveaway-wont-work/60435631007/

Neither USC or UCLA have legitimate fan support. When you did deeper you see that in spite of USC and UCLA being huge schools in a huge city nobody goes to games FB, BB, WBB, etc.. Even UCLA BB has less than 10k at most games and rarely sells out.


The reality is The Big 12 lost more when OU/UT left compared to USC/UCLA leaving. The data is quite clear.


Total number of games with 1.0 rating or better:
Big 12: 108
Pac-12: 109

Number of games with 1.0 rating that featured at least one departing team:
Big 12: 78
Pac-12: 45

Number of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 30
Pac-12: 64

Percentage of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 27.7%
Pac-12: 58.7%

Number of games with a 2.0 rating (3.5 million viewers) that did not include departing teams:
Big 12: 9
Pac-12: 17




When all the dust settles there is a good chance the Big 12 is below the PAC on TV due to the Big 12 not getting many good TV slots without OU/UT and most games having a small audience. PAC will still get the last ESPN slots each week.



I will be doing analysis on the exposure as even with a small amount of games on OTA/ESPN the PAC could win the exposure game and possibly the $ game as well.



We are getting ready to find out who the winner is between George and Brett.

We know you think Brett is a genius. I think the PAC has a chance to move Brett to #5 based on the TV data.

Foco, a friendly advice, from me to you. Please shorten your posts. If the site combined all your posts since you started in May,2022 (?) ,the combined would give "War and Peace" a run for its money.

[hiphopfroggy]

They are sewing the Big 12 logos on all the Arizona Wildcat uniforms right now.

[FoCoSooner]

Alright folks, here we are.. Likely less than 2 weeks out on the new PAC deal.


Who has a prediction on Brett vs George?


If you are scared don't worry about it. I know it's terrifying for some of you. No problem, you can stay on the sidelines. But for those who are not scared or terrified it's time to go on record with a prediction.

[FoCoSooner]

You missed the entire point. FOX gladly filled in Big Noon with TCU when they were making their playoff run (which the data quoted conveniently left out last year, the season OU played like crap, and ended the streak of playing all but 2 games on broadcast TV, as well as left out the part of USC becoming good again and getting better ratings). USC/UCLA playing fewer highly rated games within their conference compared to OU/UT is as much as how USC/UCLA have had far worse records as anything else. If USC/UCLA were both highly ranked for all of those years, and OU/UT repeated 2022 over and over again, the data would look quite a bit different. So of course, other PAC teams would move up in the ratings, grabbing a higher share of the highly rated games, similar to how TCU started to grab the spotlight last season. It gets close to a zero sum game with whomever that is doing well at that time getting those slots.

Their data analysis was rather skewed.

No. I understand what you are saying.. I just don't agree.

UCLA is never going to be a 11 win per season program moving forward. They are who they are the last 10 years. Since 2000 they have had 3 -10 win seasons. 2 - 3 win seasons, and 4- 4 win season. That's 4 coaches worth of data. They are not a blue blood FB program in any way like OU/UT.

Thus they are never going to have the success and the TV ratings that come along with it. Sure they can win 10 games every now and then. But they will have more 4 win seasons than 10 win seasons.


USC has more potential, but again they have a disengaged fanbase.

Much different than OU and UT who have rabid fans and attendance/TV ratings to prove it. That was my point. And I used data/articles to back it up.


OU and UT will never have to give away tickets when a blue blood comes to town.

If you ranked the value of the 4 programs it would likely look like this.

1 = UT
2 = OU
3 = USC
4= UCLA


The Big 12 lost more than the PAC lost. It's just that simple. But the Big 12 will have added better programs so that helps a bit.



TCU* was a unique situation that came out of the blue. The Big 12 will have a good team each year but not a top 5 team. The Big 12 and PAC will be lucky to get 2 OTA/ESPN slots a week on the next TV deal.


So which conference do you think wins the $ game?

[FtwTxSooner]

There is a huge difference in the fanbases of OU/UT vs USC/UCLA. OU/UT have rabid fans, at least for FB. USC and UCLA have disengaged fans who are never coming back. They will live off the B1G fans who travel to games and live close enough to attend.

You missed the entire point. FOX gladly filled in Big Noon with TCU when they were making their playoff run (which the data quoted conveniently left out last year, the season OU played like crap, and ended the streak of playing all but 2 games on broadcast TV, as well as left out the part of USC becoming good again and getting better ratings). USC/UCLA playing fewer highly rated games within their conference compared to OU/UT is as much as how USC/UCLA have had far worse records as anything else. If USC/UCLA were both highly ranked for all of those years, and OU/UT repeated 2022 over and over again, the data would look quite a bit different. So of course, other PAC teams would move up in the ratings, grabbing a higher share of the highly rated games, similar to how TCU started to grab the spotlight last season. It gets close to a zero sum game with whomever that is doing well at that time getting those slots.

Their data analysis was rather skewed.

[Mazeppa]

There is a huge difference in the fanbases of OU/UT vs USC/UCLA. OU/UT have rabid fans, at least for FB. USC and UCLA have disengaged fans who are never coming back. They will live off the B1G fans who travel to games and live close enough to attend.

Its so bad UCLA had to give away tickets to an OU game.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/columns/berry-tramel/2019/09/11/temple-professor-says-ucla-ticket-giveaway-wont-work/60435631007/

Neither USC or UCLA have legitimate fan support. When you did deeper you see that in spite of USC and UCLA being huge schools in a huge city nobody goes to games FB, BB, WBB, etc.. Even UCLA BB has less than 10k at most games and rarely sells out.


The reality is The Big 12 lost more when OU/UT left compared to USC/UCLA leaving. The data is quite clear.


Total number of games with 1.0 rating or better:
Big 12: 108
Pac-12: 109

Number of games with 1.0 rating that featured at least one departing team:
Big 12: 78
Pac-12: 45

Number of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 30
Pac-12: 64

Percentage of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 27.7%
Pac-12: 58.7%

Number of games with a 2.0 rating (3.5 million viewers) that did not include departing teams:
Big 12: 9
Pac-12: 17




When all the dust settles there is a good chance the Big 12 is below the PAC on TV due to the Big 12 not getting many good TV slots without OU/UT and most games having a small audience. PAC will still get the last ESPN slots each week.



I will be doing analysis on the exposure as even with a small amount of games on OTA/ESPN the PAC could win the exposure game and possibly the $ game as well.



We are getting ready to find out who the winner is between George and Brett.

We know you think Brett is a genius. I think the PAC has a chance to move Brett to #5 based on the TV data.

Why you running away? Somebody is looking for you.

[FoCoSooner]

One thing about ratings is they still are highly dependent upon how well a team is doing. Better records gets you a better TV window, and thus higher ratings.

OU, 11 to 12 win seasons in every year for 2016-2019, 2021. UT was combined just over .500 for those years, but finished ranked 2 years, and started ranked 4 years. UCLA was 11 game below .500, and never finished ranked. USC did better, though had only 2 10+ win seasons in that period of time, and two very bad seasons with 4 and 5 wins.

So to say two teams comprised most of the higher rated games is as much to do with OU/UT playing much better than USC/UCLA as anything else.

There is a huge difference in the fanbases of OU/UT vs USC/UCLA. OU/UT have rabid fans, at least for FB. USC and UCLA have disengaged fans who are never coming back. They will live off the B1G fans who travel to games and live close enough to attend.

Its so bad UCLA had to give away tickets to an OU game.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/columns/berry-tramel/2019/09/11/temple-professor-says-ucla-ticket-giveaway-wont-work/60435631007/

Neither USC or UCLA have legitimate fan support. When you did deeper you see that in spite of USC and UCLA being huge schools in a huge city nobody goes to games FB, BB, WBB, etc.. Even UCLA BB has less than 10k at most games and rarely sells out.


The reality is The Big 12 lost more when OU/UT left compared to USC/UCLA leaving. The data is quite clear.


Total number of games with 1.0 rating or better:
Big 12: 108
Pac-12: 109

Number of games with 1.0 rating that featured at least one departing team:
Big 12: 78
Pac-12: 45

Number of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 30
Pac-12: 64

Percentage of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 27.7%
Pac-12: 58.7%

Number of games with a 2.0 rating (3.5 million viewers) that did not include departing teams:
Big 12: 9
Pac-12: 17




When all the dust settles there is a good chance the Big 12 is below the PAC on TV due to the Big 12 not getting many good TV slots without OU/UT and most games having a small audience. PAC will still get the last ESPN slots each week.



I will be doing analysis on the exposure as even with a small amount of games on OTA/ESPN the PAC could win the exposure game and possibly the $ game as well.



We are getting ready to find out who the winner is between George and Brett.

We know you think Brett is a genius. I think the PAC has a chance to move Brett to #5 based on the TV data.

[FtwTxSooner]

One thing about ratings is they still are highly dependent upon how well a team is doing. Better records gets you a better TV window, and thus higher ratings.

OU, 11 to 12 win seasons in every year for 2016-2019, 2021. UT was combined just over .500 for those years, but finished ranked 2 years, and started ranked 4 years. UCLA was 11 game below .500, and never finished ranked. USC did better, though had only 2 10+ win seasons in that period of time, and two very bad seasons with 4 and 5 wins.

So to say two teams comprised most of the higher rated games is as much to do with OU/UT playing much better than USC/UCLA as anything else.

[FoCoSooner]

The Pac-12 has lost more this summer than the Los Angeles schools to the Big Ten. It also has lost the PR duel with the Big 12 — and in a decisive fashion, no less.

That’s partly by design, partly by circumstance.

In the immediate aftermath of USC and UCLA defecting, neither conference nor campus officials could offer public signs of unity because nobody knew if or when the next domino would topple.

Meanwhile, the Big 12 was a year removed from its gutting and eager to play the role of the marauder. Each day, it seemed, the conference was on the brink of delivering the knockout blow to its competitor on the West Coast.

The calendar added to the Big 12’s advantage. Because its preseason football media extravaganza came first, new commissioner Brett Yormark was able to proclaim the conference “open for business” — a clear shot across the Pac-12’s lurching bow.

Add a few well-placed leaks to the media and a morsel of misinformation, and the Big 12 has owned the optics as the conferences jockey for position in the shadow of the Big Ten and SEC.

But this week, the Pac-12 has a chance to regain control of its own narrative.

Commissioner George Kliavkoff, who has been silent since the June 30 thunderbolt, will offer his state-of-the-conference address at Pac-12 media day Friday in Los Angeles.

Will he take the stage with facts, confidence, and a trumpet … or ignore the elephant standing on the podium with him?



Will he indicate the Pac-12 is also open for business and strike an aggressive tone … or focus on the upcoming 2022 season?

If the former approach is preferred — from here, it doesn’t seem like Kliavkoff has a choice — he certainly won’t lack for evidence:

— The new Pac-12 will have better media markets than the new Big 12.

The 10 remaining schools account for six of the nation’s top 30 markets, according to Nielsen DMA data from 2021. (Add San Diego State, and it would be seven.) The Big 12 will have just four.

— With Washington and Oregon, the conference arguably possesses the top football properties of the 22 schools remaining in the two leagues.

— The TV ratings favor the Pac-12, as well.

The Hotline dug through years of data published on the invaluable SportsMediaWatch website to better understand viewership trends for the two leagues in their reconfigured forms.

The Pac-12 owns a decisive edge in games that generated a rating of 1.0 or better (about 1.7 million viewers).

Before we relay the numbers, a few notes:

* We examined ratings for regular-season games over the past five full seasons (2016-19 and 2021). There’s no reason to count 2020, when the Pac-12 didn’t take the field until November.

* The SportsMediaWatch database does not provide ratings for some of the secondary games across the ESPN and Fox networks.

* The Big 12, which has 10 teams, plays 72 games per season while the Pac-12 plays 90.

* About one-third of the Pac-12’s games are on the Pac-12 Networks, which aren’t rated by the tracking companies that provide data for SportsMediaWatch. (Some of those games — Oregon vs. Utah in 2018, for example — would have been candidates to clear the 1.0 threshold.)

So, how do Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA impact their respective league’s ratings?

We found the following:

Total number of games with 1.0 rating or better:
Big 12: 108
Pac-12: 109

Number of games with 1.0 rating that featured at least one departing team:
Big 12: 78
Pac-12: 45

Number of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 30
Pac-12: 64

Percentage of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 27.7%
Pac-12: 58.7%

Number of games with a 2.0 rating (3.5 million viewers) that did not include departing teams:
Big 12: 9
Pac-12: 17

It appears the Big 12 is more dependent on Texas and Oklahoma for viewership than the Pac-12 is on USC and UCLA.

One reason: The Bruins simply don’t move the needle, save for their annual date with USC and the occasional non-conference showdown.

Also, USC’s downturn in the post-Pete Carroll era had a two-pronged effect, undermining the Pac-12’s overall value while clearing the stage for other teams to generate the brand awareness that could now help save the conference.

Oregon and Washington are atop that list — Stanford, too — with their annual showdown emerging as one of the Pac-12’s most valuable properties: It has generated a 1.5 rating (or better) for three consecutive years.

The Big 12 simply doesn’t have an equivalent matchup that doesn’t involve Texas or Oklahoma.

Also, the Big 12 has a competition problem. Based in the Central Time Zone, its games often are head-to-head against the SEC and Big Ten.

But that’s precisely why the Pac-12 has value to the likes of Fox and ESPN. It can fill the competition-free broadcast windows with matchups that appeal to the 75 million people in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

As John Kosner, a former ESPN executive vice president/digital, noted recently on Twitter: “Pac-12 football in West Coast prime time is appointment TV — truly valuable in any scenario.”

Where do things stand?

Our sense is that Pac-12 presidents and chancellors would like a compelling reason to stick together and are waiting (perhaps weeks, maybe months) to determine whether that reason exists.

Based on media markets, football brands and TV ratings, it’s not obvious that the new Big 12 holds a significant enough strategic advantage over the new Pac-12 to spark a mass migration.

USC and UCLA will double their revenue in the Big Ten.

But would Oregon agree to send its teams to play UCF in Orlando for a few extra million dollars per year?

Would Arizona trek to West Virginia for money that won’t transform its budget?

More than three weeks into this storm, we don’t have enough clarity to draw conclusions.

Perhaps the Pac-12 will provide some this week.

[FoCoSooner]

[FoCoSooner]

[FoCoSooner]

Why the PAC10 is Struggling to Make a Media Deal: Part 2–How Strong Are PAC12 “Brands” & Fan Bases?


ByESPN 960
Posted on March 16, 2023
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012; SALT LAKE CITY, UT, USA; UTAH UTES START A DRIVE ON THEIR ONE YARD LINE DURING THE FIRST HALF AGAINST THE BRIGHAM YOUNG COUGARS AT RICE-ECCLES STADIUM. MANDATORY CREDIT: RUSS ISABELLA-USA TODAY SPORTS SHARE

TWEET

SHARE

EMAIL



This article is brought to you by Underdog Fantasy. Use the code ESPN960 when you sign up to get your first deposit of up to $100 doubled. If you enjoyed this article please support our sponsors, we aren’t able to keep bringing Cougar Sports insider knowledge without our sponsors. Thank You!



BY JEFF FULLER & KRINDORR

Link to Part 1: Intro

Conference realignment is a brutal business. The PAC10 leftovers can commiserate with the Big12 “leftovers” on the pain of losing their top brand. USC was the top Football brand in the PAC12 as was Texas in the Big12. Zack Miller’s ranking of Football Program Value (discussed below) confirms this with Texas (8th), Oklahoma (10th), USC (19th), and Oregon (24th) topping their respective conferences. Fortunately (or unfortunately?) for the PAC10, the B1G desired the whole of the LA market more than they coveted getting the PAC12’s second best brand, Oregon.

There are various ways to try to measure a school’s brand value and fan base, none ideal. Attendance figures, TV viewership, and social media engagement all give a partial glimpse of a school’s brand value, but will all be discussed in their own forthcoming installments in this series. However, as a preview, our analysis of these and enrollment/alumni metrics continue to drive home a few key points:

1. The PAC10 holds many advantages over the Big12 in relevant metrics such as TV viewership, TV market size, total alumni, enrollment, and overall football brands.
2. Despite these advantages, the PAC10 seems to be a bit of a “Paper Tiger,” as they lag behind the Big12 in many brand/fan base metrics such as attendance, social media engagement, and overall sports popularity on “Google Trends.”
3. The Big12 is either closing the gap, or, in some cases, has surpassed the PAC12, in nearly all these metrics.

The last point is vital– the trajectory and potential of a conference are pivotal. Recall Jon Wilner, speaking of SMU’s possible addition to the PAC10, stated:

“We view adding SMU as a member in similar fashion to adding Amazon as a media partner: Neither entity can be judged on its merits as of today; both must be evaluated for what they could be in the future”

So, where does each school currently rate on alumni and enrollment figures?

Figure 1: (Link to Spreadsheet)



Total living alumni and student enrollment clearly represent the “low hanging fruit” of likely fans. In these metrics, the PAC10 has a marked advantage over the Big12 with an average of nearly 75K more claimed “total living alumni” per school and nearly 120K more alumni per Linkedin stats.

[Interestingly, the elite academic institutions, Stanford, UCLA and Cal, have significantly more Linkedin Alumni than their claimed “total living alumni” figure. Not exactly sure what to make of this, but it could be anything from employees or current students claiming to be alumni (or maybe there are plenty of “resume fibbers” on Linkedin?)]



Figure 2:



Current enrollment figures similarly show a solid advantage for the PAC10 over the Big12, about 3K more undergrads and ~6K more total enrollees per school. In fact, Arizona State leads the entire nation with 63K undergrads & 75K in total enrollment. It appears that the Big12 placed a premium on large student bodies (especially undergrads, who are more likely to become lifelong fans than grad students) when adding new schools. UCF, Houston, BYU and Cincy are all within the top 5 in their new conference (UCF trails only ASU nationally with ~61K undergrads & ~72K total enrollees.) The Big12’s average total enrollment of the remaining 8 schools was only ~25K, compared to the PAC10’s @ ~39K per school–a huge gap. Adding UCF, UH, BYU, & Cincy brought the Big12’s average markedly, from ~25K to ~33K.



Figure 3:



Potential PAC12 expansion candidates show mixed results here with SDSU having 31K undergrads, above the PAC10’s average, but SMU would be far below, with just ~7K undergrads and ~12K total enrollees. Those figures are in the realm of Stanford and TCU, which have the smallest enrollment of their respective conferences. Obviously not a deal breaker, but probably a strike against the Mustangs.

While having a large student body provides potential for developing a large fan base, how actually engaged are those students in sports? Recent Niche polling at each campus contained the question: “How popular are varsity sports on campus?”

The results?

Double the number of PAC10 students responded either that sports “were attended, but not a huge part of campus life” or “nobody pays attention” compared to Big12 students (combined 24% vs 12%; compiled data at spreadsheet) This level of investment, or fan engagement, appears to be a strong and consistent advantage the Big12 holds over the PAC10, and seems to be rather congenital, starting even from a student’s days on campus. (See footnote for further discussion/analysis on these findings)



Figures 4a,b,c







Speaking of SDSU & SMU, Zack Miller’s Football Program Value rankings, referenced above, were not kind to them, coming in at 80th and 81st respectively among the 90 schools he evaluated (see Table 3 below). This compares to the PAC10’s average of 44th and the Big12’s average of 47th. Adding the Aztecs and Mustangs to the PAC10 would flip them from three spots ahead of the Big12, to 3 spots behind, dropping to 50th. The inclusion of a wide variety of metrics (Attendance, TV Viewership, Valuation, Market size/share, & Social Media following) help make Miller’s system among the broadest attempts at ranking programs. I applaud Miller for his work compiling these rankings, while realizing some of the shortfalls.

Miller’s results are somewhat skewed by including the WSJ’s relatively dated “College Football Value Rankings” from 2018 (Table here.) This ranking system relatively punishes anyone not receiving a P5 conference payout and produces some quirky results even within the P5 teams (is Northwestern football really 3X more valuable than West Virginia? Is Oregon State worth more than BYU? Is Cal 5X more valuable than Houston? Is Arizona State worth more than Clemson and are they each 10X more valuable than Cincinnati?) In fact, only BYU (60th), Boise St.(63rd), and UCF (65th) surpassed ANY P5 programs at all, those being the usual laggards of Vandy, Boston College, Wake Forest, Duke, & Rutgers plus the odd placement of WVU as the LEAST valuable of any P5 football program (FYI SMU and SDSU were 74th and 80th respectively in these WSJ valuations.)

[Miller also included Nate Silver’s 2011 attempt at quantifying each school’s football fanbase in his valuation system. We discuss Silver’s and Tony Altimore’s similar attempt in this companion piece.] Here

“Popularity on Google Trends” is another interesting metric, and one that New York Time’s Nate Silver recently used when exploring who the B1G should add next (see clip below of a footnote from said article about this system):



Figure 5



We replicated Silver’s exact parameters for the PAC10, Big12, and potential expansion candidates and found that Oregon was solidly above any remaining team at 88.9% relative sports value compared to Texas. They even beat out departing USC/UCLA by a large margin (their CFPlayoff appearance in 2015 was a large factor bringing their value up; but even removing 2015 for the Ducks, they still led the way at 70.9% and the PAC10’s average team value only dropped from 30.8% to 29.0%.) It’s not unreasonable to conclude that Oregon is the biggest sports brand the PAC12 has had over the past decade, but that the B1G placed such a premium on large TV markets and academics, that they decided to pass on the Ducks on their first westward expansionary foray.

Kansas led the way for the Big12 in this combined sports metric of “Popularity in Google Trends,” showing the enormous strength of their “Blue Blood” Basketball program. Interestingly, two new Big12 additions, UCF and BYU, surpassed 8 of the 10 remaining PAC10 schools over this 7 year period, trailing only Oregon and Washington. Only two of the Big12’s teams, TCU, and Houston fell below the 24% threshold, whereas half of the PAC10 schools did. Eight PAC10 brands (80%–all but Oregon and UW) fell below the 30% threshold,



Figure 6: (Spreadsheet link)



These findings, again, call into question SDSU and SMU’s relative media contract value as they came in at 14.4% and 11.5% respectively, well below the PAC10’s average of 25.2%. In fact, their COMBINED value (25.9%) barely reached the PAC10’s average. Compare that to the two lowest of the Big12 newcomers: Houston at 20.2% and Cincinnati at 24.1%– a combined value of 44.3%, well above the Big12’s average of 33.3%. This 33.3% figure, well above the PAC10’s 25.2% for the 2015-22 time period, shows the Big12 has had a stronger sports brand in recent years. Given the long-term and well-recognized historical brand superiority of the PAC12, these findings seem to show a relative decline of the PAC10 (vs surge for the Big12) in brand popularity.

Just searching the last year’s data for all three sports, The Big12 still maintained a sizable average popularity gap of 30.6% compared to the PAC10’s 22.3%, representing a slightly widening gap between the two conferences, even when just selecting for the last 12 months.

Put a different way, according to “Popularity on Google Trends” data:

• Big12 sports have been 32% more popular than PAC10 sports since 2015-22

• Big12 sports have been 37% more popular than PAC10 sports during the last 12 months

Lastly, looking at “Google Trends” search data for each individual Football Team in 2021-22 compared to a long-term window (2004-present) showed a relative uptick of only 1% per team in the PAC10 compared to an increase of 34.5% for the new Big12. Additionally, The PAC showed a higher value over the last two decades (22.7% vs 19.5% for the Big12) whereas the Big12 takes the lead in the more recent window analyzed (26.2% vs 22.9%).

This data fits with our thesis that, despite some baked in strengths and advantages, the PAC10 has been on a concerning negative trajectory for quite some time, that this is why the PAC10 is struggling to secure a lucrative media deal.

Stay Tuned for the next installment: Part 3–TV Viewership.

**Disclaimers:

• The data aggregation has been a long-term effort over several months and some of the metrics (Especially “Google Trends”) were compiled during or, at times, preceding the 2022 football season. Due to the rather time-sensitive nature of PAC12 Conference expansion, we proceeded with what was already compiled.
• Similarly, the enrollment figures have recently changed since they were extracted from USNWR’s site. The USNWR links generally show a small decreased enrollment at most schools. However, a sampling of Forbes current enrollment data shows nearly all schools with increased enrollment compared to what USNWR reported for either year (examples for UCF, ASU, Washington, Texas Tech, BYU, Cal, UCLA, Rice, TCU, Utah, SDSU, & SMU)
• Figures related to Footnote 1 below:

1 Just having students enrolled and going to classes doesn’t mean that they’ll necessarily want to go to sporting events or support their teams in other ways, nor that they’ll become fans at all. Some example Niche “Campus life” polls are linked here for SMU, SDSU, BYU, Stanford, Oklahoma, Rice, and Oregon. SMU student’s responses were particularly concerning with 58% giving these negative answers. Rice (another name floated in expansion speculation due to their elite academics and presence in a huge media market) had pitiful outcomes on this survey with 95% of respondents giving negative answers. Above are screenshots of some of these and other school’s results.

[JRsec*]

Add that with Oregon hiring Wisconsin provost it sounds like Huskies/ Ducks B1G in 2030s…
Also states ‘Arizona/ Arizona State a package deal’, so SEC to grab with Jayhawks & Buffs..?

I still think from what is meant here SEC gets Cavaliers/ Tar Heels/ Seminoles & 1 ACC pal…
Most likely B1G gets Fighting Irish/ Blue Devils/ Yellow Jackets/ Hurricanes (+ Bear & Tree)..?

The remainder of PAC/ XII/ ACC that are up to challenge of athletes as employees unite up…
And 24 brands under one conference banner #PrestigeWorldwide kidding, need new name…

Looks very familiar. Colorado and Kansas? If the Big 10 goes to 18 with Oregon and Washington or Stanford and Washington? Maybe. Two state flagships which carry the whole state, both AAU, both having been Big 12 members, to build a six team division of Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M? It's tight, familiar, easy travel, balanced in degree of difficulty, and Kansas and Colorado add in hoops. Colorado has declined since being cut off from Texas. Let them recruit all of the SEC to a beautiful state? It might work out. The issue is that ESPN has to want it and push it. I think they would for Kansas. Colorado gives them a different time zone to work with, a vacation state for all away fans of teams traveling to Colorado and it works on the map if Texas and Oklahoma are viewed as extensions of the SEC and Kansas is added.

That move would take the SEC to 18. Florida State, North Carolina, a bud of North Carolina, Clemson, Miami, and perhaps Virginia Tech to 24? I don't think ESPN will willingly give up owning the major brands in Florida outright. So I don't see Miami to the Big 10. If UNC gets to bring N.C. State that will appease their governing board in the state. Duke fits the Northeast better anyway. UVa is now more Beltway than Southern. Virginia Tech is the more marketable product. And if the Big 10 wants Georgia Tech, the SEC might not like them in Atlanta, but the value is so low I doubt we would get riled about it as long as Florida is covered and North Carolina is added.

The big issue is that nobody goes to 24 unless a network supplies the value. The SEC and Big 10 can give equal distributions at 18 with the right schools, possibly 20. Beyond that, no. Beyond that it's either unequal revenue distribution or the networks make it worth our while. And that may be the case for Kansas and Colorado. We'll see.

[NJTerp]

Add that with Oregon hiring Wisconsin provost it sounds like Huskies/ Ducks B1G in 2030s…
Also states ‘Arizona/ Arizona State a package deal’, so SEC to grab with Jayhawks & Buffs..?

I still think from what is meant here SEC gets Cavaliers/ Tar Heels/ Seminoles & 1 ACC pal…
Most likely B1G gets Fighting Irish/ Blue Devils/ Yellow Jackets/ Hurricanes (+ Bear & Tree)..?

The remainder of PAC/ XII/ ACC that are up to challenge of athletes as employees unite up…
And 24 brands under one conference banner #PrestigeWorldwide kidding, need new name…

I’m not sure how much influence the conference connections of a university helps. I don’t think it hurts. However, with the seemingly decrease in the amount of time a president serves, there is a good chance Oregon’s new president will not be in office by 2030 anyway.

We may know more if and when the PAC’s media deal is finally finalized.

[kopp0e]

“USC started this whole thing. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But they needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense. If Oregon calls Washington up and says, ‘I can double the amount of money you’re getting; come with me to the Big Ten,’ Washington is going to say, ‘OK, I’m in.’ They would love to have gone … When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, but they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That’s where I would have started this thing off. I think FOX wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in. I think it’s brilliant. Well played.”

Add that with Oregon hiring Wisconsin provost it sounds like Huskies/ Ducks B1G in 2030s…
Also states ‘Arizona/ Arizona State a package deal’, so SEC to grab with Jayhawks & Buffs..?

I still think from what is meant here SEC gets Cavaliers/ Tar Heels/ Seminoles & 1 ACC pal…
Most likely B1G gets Fighting Irish/ Blue Devils/ Yellow Jackets/ Hurricanes (+ Bear & Tree)..?

The remainder of PAC/ XII/ ACC that are up to challenge of athletes as employees unite up…
And 24 brands under one conference banner #PrestigeWorldwide kidding, need new name…

[kopp0e]

Do you have anymore Arizona State March Madness updates?

It’ll be ‘nice’ conference game: (after this contract)
When TCU is member in PAC… (& 3 XII buddies)

TCU/ SMU for ‘Iron Skillet’ eh..? (PAC likes pairs)
*Haha, didn’t see game but good for HornyToads…

*Just the same, Kansas will whoop Hogs in SEC..!
Drove Columbia & saw “This is SEC Country” ad
Hopefully most rivalries will stay in tact past 2030

[hiphopfroggy]

#1 seed~ Purdue loses to 16 seed surely we are not basing realignment on 2023 March Madness games…
As XII & PAC will both have a chance to right the collective ships before the next wave of media contracts…

Arizona State won play-in game other night while Oklahoma preps for spring football #MyMarchMadness…

Do you have anymore Arizona State March Madness updates?

[kopp0e]

PAC basketball can't even prepare Arizona for Princeton.

They must see the writing on the wall now.....

#1 seed~ Purdue loses to 16 seed surely we are not basing realignment on 2023 March Madness games…
As XII & PAC will both have a chance to right the collective ships before the next wave of media contracts…

Arizona State won play-in game other night while Oklahoma preps for spring football #MyMarchMadness…

[SoonerSpock]

I knew Michelle was at Northwestern it just slipped this ole aged mind and was aware she pitched professionally for the Bandits. Tickled to see Kierston Deal is getting to start for OU today. She needs the innings.

[Jett]

The PAC 12 simply reeks. I'm perfectly happy watching the Big 10 expand there. You become what you eat.

Keeping it ^ brief. Thanks.

[JRsec*]

PAC basketball can't even prepare Arizona for Princeton.

They must see the writing on the wall now.....

The PAC 12 simply reeks. I'm perfectly happy watching the Big 10 expand there. You become what you eat.

[hiphopfroggy]

PAC basketball can't even prepare Arizona for Princeton.

They must see the writing on the wall now.....

[FoCoSooner]

So lets get the checked flag ready to declare the tallest midget

Who wins the exposure game?
OTA = 10 points
ESPN = 5
ESPN2/U/FS1/Amazon Friday = 3
ESPN+, conference network, Amazon = 2
Apple = 1


Who wins the $ game?

Which ever conference gets the most of it.

Who wins the Gonzaga game?
Big 12 is better, but PAC makes so much more sense for travel.


And overall who is the winner

If the PAC has similar exposure and makes more $ while keeping the 4 corners then they win.

If Yomark does not get any Wesstern teams, and makes less $ he is the biggest loser. He looks like a fool for jumping the gun, not going to the open market, taking less than market value, and then calling shots on Western teams and not delivering.


Now if George makes less $ and ends up with almost all games streaming then he will be the biggest loser. He will have made promises he can't keep, and failed to live up to expectations. But he will have kept the conference together, so that's worth something.


We have to keep in mind most of the Big 12 content will be on ESPN+ where tens of thousands will watch football, thousands watch BB, and hundreds watch things like WBB and baseball.

The Big 12 eats production costs on almost all of its' T-3 and some T-2.

The Big 12 is not going to get many OTA spots with ESPN, there are just not many available with the SEC taking the mid day slot and the ACC having an advantage on TV audience.



I'd guess the PAC ends up making about the same $, keeping 4 corners, having some content streaming on Amazon and ESPN+, getting Gonzaga.

Any predictions?

[ElectricSooner]

I have a hard time seeing how Gonzaga would bring enough value to each school once the travel expenses were taken into account.

Say they are worth 10-15 million but they bring several million in travel expenses for the conference, plus they get a share of 5-10 million, and then split what's left 12+ ways. We are likely talking about low six figures.

For them to bring even 1 million in profit to each member they would have to be worth well over 20 million $ and I just don't see that at all. They are a 1 coach program playing in a pee wee league, with limited NIL resources. They are not primed to succeed after Few retires.

I see them as a slightly better version of Wichita ST, Xavier, or Creighton, not quite Villanova.

and with inflation driving travel costs higher as well, you may have to add 10% or so to the figures to get a better number. agreed with Few as well.

if I read the numbers in this article correctly, Gonzaga accounts for $4.4 million to the WCC but only recieves a portion of that...this is from a couple of years ago btw, and looks like basketball only, though I haven't read it indepth.

https://medium.com/wills-wcc-blog/an-empirical-look-at-gonzagas-impact-on-the-west-coast-conference-6900e5b7595c

[FoCoSooner]

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.c...12-inevitable/

so Mandel is saying Gonzaga is inevitable and it will be for all sports...interesting..

I have a hard time seeing how Gonzaga would bring enough value to each school once the travel expenses were taken into account.

Say they are worth 10-15 million but they bring several million in travel expenses for the conference, plus they get a share of 5-10 million, and then split what's left 12+ ways. We are likely talking about low six figures.

For them to bring even 1 million in profit to each member they would have to be worth well over 20 million $ and I just don't see that at all. They are a 1 coach program playing in a pee wee league, with limited NIL resources. They are not primed to succeed after Few retires.

I see them as a slightly better version of Wichita ST, Xavier, or Creighton, not quite Villanova.

[FoCoSooner]

"The commissioner strongly believes basketball is undervalued in this latest round of television rights talks, The Athletic reports. And he’s hinted at the possibility of separating it from football and selling those rights uniquely when the Big 12 next hits the open market in 2030-31, which makes Gonzaga an attractive future option."

Thanks.

That would be interesting to have 2 different deals. Probably be good for the ACC as well.

But we can also look at the Big East and they get appx 100 million per year for BB.

So who do you pair with them?

St Mary's so they have one rivalry game?
Wichita St?
Grand Canyon?.
Saint Louis?

[Jett]

"The commissioner strongly believes basketball is undervalued in this latest round of television rights talks, The Athletic reports. And he’s hinted at the possibility of separating it from football and selling those rights uniquely when the Big 12 next hits the open market in 2030-31, which makes Gonzaga an attractive future option."

[ElectricSooner]

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/03/16/the-athletics-stewart-mandel-calls-gonzaga-to-the-big-12-inevitable/

so Mandel is saying Gonzaga is inevitable and it will be for all sports...interesting..

[ElectricSooner]

Although the media hyped how unhappy Nebraska (and particularly its fans) were with Texas, interviews with the Nebraska administration indicated that overall they were satisfied with the Big XII situation in 2009 and worked well with Texas. The combination of the Big Ten expansion announcement and Missouri's open courtship with the Big Ten (and public denigration of some of their fellow Big XII colleagues) led to concerns about the stability of the Big XII, and when the Texas et al move to the PAC leaked, Nebraska (justly) panicked, realizing that a Mountain West residence was in their future. At the fateful conference meeting in June 2010 Nebraska asked Texas if they would sign a GoR but the Longhorns declined, and Nebraska contacted the Big Ten pleading for an invite.

Now it is true that the Big Ten and Nebraska had met prior to June to discuss a possible move, although there was no indication that the Cornhuskers were at the top of the conference's list. If Texas had stated that they would sign a GoR and call off the PAC flirtation, I really don't know what would have happened. My guess is that Nebraska would have contacted the Big Ten and stated that they were about to sign a GoR, so if an invitation was forthcoming it would have to be soon; the situation would have been more of a negotiation than begging for a life preserver.

The Nebraska fans were quite upset that the Oklahoma game was not protected when the Big XII was created, but this point was not important in the conference decision. I don't subscribe to the widely-held theory that the decline of the Cornhuskers' football program lies at the feet of the Big Ten; the sole cause of one of the world's great disasters of the 21st century is poor coaching choices. As many have noted, Nebraska's record in their first Big Ten years is indistinguishable from their final campaigns in the Big XII. Even now their recruiting is respectable. There are long-term trends that will prohibit Nebraska from ever returning to their previous gridiron dominance, and these factors are independent of conference.

As a Nebraska alum I am delighted that that they somehow managed to receive the golden ticket into the Big Ten.

I had forgotten the timeline of all of the negotiations. The reason I had asked was simply with all of the talk of doing away with divisions now, revisiting the formation of the Big 12 and the scheduling controversy, these new ideas being batted around make better sense back then, and Saban's complaining about Bama's proposed schedule made me think of how tough some of the Big boys back then would been. I know with all of the money for bigger conferences, I still think 12 was the best number for conference size after 8 or 10 of course

[Jett]

The Nebraska fans were quite upset that the Oklahoma game was not protected when the Big XII was created, but this point was not important in the conference decision. I don't subscribe to the widely-held theory that the decline of the Cornhuskers' football program lies at the feet of the Big Ten; the sole cause of one of the world's great disasters of the 21st century is poor coaching choices. As many have noted, Nebraska's record in their first Big Ten years is indistinguishable from their final campaigns in the Big XII. Even now their recruiting is respectable. There are long-term trends that will prohibit Nebraska from ever returning to their previous gridiron dominance, and these factors are independent of conference.

As a Nebraska alum I am delighted that that they somehow managed to receive the golden ticket into the Big Ten.

Oklahoma threw Nebraska under the bus in favor of Texas & recruiting. Looking back on it, OU made the right decision.

In my opinion, Alberts hired the right coach. Will Rhule return Nebraska to its glory days? No, but he will make them competitive again.

[Jett]

John Ourand Sports Business Journal
Topic: RSNs

[Big8Fan]

question: If instead of the schedule we got in the original Big 12 we got a schedule of 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, and Oklahoma's schedule is Nebraska, texas and Oklahoma State every year does the continuance of the OU-Nebraska series yr to yr A). keep Nebraska from falling off like they did and B.) does it keep the Big 12 together and make it more competetive top to bottom???

Although the media hyped how unhappy Nebraska (and particularly its fans) were with Texas, interviews with the Nebraska administration indicated that overall they were satisfied with the Big XII situation in 2009 and worked well with Texas. The combination of the Big Ten expansion announcement and Missouri's open courtship with the Big Ten (and public denigration of some of their fellow Big XII colleagues) led to concerns about the stability of the Big XII, and when the Texas et al move to the PAC leaked, Nebraska (justly) panicked, realizing that a Mountain West residence was in their future. At the fateful conference meeting in June 2010 Nebraska asked Texas if they would sign a GoR but the Longhorns declined, and Nebraska contacted the Big Ten pleading for an invite.

Now it is true that the Big Ten and Nebraska had met prior to June to discuss a possible move, although there was no indication that the Cornhuskers were at the top of the conference's list. If Texas had stated that they would sign a GoR and call off the PAC flirtation, I really don't know what would have happened. My guess is that Nebraska would have contacted the Big Ten and stated that they were about to sign a GoR, so if an invitation was forthcoming it would have to be soon; the situation would have been more of a negotiation than begging for a life preserver.

The Nebraska fans were quite upset that the Oklahoma game was not protected when the Big XII was created, but this point was not important in the conference decision. I don't subscribe to the widely-held theory that the decline of the Cornhuskers' football program lies at the feet of the Big Ten; the sole cause of one of the world's great disasters of the 21st century is poor coaching choices. As many have noted, Nebraska's record in their first Big Ten years is indistinguishable from their final campaigns in the Big XII. Even now their recruiting is respectable. There are long-term trends that will prohibit Nebraska from ever returning to their previous gridiron dominance, and these factors are independent of conference.

As a Nebraska alum I am delighted that that they somehow managed to receive the golden ticket into the Big Ten.

[FoCoSooner]

I wonder if this is what they were talking about on my financial podcasts a couple of months ago when they were talking about ESPN talking about some kind cooperation with other networks on some kind of streaming deal. will be interesting to see the details.

Gotta be. I agree. Making things simple for the consumer will be good for streaming.

[ElectricSooner]

question: If instead of the schedule we got in the original Big 12 we got a schedule of 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, and Oklahoma's schedule is Nebraska, texas and Oklahoma State every year does the continuance of the OU-Nebraska series yr to yr A). keep Nebraska from falling off like they did and B.) does it keep the Big 12 together and make it more competetive top to bottom???

[HouClone]

Only if we had Yormark or his clone over a decade ago. The dude knows his shit

Amazing the lousy job Dan Bebbe did. He was reading the realignment news and checking with Texas on every rumor. He was told by the networks, "Keep Texas happy.".

Big 12 was dominate in the 2000s too. The typical lower end programs, Missouri and Kansas, were #1 in consecutive weeks in 2007 and had the top Big 12 records. 3 years later all went to hell with Big 10 expanding, Missouri governor pining for the Big 10 ripping on Ok State and Texas Tech while at it, and then the Pac 10, seeing blood in the water, authorized their new commish, Larry Scott, to go on the whirlwind Big 12 poach in-person tour. Yeah, I won't lose any sleep if the Pac disbands or is a shell of itself.

[WoadBlue]

Where do you get this cockamamie nonsense?
At Carolina we give out of a sense of pride in our school, not who we play on Saturdays.
In 2020-21 when football seating was limited most games to about 3,500 a good many Rams Club members donated the cost of the tickets that they had paid for and couldn't use back to the Athletic Department, and the University netted $37.9 Million in contributions. In 2021-22 the contribution levels went back down to a traditional level of $19.8 Million.

https://247sports.com/college/north-carolina/Article/Next-Level-The-Money-Side-of-UNC-Athletics-Tar-Heels-NCAA-Financial-Report-203748744/

As long as Carolina is in Chapel Hill, the sons and daughters of the University will continue to support our school regardless of which teams are on our schedule.

Sometimes you just won't do, JR, you just won't do.

His starting point is that the ACC must die. And it seems that his second point is that UNC must then be begging to join the SEC and only the SEC. He simply cannot fathom that a school might not want to be in the SEC. So he really cannot imagine that UNC would see ESPN facilitating the destruction of the ACC as a betrayal so foul that UNC would not want anything to duo with ESPN and its beloved SEC.

[Jett]

The networks are going to be fine because they control distribution, whether OTA or on streaming.

What I think we ought to be heading toward is an across-the-board, college sports streamer, like NFL Sunday Ticket, but for all college sports. All of the right holders participate and get a cut of the streaming service's revenue based on the percentage of rights they hold. So, you go to a single app for all college sports, and the different services have all of their feeds there. You can get the one app with everything at a premium (let's say, $30 per month). One streaming app, multiple streams from multiple partners, revenue division by content contribution.

That's where this thing should be going. Don't know that it ever will.

30 dollars a month can't sustain the revenue that is being generated under the current sub model.

Moving forward, if ESPN and other services try to bundle all of the sports into a single monthly fee they will fail. I don't give a dayum about basketball or baseball. I don't give a dayum about pro sports.

Locking consumers into annual contracts or discouraging people from churning will fail.

I saw a study that was done 15 -20 years ago showing consumers would not be willing to pay ESPN 20 dollars a month as an a la carte service. In today's dollars?

ESPN was able to create an artificial market using the bundling model to rip-off non sports fans.

If they try the same scam on sports fans that model will fail. The gravy train is ending and there is not a dayum thing they can do about.

If you find a recent study that says otherwise, post it.

There is a reason why Iger is making ESPN a standalone division. Disney wants out of the Sports game before the tsunami hits.

[ElectricSooner]

You are pretty intuitive.

https://www.tradealgo.com/news/despite-the-competition-espn-wants-to-be-the-hub-for-all-live-sports-streaming

It has been announced that Disney's ESPN will be the hub for all live sports streaming, regardless of who its competitors are.



ESPN has spoken with major sports leagues and media partners about launching a feature on ESPN.com and its free ESPN app that will link users directly to live streams of sporting events.



This could be a national or international streaming service, such as Apple TV+ and Amazon Prime Video, or a regional sports service, such as Sinclair's Bally Sports+ or Madison Square Garden Entertainment's MSG+, or both.



As of now, it isn't known exactly which media partners will be involved, and there is also no timeline as to when such a feature will be launched, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. In spite of this, ESPN has approached the major sports leagues and media companies to find out what kind of enthusiasm they have for the idea, the people said.



ESPN has considered a business model in which it would take a cut of subscription revenue from a user who signed up for a streaming service through the ESPN app or website, two people said, although the business terms of the concept are still subject to change. People familiar with the matter told me that if a customer already subscribes to a service, ESPN would not collect any money and just provide the link to them as a courtesy.



In addition, ESPN may also alert users to games that are broadcast on linear TV, cementing ESPN's new role as the TV guide of live sports, according to people familiar with the matter.



ESPN declined to comment.



Some of the owners of regional sports networks have expressed particular optimism about the idea as they try to boost subscription revenues while at the same time leagues are questioning the larger industry's business prospects in a streaming-dominated environment, the two people said. Previously, Trade Algo reported that Sinclair's Diamond Sports Group was contemplating bankruptcy restructuring after failing to pay off a $140 million debt owed to it. The leagues have been notified by Warner Bros. Discovery that the company is planning on exiting the RSN business altogether, according to Trade Algo.



De-cluttering sports



Sports leagues are carving up rights packages among streaming partners to maximize carriage fees. Consumers find it increasingly difficult to find a given game. For a New York-area Yankees fan, a game on the New York Yankees can be viewed on linear TV on the YES Network, ESPN, or Warner Bros. Discovery's TBS, or it can be streamed on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ or NBCUniversal's Peacock platform.



In the coming years, ESPN will use its self-professed position as "the world's leading sports network" to become the de facto first stop for consumers who want to know where to watch live sports, the sources said. ESPN only links users to ESPN-licensed content as of right now. The number equals almost 30% of the total amount of televised or streamed U.S. sports, according to people familiar with the issue.



The fact that ESPN is willing to market other streaming services suggests that ESPN is shifting its strategy when it comes to the streaming wars. There is less focus on Disney's goal of gaining streaming subscribers - and eyeballs - at all costs as of late. There has been a growing trend among media companies, including Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery, in the recent past to focus on revenue and profit rather than subscriber growth, and executives at the company have emphasized the importance of this.



Since streaming growth has slowed, media companies have also begun trading in lockstep. Consequently, there was a reduction in competitive pressures as well as a promotion of working together. Similarly, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery are putting a lot of emphasis on licensing their content to rival streaming services as a way to increase revenue rather than keeping the content exclusive to them.



Earlier this month, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced that ESPN would become a standalone division under the leadership of ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro, as part of a company-wide reorganization. It is expected that the move will bring a closer look at ESPN's finances during earnings calls. Pitaro announced Wednesday that he was streamlining management beneath him so that his number of direct reports would be reduced.



Iger said there are no plans to spin out or sell ESPN, despite activist investor Dan Loeb last year calling for Disney to do so.

I wonder if this is what they were talking about on my financial podcasts a couple of months ago when they were talking about ESPN talking about some kind cooperation with other networks on some kind of streaming deal. will be interesting to see the details.

[FoCoSooner]

I think Yormark came off as looking aggressive and proactive. For him, he didn't have to win to win. The Big 12 looked like the hunter instead of the hunted for once.

The PAC wins just by keeping its hide mostly intact.

I think he could have done so without calling out specific schools and then not being able to deliver. That's the mistake I see here for him, Boelseby screwed things up. So Brett has done his best. He could have reached out to the schools behind the scenes, no need to play into the media game. The big boys (SEC/B1G)don't do that kind of stuff.

But as the NFL roster data, 5 star players data, etc point out this Big 12 is really a BB league but the FB side has a glass ceiling that is short of a NC. There is no way they are going to win 2-3 games vs elite SEC type teams. You can't win with no 5 star players. PAC is close to that level but Oregon has an outside shot at getting enough talent. That's where the ACC is just different.


Look at it this way.
Big 12 lost it's 2 most valuable programs and added 3 AAC programs and an indy who were all making around 10 million on future TV deals.


PAC lost it's most valuable and around 5th most valuable programs and may add an AAC team and MW team making 10 and around 4 million respectively.


The PAC needs to leverage it's production capability and partner with the ACC somehow. If they win the $ battle then George will have beat Brett. Big 12 wins the $ battle vice versa. It's the tallest midget contest.

[FoCoSooner]

The networks are going to be fine because they control distribution, whether OTA or on streaming.

What I think we ought to be heading toward is an across-the-board, college sports streamer, like NFL Sunday Ticket, but for all college sports. All of the right holders participate and get a cut of the streaming service's revenue based on the percentage of rights they hold. So, you go to a single app for all college sports, and the different services have all of their feeds there. You can get the one app with everything at a premium (let's say, $30 per month). One streaming app, multiple streams from multiple partners, revenue division by content contribution.

That's where this thing should be going. Don't know that it ever will.

You are pretty intuitive.

https://www.tradealgo.com/news/despite-the-competition-espn-wants-to-be-the-hub-for-all-live-sports-streaming

It has been announced that Disney's ESPN will be the hub for all live sports streaming, regardless of who its competitors are.



ESPN has spoken with major sports leagues and media partners about launching a feature on ESPN.com and its free ESPN app that will link users directly to live streams of sporting events.



This could be a national or international streaming service, such as Apple TV+ and Amazon Prime Video, or a regional sports service, such as Sinclair's Bally Sports+ or Madison Square Garden Entertainment's MSG+, or both.



As of now, it isn't known exactly which media partners will be involved, and there is also no timeline as to when such a feature will be launched, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. In spite of this, ESPN has approached the major sports leagues and media companies to find out what kind of enthusiasm they have for the idea, the people said.



ESPN has considered a business model in which it would take a cut of subscription revenue from a user who signed up for a streaming service through the ESPN app or website, two people said, although the business terms of the concept are still subject to change. People familiar with the matter told me that if a customer already subscribes to a service, ESPN would not collect any money and just provide the link to them as a courtesy.



In addition, ESPN may also alert users to games that are broadcast on linear TV, cementing ESPN's new role as the TV guide of live sports, according to people familiar with the matter.



ESPN declined to comment.



Some of the owners of regional sports networks have expressed particular optimism about the idea as they try to boost subscription revenues while at the same time leagues are questioning the larger industry's business prospects in a streaming-dominated environment, the two people said. Previously, Trade Algo reported that Sinclair's Diamond Sports Group was contemplating bankruptcy restructuring after failing to pay off a $140 million debt owed to it. The leagues have been notified by Warner Bros. Discovery that the company is planning on exiting the RSN business altogether, according to Trade Algo.



De-cluttering sports



Sports leagues are carving up rights packages among streaming partners to maximize carriage fees. Consumers find it increasingly difficult to find a given game. For a New York-area Yankees fan, a game on the New York Yankees can be viewed on linear TV on the YES Network, ESPN, or Warner Bros. Discovery's TBS, or it can be streamed on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ or NBCUniversal's Peacock platform.



In the coming years, ESPN will use its self-professed position as "the world's leading sports network" to become the de facto first stop for consumers who want to know where to watch live sports, the sources said. ESPN only links users to ESPN-licensed content as of right now. The number equals almost 30% of the total amount of televised or streamed U.S. sports, according to people familiar with the issue.



The fact that ESPN is willing to market other streaming services suggests that ESPN is shifting its strategy when it comes to the streaming wars. There is less focus on Disney's goal of gaining streaming subscribers - and eyeballs - at all costs as of late. There has been a growing trend among media companies, including Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery, in the recent past to focus on revenue and profit rather than subscriber growth, and executives at the company have emphasized the importance of this.



Since streaming growth has slowed, media companies have also begun trading in lockstep. Consequently, there was a reduction in competitive pressures as well as a promotion of working together. Similarly, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery are putting a lot of emphasis on licensing their content to rival streaming services as a way to increase revenue rather than keeping the content exclusive to them.



Earlier this month, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced that ESPN would become a standalone division under the leadership of ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro, as part of a company-wide reorganization. It is expected that the move will bring a closer look at ESPN's finances during earnings calls. Pitaro announced Wednesday that he was streamlining management beneath him so that his number of direct reports would be reduced.



Iger said there are no plans to spin out or sell ESPN, despite activist investor Dan Loeb last year calling for Disney to do so.

[ElectricSooner]

This guy called out the 4 corners and Pacific time zone, so lets not crown him until he does something. Beating the PAC on TV $ is certainly a win,, but unknown now.

Even if the Big 12 had lost those 2 that's really not a big loss as CU is not valuable, and aTm is valuable to a conference with no Texas teams but in the Big 12 they were not particularly useful for much other than middle of the road.


Adding any combo of Cinci, Louisville (before ACC), WVU, Pitt (before ACC), Houston, BYU, Rice, and TCU would have been fine to get up to 16 IMO. I do not think ACC schools were going to come.

probably not on the ACC teams, Clemson and FSU were the most receptive and had BoT meetings to discuss it, but the Big 12 (OU and texas mainly) wasn't very serious about it. however, if we jump down that rabbit hole for the sake of argument SEC takes A&M to get to 13, they pick up 2 of the NC schools and Virginia to get to 16. assuming Big 12 still has Neb and Missou. adding Clem, FSU, Miami gets the Big 12 to 13, I really don't think G. Tech would join so assuming they don't Big 12 maybe gets the other 2 NC schools and Va Tech to get to 16, they and the SEC do the bowl alliance thing they did with the champs/next best in the Sugar Bowl and then each side picks one cross over game. the networks would have loved that for both sides. I still think SEC probably has the better money draw and is probably the clear number 1 from a football perspective, but the Big 12 wouldn't be super far behind, and basketball would probably still pull ahead. baseball and softball both would have been excellent in and then you could probably find landing spots for the Olympic sports that would really make sense. PAC would be at 14 assuming they still took Utah and Colorado, BIG would still pick up Rutgers and Maryland, and since Pitt is AAU, they would be a logical choice to go to 14 for them. going to 16 would be more difficult since they best teams outside of ND are gone Ga Tech would be a good add for the BIG with ND if they could convince ND to give up their independence. PAC would have to move into texas i think, some combination of TCU, SMU or Houston. still would be in the same situation they are now tho...anyways fun thought.

[hiphopfroggy]

Sounds like the Pac is safe if they can get $29.7m/per.....

[NaturalStateReb]

According to one of our SEC Media experts, money will be pouring down from the sky.

In SEC lingo, there is a lot of blood left in the turnip "if the networks can survive."

The networks are going to be fine because they control distribution, whether OTA or on streaming.

What I think we ought to be heading toward is an across-the-board, college sports streamer, like NFL Sunday Ticket, but for all college sports. All of the right holders participate and get a cut of the streaming service's revenue based on the percentage of rights they hold. So, you go to a single app for all college sports, and the different services have all of their feeds there. You can get the one app with everything at a premium (let's say, $30 per month). One streaming app, multiple streams from multiple partners, revenue division by content contribution.

That's where this thing should be going. Don't know that it ever will.

[NaturalStateReb]

Sounds about right.

So as expected all the Big 12 taking 4 corners, Big 12 commissioner calling out 4 corners and pacific time zone and failing. Looking like an idiot, just like the last commissioner. lol. He better hope this is wrong but the ASU president was pretty convincing, more than the Utah AD.


If the PAC gets more $ they they will have won this battle. We know ESPN is going to pick up some games for late slots so they will have at least some games on cable. Just like the Big 12 who will have a few on OTA, but most on ESPN2, FS1, and especially ESPN+.


So is ESPN+ better than Amazon? I can see advantages each way but I'd take Amazon due to having a lot more subs and the ability to have them follow up TNF with Friday night PAC games which would likely do pretty well with limited competition and Amazon promoting it on their sports shows, then another Saturday game. They are going to bring a new younger fan into the mix and I think there is upside there vs being buried on ESPN+ with few subs and so many other games going on.

Best outcome for the PAC is Amazon takes 26 games primarily T-1 ESPN takes T-2/3 and takes over PACN distribution rolling it into ACCN/LHN/ESPN+.
They make more $ than the Big 12.


Yormark would be left calling Gonzaga and looking like a complete idiot. But that's going to be tough as SDSU and SMU are not valuable on TV. I guess they get a reduced payout, heck SMU may be asked to cover the 50 million $ issue with PACN to get in. And I think they would do it. lol

I think Yormark came off as looking aggressive and proactive. For him, he didn't have to win to win. The Big 12 looked like the hunter instead of the hunted for once.

The PAC wins just by keeping its hide mostly intact.

[Jett]

According to one of our SEC Media experts, money will be pouring down from the sky.

In SEC lingo, there is a lot of blood left in the turnip "if the networks can survive."

[FoCoSooner]

With the fall of RSN's it's hard to see how the NBA gets what it want' with a recession looming.
NBA Wants Billions More in Sports Deals: Media and Tech Firms Are Resistant


By
Sahil Patel
| March 15, 2023 6:00 AM PDT
Photo: A recent New York Knicks/Los Angeles Lakers game. Photo by Adam Pantozzi/NBAE via Getty Images.

The NBA is one of the most popular sports leagues in the world. It also has high hopes for squeezing far more money out of media outlets in negotiations for future TV broadcast rights, in part because tech giants including Amazon and Google have told the league of their interest in streaming the games. According to two people who have recently spoken with the NBA, the league wants to triple its current revenue from TV deals.

It won’t be that simple.

Amazon, for instance, is interested in the NBA rights, say people who have spoken with the tech giant’s representatives, but it has no intention of overpaying for a high-priced NBA rights package, according to people familiar with its thinking. It recently signed a costly deal with the NFL, and Amazon representatives have privately told some sports league executives the company may hold off on getting locked into another decadelong and exorbitant contract while it waits to see whether the NFL deal is successfu

[FoCoSooner]

If the Big 12 had a Yormark in 2008ish, I would wager at least Neb and Missouri would still be here. I think A&M and Colorado were gone either way. I think the slight possibility of the FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami rumors joining the Big 12 might have had a better chance of happening and really that would be a pretty damn good 14 team conference from a football standpoint, and the basketball wouldn't be hurt any. Of course that is predicated on Boren and the Texas guys playing ball and giving up a little bit of their bitching power. If only.

This guy called out the 4 corners and Pacific time zone, so lets not crown him until he does something. Beating the PAC on TV $ is certainly a win,, but unknown now.

Even if the Big 12 had lost those 2 that's really not a big loss as CU is not valuable, and aTm is valuable to a conference with no Texas teams but in the Big 12 they were not particularly useful for much other than middle of the road.


Adding any combo of Cinci, Louisville (before ACC), WVU, Pitt (before ACC), Houston, BYU, Rice, and TCU would have been fine to get up to 16 IMO. I do not think ACC schools were going to come.