Big 12 meets, develops vague expansion non-plan

[zls44]

One reason for playing so many games in the Dome was that hoops had to generate alot of $ since the BE contract sucked.

Talk about the mother of all ridiculous cop-outs. What an asinine piece of logic.

Example: that crappy contract didn't stop just about every single other program of relevance from scheduling decent OOC games.

JB has been ducking challenges for decades. Great coach, but the simple reality is that he refuses to challenge himself or his team in hostile environments. He could easily do so. Nobody has ever stopped Syracuse from doing so but Syracuse.

 

[RMoore1999]

The ACC Network is a non-starter. Still-born. And every ounce of ACC content is already sold, so they ain't getting another $10M from any source - ESPN will be a partner in the imminent SEC Network and they're not going to throw money down a rathole in those same markets with an ACC Network that really no one wants.

The money the ACC has now is the money they will have in 2020 and beyond - the Big Ten and SEC will swamp them in a couple of years and the gap will expand yearly.

That is the reality of it.

And you still don't believe that more major realignment is absolutely inevitable? Only Notre Dame joining full time can save the ACC.

 

[The Funster]

The ACC is fuxxored, pure and simple. What the ACC did to the Big East will now be done to the ACC.

There simply cannot be special interests in a conference that alter the conference's long term strategy and cohesiveness. The BE had football schools, it had basketball schools and it had ND. The ACC has Tobacco Road (read basketball schools), has football schools and it now has ND. See the similarity? Toss in BC's "turf" for good measure. Even before ND, the Tobacco Road/FB split was a detriment to casting a unified vision for all the schools of the conference. Swofford's kow-towing to Tobacco Road will be his legacy, a legacy that is about to be devoured by three other conferences. Swofford capitulated rather than leading.

The B1G, SEC and Pac 12 all present a unified front. One never hears about backroom squabbling. Even the Big 12, with the Texas influence looming over it, trotted out a GOR that supposedly guarantees unity.

Swofford and the ACC deserve to go the way of the Big East. All I care about is UConn's future. Screw everyone else.

 

[upstater]

I really would love to hear the discussions between the state and ESPN. I imagine that the state does not have UConn's back on this given the antagonistic relationship between the state pols complaining about Herbst and the changes, and the anti-development mentality of the person who is a liasion between the Reps. and the school. Why would they go to bat for UConn?

I ask because I wonder what the optics are for ESPN giving more money to the ACC for adding Louisville over UConn.

 

[upstater]

There is ever more pressure outside sports on these presidents. Five factors will further cause them to make desperate gambits, the most important being the last 2:

1. Continuing cuts in state subsidies beyond the 5 straight years of cuts already. The cuts keep coming.
2. Drop in research grants and donations.
3. Tuition & fees have no more room to grow.
4. The new health care law will require huge changes inside universities. And this will be costly. People don't realize how cheap contingent faculty are. They work for $2 or $3k per class taught, and only 30% of faculty nationwide are full-timers. The new law will blow a hole through university finances, one way or another (fire them so you don't have to pay, or else hire fewer of them and give them more responsibilities and higher salaries--which will also hurt your reputation). For the last 20 years, expenditures at state schools have risen slowly, well below inflation, but the new laws are about to increase costs for faculty.
5. The NCAA and paying players $4k, the increased pressure on sports, the traveling, the wholesale watering down of the curriculum for athletes.

The noose is tightening on these presidents. Expect more rash decisions from people under extreme pressure.

 

[Waquoit]

Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 are all sold until the mid-2020s.

And there is no Tier 4.

Tier 5 - no poofters

 

[whaler11]

Can't the schools hire more part timers to get around health care reform? They need to average 30 hours before you need to offer affordable coverage or pay a penalty on them.

 

[Excalibur]

Jim would just whine about the type of gun used.

------



The idea that ESPN is going to toss out sacks of cash because of a perceived threat at dissolution is insane. If it dissolves...then ESPN will just throw the money at whatever higher-revenue, far more interesting conference is the result of it. Maybe bank the savings for a re-up with NASCAR. Or the Big Ten contract that opens up soon. Or the Thursday night NFL package.

ESPN will do whatever gets them the most money coming in with the least amount going out. We don't know if that means throwing a few dollars to save a relatively cheap ACC, or letting it die and paying out on fewer contracts.

 

[Waquoit]

For the last 20 years, expenditures at state schools have risen slowly, well below inflation,

Yet, tuitions have risen far above the inflation rate. Higher education is such a racket.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The renegotiation brought the media fees to around $17M. The idea that Notre Dame joining added $2-2.5M was inaccurate.

An alliance with another conference will not add any media revenue because the media rights are already sold! Whether someone hosts Texas or East Paduka State, the rights to that game already belong to ESPN. Hosting a home game against Notre Dame will not add any media revenue because - raise your hand if you know the answer - the media rights are already sold.

Might help with ticket sales if you're playing OU instead of URI, but honestly, no one in the Big 12 or ACC is going to add another hard game to their schedule - they might replace one hard game with another, but everyone will make sure they're bowl-eligible with the appropriate number of patsies.

An alliance really means that OU and Texas will play footsie with FSU, Clemson and VaTech - it's about making the big fish happy so they're less tempted to expand. The medium and small fish will be unaffected.

This is not hard - the ACC's media rights are fixed. They don't have anything left to sell. They're making decent money, but it also makes them vulnerable long-term - there is a reason why Maryland left.

And I think it might make sense for SU to play Georgetown - lots of SU grads there - but JB really, really doesn't like that sort of thing. I don't see him doing it unless you folks point a gun at his head.

That's why I like my suggestion. Both leagues are vulnerable. The ACC thanks to a weak contract, and loss of the DC market and the B12 because it really only has TX, OKC and KC as markets, and is surrounded on all sides by stronger conferences.

So the answer is for the 10 southern ACC teams, UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, GT, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA and VT to join the ten B1g schools, as part of a deal with Fox that renegotiates rights. Let the ACC fold, along with it's crappy contract. Now, with two 10 team divisions, play as a ten team league and just have a championship game at the end. You retain your round robin schedule and UT is happy. Everybody stays with their local rivals.

The four castoff's slink back to the Big East, which regains some status, and becomes the 5th best conference.

 

[UConn Dan]

That's why I like my suggestion. Both leagues are vulnerable. The ACC thanks to a weak contract, and loss of the DC market and the B12 because it really only has TX, OKC and KC as markets, and is surrounded on all sides by stronger conferences.

So the answer is for the 10 southern ACC teams, UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, GT, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA and VT to join the ten B1g schools, as part of a deal with Fox that renegotiates rights. Let the ACC fold, along with it's crappy contract. Now, with two 10 team divisions, play as a ten team league and just have a championship game at the end. You retain your round robin schedule and UT is happy. Everybody stays with their local rivals.

The four castoff's slink back to the Big East, which regains some status, and becomes the 5th best conference.

I'm sure the SEC and B1G would scoop up some or those teams before the big 12 becomes a 20 team Conf.

 

[Marty Jackson]

It is almost certainly in their best interest to do so. Right now, some of their better historical football programs are down (Miami, VT and BC) and will likely improve. Clemson has been very good. GT and NC St. show improvement and UNC will come out of the penalty box. Louisville is good right now, and Syracuse has improved. The contract sucks, but the ACC's overall value and clout will never be lower. ND will help bump the strength of schedule and BCS rankings. The future looks pretty bright, if they can hold on.

assuming the ACC can hold together (no losses just uconn and cincy added), as a uconn fan do you take an ACC or Big10 invite?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The renegotiation brought the media fees to around $17M. The idea that Notre Dame joining added $2-2.5M was inaccurate.

An alliance with another conference will not add any media revenue because the media rights are already sold! Whether someone hosts Texas or East Paduka State, the rights to that game already belong to ESPN. Hosting a home game against Notre Dame will not add any media revenue because - raise your hand if you know the answer - the media rights are already sold.

Might help with ticket sales if you're playing OU instead of URI, but honestly, no one in the Big 12 or ACC is going to add another hard game to their schedule - they might replace one hard game with another, but everyone will make sure they're bowl-eligible with the appropriate number of patsies.

An alliance really means that OU and Texas will play footsie with FSU, Clemson and VaTech - it's about making the big fish happy so they're less tempted to expand. The medium and small fish will be unaffected.

This is not hard - the ACC's media rights are fixed. They don't have anything left to sell. They're making decent money, but it also makes them vulnerable long-term - there is a reason why Maryland left.

And I think it might make sense for SU to play Georgetown - lots of SU grads there - but JB really, really doesn't like that sort of thing. I don't see him doing it unless you folks point a gun at his head.

The ACC is probably around $19 or $19.5MM per school already. In PV terms, it is less because the contract is rumored to be back end loaded, but let's call it $19MM per school per year for now.

The ACC's rights are fixed, but that doesn't mean the individual schools' rights are fixed. If UNC and UVa's games are worth $25 or $30MM per year in the Big 10, why wouldn't those schools go the Big 10? And once they leave, what is stopping most of the other schools from doing the same thing with the SEC and Big 12?

ESPN has tried the "low ball, what are you going to do about it?" approach with the Big East, and they got their ass handed to them. They ended up paying as much for Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and Notre Dame basketball as they could have paid for the entire 17 school Big East. The Big East couldn't renegotiate their contract, but the individual schools could, and they did.

I don't want to overestimate the intelligence of the business side at ESPN based on how realignment has played out (and a certain poster on this board), but they would have to be colossally stupid to make the same mistake again. ESPN and the ACC will figure out the minimum ESPN needs to pay to keep the ACC together, and ESPN will pay it. That number may be $25MM/school or it may be $22MM/school. I suspect it will be closer to the former, and ESPN will pay it through an ACC Network because then ESPN can generate the revenue through syndication of Tier 3 games rather than write a check themselves.

 

[whaler11]

Only problem with that theory is that ESPN didn't low ball the Big East.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'm sure the SEC and B1G would scoop up some or those teams before the big 12 becomes a 20 team Conf.

But they don't want to be in the B1G or SEC, that is becoming obvious. By combining in this way, they would be protected. Give that 20 team league a solid GOR and TV deal, and it's as strong as any other. The B1G and SEC would need to look elsewhere (Louisville perhaps for SEC, UConn, BC or Cuse for B1G). The Pac would also be frozen out. It's a brilliant move that would turn two potential victims into a league that would compare well with any other.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Only problem with that theory is that ESPN didn't low ball the Big East.

That is such a staggeringly stupid comment that it doesn't deserve a reply, but here goes:

ESPN's final offer to the Big East was between $110 and $130MM per year.

Adding up the money that Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, WVU, TCU, Rutgers, the C7 and Notre Dame hoops will receive, together with increases in existing contracts to the ACC and Big 12 for taking on new schools, networks will pay well over $200 million, and that doesn't count whatever UConn, USF and Cincinnati get.

Even you should understand that 200>130.

 

[whaler11]

That is such a staggeringly stupid comment that it doesn't deserve a reply, but here goes:

ESPN's final offer to the Big East was between $110 and $130MM per year.

Adding up the money that Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, WVU, TCU, Rutgers, the C7 and Notre Dame hoops will receive, together with increases in existing contracts to the ACC and Big 12 for taking on new schools, networks will pay well over $200 million, and that doesn't count whatever UConn, USF and Cincinnati get.

Even you should understand that 200>130.

Listen. You don't get that the networks don't make every call on conference realignment. The individual teams sold for a net higher figure because conferences wanted the individual schools, nobody wanted the league as a whole.

They turned down $13 million a year. Yes in the short term the payments are higher. The networks and conferences were willing to pay the premium to protect their other more valuable assets.

You are looking at it in a vacuum. If the ACC pays the Big East ACC money guess what. Maryland and Rutgers still join the Big 10. So just giving the Big East the money the teams got in the sell off doesn't do them any good - it just gives them two expensive products that lost value and would be in danger of losing more.

 

[zls44]

Listen. You don't get that the networks don't make every call on conference realignment.

Replace the word "every" with the word "any" and you're dead on.

It's as hilarious a claim as nelson thinking anyone at ESPN is in trouble over this. Ah, no. Sorry sweet pea.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Listen. You don't get that the networks don't make every call on conference realignment. The individual teams sold for a net higher figure because conferences wanted the individual schools, nobody wanted the league as a whole.

They turned down $13 million a year. Yes in the short term the payments are higher. The networks and conferences were willing to pay the premium to protect their other more valuable assets.

You are looking at it in a vacuum. If the ACC pays the Big East ACC money guess what. Maryland and Rutgers still join the Big 10. So just giving the Big East the money the teams got in the sell off doesn't do them any good - it just gives them two expensive products that lost value and would be in danger of losing more.

The market valued the Big East at much, much more than ESPN was offering. What else would you call it than a low ball bid? The fact that Maryland and Rutgers were worth so much to the Big 10, or that Fox will pay the C7 over $5MM per school, is an indication that ESPN was offering too little.

In the short term? These contracts go out over 10 years. ESPN was protecting the ACC by adding Pitt and Syracuse? I didn't realize those two schools were the ACC's saviors, and if they weren't added the ACC would collapse and all the schools would go independent. Thank you for clearing that up.

This argument feels like I am clubbing a baby seal, so let's move on.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Replace the word "every" with the word "any" and you're dead on.

It's as hilarious a claim as nelson thinking anyone at ESPN is in trouble over this. Ah, no. Sorry sweet pea.

They are holding parades at ESPN for the deal team that decided to pay more money for less content, and chased several of the best properties off to Fox, while pissing off the state that just gave ESPN $100MM in various tax credits.

Is that how success is defined at ESPN?

 

[zls44]

They are holding parades at ESPN for the team that decided to pay more money for less content, and chased several of the best properties off to Fox, while pissing off the state that just gave ESPN $100MM in various tax credits.

They didn't decide. The conferences did. You're too stupid to figure out how this disproves your insanity.

You have no proof otherwise. Still.

 

[HuskyHawk]

They didn't decide. The conferences did. You're too stupid to figure out how this disproves your insanity.

You have no proof otherwise. Still.

Exactly. The fact that ESPN is a "victim" of realignment only goes to further illustrate that they were not behind it, or orchestrating it or directing it. The only thing that is clear is that the ACC decided to expand, and knowing that it would trigger new $ in their contract, contacted ESPN and said: If I add school X, how much will it go up? ESPN gives them the numbers and the ACC issues the invites. That's it.

ESPN is not dictating to anyone. A&M and Mizzou are not taking direction from ESPN. Nor Colorado or Utah, or Nebraska, or Maryland or Rutgers, or Pitt, or Cuse, or Louisville, or Miami, or BC or VT . And the conferences sure as hell aren't doing ESPN's bidding.

ESPN lowballed the Big East because they obviously didn't want our football content. The C7 recognized this, and knew that the basketball content was being undervalued, and that ESPN definitely wanted it. But he hoops content was of lesser value to NBC or anybody who might value the football content more than ESPN. ESPN has loads of channels and needs weeknight content. They don't really need the daytime weekend football content beyond what they already have...and even it typically loses to the SEC and B1G games on the networks.

 

[B1GEast]

I don't think it's crazy to think that espn has influenced expansion on some level, no one can prove it, but it's not insane to suggest the possibility. Personally, I could care less, but the way people post things on this board as though they were in the know of things never ceases to amaze me. Everyone on this board is an expert analyst or coach.

 

[whaler11]

The market valued the Big East at much, much more than ESPN was offering. What else would you call it than a low ball bid? The fact that Maryland and Rutgers were worth so much to the Big 10, or that Fox will pay the C7 over $5MM per school, is an indication that ESPN was offering too little.

In the short term? These contracts go out over 10 years. ESPN was protecting the ACC by adding Pitt and Syracuse? I didn't realize those two schools were the ACC's saviors, and if they weren't added the ACC would collapse and all the schools would go independent. Thank you for clearing that up.

This argument feels like I am clubbing a baby seal, so let's move on.

LOL. The market valued the Big East so highly that the people best positioned to know that were the first ones off the ship.

The University of Pittsburgh had the best information. They left for the ACC.
Maybe they knew damn well that the Big East wasn't getting anywhere near the money that the ACC got when they hit the open market. I know they are as stupid as ESPN and all....

 

[upstater]

Yet, tuitions have risen far above the inflation rate. Higher education is such a racket.

Sorry, do I have to educate you on the difference between expenditures and revenues? Put it this way, if tuition was $1,000 and it's $6,000 now, that's a 600% rise, well above inflation. If expenditures were $1 billion then, and $1.2 billion now, that's well below inflation. Get it? Take Cal-Berkeley for example. Expenditures since the 1980s rose from $1.3 billion to $1.g billion, while tuition increased 1000% (by almost $8,000). Tuition doesn't cover the full cost per student. It covers only a small portion of that.

 

[upstater]

Yet, tuitions have risen far above the inflation rate. Higher education is such a racket.

I'd like to see them try when training literature has for decades claimed that each class taught should account for 25 hours per week. So good luck hiring multiple people to teach one section and one section only. 25 hours is, in my experience, high for one class. It's more like 15-20 hours. But in general, the schools are going to struggle to make the argument that an adjunct making $5,000 from teaching 2 classes is not going to be working 30 hours.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

LOL. The market valued the Big East so highly that the people best positioned to know that were the first ones off the ship.

The University of Pittsburgh had the best information. They left for the ACC.
Maybe they knew damn well that the Big East wasn't getting anywhere near the money that the ACC got when they hit the open market. I know they are as stupid as ESPN and all....

The ACC was already locked up in a 10 year deal that ESPN did not have to renegotiate, but they did anyway, because they thought that poaching a few teams from the Big East would bring down the Big East's market value. Instead, ESPN started an exodus that resulted in the worldwide leader paying a lot more than they would have if they hadn't given so a low ball.

You get that a conference is just an amalgamation of members. If the individual members generated almost $300MM in incremental annual rights fees for their new conferences, that is what the conference was worth.

You are making the argument that what the schools were actually paid doesn't matter, all that matters is the offer from ESPN that they didn't accept. Think about your logic for a minute before you keep posting on this topic.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Exactly. The fact that ESPN is a "victim" of realignment only goes to further illustrate that they were not behind it, or orchestrating it or directing it. The only thing that is clear is that the ACC decided to expand, and knowing that it would trigger new $ in their contract, contacted ESPN and said: If I add school X, how much will it go up? ESPN gives them the numbers and the ACC issues the invites. That's it.

ESPN is not dictating to anyone. A&M and Mizzou are not taking direction from ESPN. Nor Colorado or Utah, or Nebraska, or Maryland or Rutgers, or Pitt, or Cuse, or Louisville, or Miami, or BC or VT . And the conferences sure as hell aren't doing ESPN's bidding.

ESPN lowballed the Big East because they obviously didn't want our football content. The C7 recognized this, and knew that the basketball content was being undervalued, and that ESPN definitely wanted it. But he hoops content was of lesser value to NBC or anybody who might value the football content more than ESPN. ESPN has loads of channels and needs weeknight content. They don't really need the daytime weekend football content beyond what they already have...and even it typically loses to the SEC and B1G games on the networks.

Remarks below

"ESPN is not dictating to anyone"

Read Blaudschon's Boston Globe interview with BCU's AD circa October 2011 where BCU's AD says exactly the opposite.

Your first paragraph actually undermines your point. If ESPN did not want these conferences to expand, all it had to do was refuse to renegotiate existing contracts. The ACC had a 10 year deal signed in 2009 or 2010 that they reopened and increased to add the Big East schools. If ESPN was not behind the conference expansion, why didn't they just say no?

"ESPN lowballed the Big East because they didn't want our football content"

Why did ESPN commit to pay the ACC over $100MM per year to add just Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt if they didn't want our football content? Why did Fox and ESPN agree to pay the Big 12 an additional $80-90MM per year to add TCU and WVU if ESPN did not want our football content? Why did Fox, ESPN and the BTN commit to pay $25MM+ per year if they did not want our football content? Why did ESPN approach Boise State about a separate programming deal for Boise home games if they did not want our football content? These are not rhetorical questions, I am really interested in an explanation.

 

[Fishy]

First, I don't think there is any question that ESPN played a role in realignment. For crying out loud, they financed it - if you think a conference expanded without knowing what their broadcast partner would pay for the addition, you're lost.

I thought ESPN made a reasonable offer to the Big East and I also do not think it was unreasonable for the Big East to turn down an initial offer. Clearly, we lacked business savvy at the top because instead of counter offering or waiting on the market, ESPN facilitated the end of the conference - unlike Nelson and his connecting-the-dots addition, (some of the increases were market adjustments and not related to additional programs), I think that was an excellent strategy for ESPN.

You can say they have less content, but that's debatable given that they've grown their other holdings - and they've eliminated content that might have been available to a competitor.

 

[NEforceUConn]

The one variable missing is the ACC's raids on the BE showed ESPN and Conferences that they can poach teams and eliminate conferences (BE) - thus we see this 4 mega conference crap. However college rivalries and overall fan interest has declined. Maybe this is only temporary but i think not. In football die hard ACC fans no longer give a crap about other conference games other than their home team. hell, they hardly even know what teams make up the ACC.

So ESPN helping to open Pardora's box (primarily the second/third/forth) by telling the ACC to raid and raid the BE has cost them viewers. Few give a damn about watching other conference member fb games compared to when conferences were 8 to 10 teams.

This effects all conferences, not just the ACC. For instance I did not give a damn about that UL/RU game, but 3 years ago I would be glued to any BE fb game, not anymore.

What I mean to say is if ESPN could have a redo they actually were in a better overall position with a somewhat healthy BE containing Pitt and Cuse. But they F%cked it up. The 6 Conference set up was much better than the crap we have now. And perhaps Upstater will comment, I am sure Universities than have left (Nebraska, A&M, Maryland, Pitt, etc) will be remembered for a long time with bad blood.