Big 12 meets, develops vague expansion non-plan

[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.

 

[upstater]

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.

I don't think anyone will really care or hold it against those schools. I was saying last week how Syracuse's invective's at BC's president didn't seem to damage Cuse's chances at the ACC.

 

[Adios]

"Oh, we're not on the Big Ten's radar!" I am sure that's why we've been mentioned in Big Ten territory media multiple times. Here's a new one for y'all. We're now being mentioned as a Big 12 expansion candidate in Fort Worth.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/16/4552798/big-12-commissioner-league-could.html

Speculation has centered on Big 12 interest from Florida State and Clemson from the ACC, with Connecticut and Cincinnati among the most desirable remaining assets in the crumbling Big East.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/28/4581906/big-12-ads-back-alliances-with.html

Bowlsby acknowledged expansion by other leagues could force the Big 12's hand and said officials "have to be prepared to respond to that changing environment." Speculation has centered on Big 12 interest from Florida State and Clemson, with Connecticut and Cincinnati among the most desirable remaining assets in the crumbling Big East.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/03/4597276/expansion-could-be-on-big-12-horizon.html

Bowlsby also expressed an interest, if schools are added, in identifying those with "a very high likelihood of sustained growth that would bring benefits to the league." Now, there's a description of multiple ACC or Big East schools, including Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Connecticut, Louisville and Cincinnati.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-basketball/2013/02/04/is-big-12-expansion-on-the-horizon/

 

[B1GEast]

"Oh, we're not on the Big Ten's radar!" I am sure that's why we've been mentioned in Big Ten territory media multiple times. Here's a new one for y'all. We're now being mentioned as a Big 12 expansion candidate in Fort Worth.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/16/4552798/big-12-commissioner-league-could.html

Speculation has centered on Big 12 interest from Florida State and Clemson from the ACC, with Connecticut and Cincinnati among the most desirable remaining assets in the crumbling Big East.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/03/4597276/expansion-could-be-on-big-12-horizon.html

Bowlsby also expressed an interest, if schools are added, in identifying those with "a very high likelihood of sustained growth that would bring benefits to the league." Now, there's a description of multiple ACC or Big East schools, including Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Connecticut, Louisville and Cincinnati.

I think it would be awesome if uconn and cincy were 11 and 12 in the b12.

 

[uconnfan68]

These are not easy days to tout UNC's academics, but they would never, ever be on a level playing field in the SEC.

Might be the line of the year. Nice job.

 

[uconnfan68]

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.

The only content they really want is a bi-weekly X-game from somewhere. They own all of it.