Big XII Expansion 2024+

[UConnJim]

I think what the Big 12 commissioner is seeing is that basketball rights are undervalued.

Why? Think about this. In basketball, a team in a P5 conference could have 20 home games and in football a team could have 7 home games. So, for the average team, they are offering 40 hours of basketball content and say 21 hours of football content. So in a 12 team league, they are offering 480 hours of basketball content and 252 hours of football content. Then, add in football championship at 3 hours and the basketball tournament at 18 hours and you have a total of 498 hours of basketball content and 255 hours of basketball content. In other words they have ~2x the basketball content as football content. And, don't forget women's basketball content in leagues with top teams is valuable. The South Carolina/UConn women's game this year had 1.1 million viewers which is valuable content. Heck, the women's championship game last year between South Carolina and UConn drew 4.85 million viewers.

So, assume the TV ratings for basketball are 20% of football TV ratings so you get basketball total viewers are about 40% of total viewers of basketball and football content. And, add in women's content. So, why wouldn't basketball content be worth 30%+ of the total media contract?

Of course, conferences do not sell all of their games, so the analysis is representative.

Finally, no P5 conference separates basketball and football rights so we don't really know the difference in value is so it is hard to judge what the new Big East media deal value will be.

 

[CL82]

I think what the Big 12 commissioner is seeing is that basketball rights are undervalued.

Why? Think about this. In basketball, a team in a P5 conference could have 20 home games and in football a team could have 7 home games. So, for the average team, they are offering 40 hours of basketball content and say 21 hours of football content. So in a 12 team league, they are offering 480 hours of basketball content and 252 hours of football content. Then, add in football championship at 3 hours and the basketball tournament at 18 hours and you have a total of 498 hours of basketball content and 255 hours of basketball content. In other words they have ~2x the basketball content as football content. And, don't forget women's basketball content in leagues with top teams is valuable. The South Carolina/UConn women's game this year had 1.1 million viewers which is valuable content. Heck, the women's championship game last year between South Carolina and UConn drew 4.85 million viewers.

So, assume the TV ratings for basketball are 20% of football TV ratings so you get basketball total viewers are about 40% of total viewers of basketball and football content. And, add in women's content. So, why wouldn't basketball content be worth 30%+ of the total media contract?

Of course, conferences do not sell all of their games, so the analysis is representative.

Finally, no P5 conference separates basketball and football rights so we don't really know the difference in value is so it is hard to judge what the new Big East media deal value will be.

The ACC sort of does in that Notre Dame gets $.20 on the dollar of when everyone else gets.

 

[businesslawyer]

I think what the Big 12 commissioner is seeing is that basketball rights are undervalued.

Why? Think about this. In basketball, a team in a P5 conference could have 20 home games and in football a team could have 7 home games. So, for the average team, they are offering 40 hours of basketball content and say 21 hours of football content. So in a 12 team league, they are offering 480 hours of basketball content and 252 hours of football content. Then, add in football championship at 3 hours and the basketball tournament at 18 hours and you have a total of 498 hours of basketball content and 255 hours of basketball content. In other words they have ~2x the basketball content as football content. And, don't forget women's basketball content in leagues with top teams is valuable. The South Carolina/UConn women's game this year had 1.1 million viewers which is valuable content. Heck, the women's championship game last year between South Carolina and UConn drew 4.85 million viewers.

So, assume the TV ratings for basketball are 20% of football TV ratings so you get basketball total viewers are about 40% of total viewers of basketball and football content. And, add in women's content. So, why wouldn't basketball content be worth 30%+ of the total media contract?

Of course, conferences do not sell all of their games, so the analysis is representative.

Finally, no P5 conference separates basketball and football rights so we don't really know the difference in value is so it is hard to judge what the new Big East media deal value will be.

Basketball rights are undervalued because the NCAA offices take a huge chunk of the pie (the revenues from the tournament), as opposed to football when they take none of it. As I've said for the last decade, the only way you see basketball values become more meaningful to conferences generally is if the major schools leave the NCAA behind (or threaten to and totally redo cash flows). That is what would make basketball rights materially greater in respect to football. With all due respect, your analysis is just telling executives they don't know what they are doing (always possible but not where the smart money is).

 

[shizzle787]

I think what the Big 12 commissioner is seeing is that basketball rights are undervalued.

Why? Think about this. In basketball, a team in a P5 conference could have 20 home games and in football a team could have 7 home games. So, for the average team, they are offering 40 hours of basketball content and say 21 hours of football content. So in a 12 team league, they are offering 480 hours of basketball content and 252 hours of football content. Then, add in football championship at 3 hours and the basketball tournament at 18 hours and you have a total of 498 hours of basketball content and 255 hours of basketball content. In other words they have ~2x the basketball content as football content. And, don't forget women's basketball content in leagues with top teams is valuable. The South Carolina/UConn women's game this year had 1.1 million viewers which is valuable content. Heck, the women's championship game last year between South Carolina and UConn drew 4.85 million viewers.

So, assume the TV ratings for basketball are 20% of football TV ratings so you get basketball total viewers are about 40% of total viewers of basketball and football content. And, add in women's content. So, why wouldn't basketball content be worth 30%+ of the total media contract?

Of course, conferences do not sell all of their games, so the analysis is representative.

Finally, no P5 conference separates basketball and football rights so we don't really know the difference in value is so it is hard to judge what the new Big East media deal value will be.

The ratings for regular season college basketball aren't great which is why only 20-30% of conference TV contracts are for basketball.

 

[noeynox]

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure that anyone who’s on the table moves the scale materially.

Even if not for full shares, the Big12 could do a lot a lot worse than adding SDSU and UConn for all sports. Plant a flag on both ends of the Map. They seem to have a keen interest in building from their strength, which is The Premier Basketball Conference in the land. Again spit balling.

 

[billybud]

The big money will weigh in...not only football but basketball....

Football brands in the P2 will have gazillions compared to the peanut gallery...it is already happening...

Sure, in basketball, one or two elite players can make a team...unlike in football.

I think that it might be fairly common for the SEC to , like this year, have four teams in the Sweet Sixteen (I am counting Texas).

 

[billybud]

The SEC seems to have a lock on football NC's...last year half the CWS was SEC and they picked up a baseball NC...

 

[UConnJim]

The ACC sort of does in that Notre Dame gets $.20 on the dollar of when everyone else gets.

Why would the ACC value the basketball rights greater than 20% when they are only paying 1 basketball only member? Paying Notre Dame 30% just takes money away form the other ACC schools.

 

[billybud]

Why would the ACC value the basketball rights greater than 20% when they are only paying 1 basketball only member? Paying Notre Dame 30% just takes money away form the other ACC schools.

ESPN's media contract has been about 80-20 for a decade and one half...Basketball in regular season does not draw like football. It is ESPN that values football, not the ACC.

And Notre Dame is all but football....

 

[CL82]

Even if not for full shares, the Big12 could do a lot a lot worse than adding SDSU and UConn for all sports. Plant a flag on both ends of the Map. They seem to have a keen interest in building from their strength, which is The Premier Basketball Conference in the land. Again spit balling.

I hear you, the question is, is anyone willing to foot the bill for that?

 

[CL82]

Why would the ACC value the basketball rights greater than 20% when they are only paying 1 basketball only member? Paying Notre Dame 30% just takes money away form the other ACC schools.

Exactly. The poster I replied to said that there was no valuation of what basketball is worth. Right now Notre Dame’s deal defines the market.

 

[Stinger92860]

Let’s say that the next Big East media deal it’s worth $8 million per school per year. Let’s further assume that the added travel costs of being in the big 12 are $2 million per school per year. Under those assumptions and offer of $10 million per year per school to join the big 12 would effectively be breakeven. So, one would think that the number needs to be materially more than that to induce a big east conference school to join. What’s the right number, then? Probably $13M - 15M.

The problem is that basketball rights have been valued at about 20% of the rights for all sports in a conference (using the Notre Dame/ACC deal as a benchmark.). So, for the basketball only schools to get $13-$15 million, the rest of the big 12 deal should be worth say $65-$75 million. They aren’t going to get that. So, either the big 12 gives the Big East conference schools greater than “fair market value“ for joining the conference, or ESPN decides that it’s worthwhile to pay a premium for select basketball schools, so that the amount needed to be paid for the schools that remain in the big east conference is reduced.

I’m having a little difficulty seeing the numbers working out, but it is possible. Again, though, the only way I would be interested in this is if Connecticut was either brought on in all sports, or there was a defined path to joining for all sports with a narrow and specific timeline.

I don’t know the accurate value of the UConn Women, but i know it’s not zero, it’s definitely north of that

 

[CL82]

I don’t know the accurate value of the UConn Women, but i know it’s not zero, it’s definitely north of that

Last year’s women’s national championship game drew over 4,000,000 viewers.

I think this year’s regular season rematch drew about 1 million.

 

[Fishy]

I think what the Big 12 commissioner is seeing is that basketball rights are undervalued.

Why?

Very simple.

His conference is very good at basketball and he is trying to get someone to get someone to pay him more money for it. There’s literally no evidence that anyone else thinks basketball rights are undervalued - the conferences themselves told everyone who would listen that football was 85-90% of value because that served their purposes at the time.

Basketball rights are undervalued because the NCAA offices take a huge chunk of the pie (the revenues from the tournament), as opposed to football when they take none of it. As I've said for the last decade, the only way you see basketball values become more meaningful to conferences generally is if the major schools leave the NCAA behind (or threaten to and totally redo cash flows). That is what would make basketball rights materially greater in respect to football. With all due respect, your analysis is just telling executives they don't know what they are doing (always possible but not where the smart money is).

Ehhh…..not really. Ninety-cents on the dollar goes back to the membership.

The NCAA tournament revenue and the CFB and bowl revenue are the same in that they are separate from the contracts the conferences receive for their rights. Changing the structure of either one is not going to result in a greater rights fee for regular season content.

You can argue to change the formula for redistribution - right now, there’s a base return to all members and then a performance benefit for schools/conferences that win in the tournament - but you can be certain that the change will be less performance-based and more just larger checks to the SEC/Big10/ACC/Big 12 and smaller checks for the Big East, American, Mountain West, etc.

And maybe no checks at all for some.

 

[businesslawyer]

Very simple.

His conference is very good at basketball and he is trying to get someone to get someone to pay him more money for it. There’s literally no evidence that anyone else thinks basketball rights are undervalued - the conferences themselves told everyone who would listen that football was 85-90% of value because that served their purposes at the time.



Ehhh…..not really. Ninety-cents on the dollar goes back to the membership.

The NCAA tournament revenue and the CFB and bowl revenue are the same in that they are separate from the contracts the conferences receive for their rights. Changing the structure of either one is not going to result in a greater rights fee for regular season content.

You can argue to change the formula for redistribution - right now, there’s a base return to all members and then a performance benefit for schools/conferences that win in the tournament - but you can be certain that the change will be less performance-based and more just larger checks to the SEC/Big10/ACC/Big 12 and smaller checks for the Big East, American, Mountain West, etc.

And maybe no checks at all for some.

99% goes back to the NCAA membership, but not in proportion to who earns it.

 

[UConnJim]

Very simple.

His conference is very good at basketball and he is trying to get someone to get someone to pay him more money for it. There’s literally no evidence that anyone else thinks basketball rights are undervalued - the conferences themselves told everyone who would listen that football was 85-90% of value because that served their purposes at the time.

ESPN's average ratings tell a different story. On ESPN (not ESPN2 or ESPNU) here are the average regular season TV viewers by sport:

Men's basketball: 928k

Football: 2.2 milion

There is no way that football is worth 85% to 90% of the media contracts based on there is 2x the content hours for basketball and the average ratings are ~42% of football. Of course, these numbers are skewed by matchups, number of games on a network,... but they are representative.

No P5 conference has tried to separate their media rights, so we don't know for sure.

 

[billybud]

Well...when you congregate all football...you have a weighting of viewers towards certain teams...and thus more media money for those conferences that have those matches.

Week 13 of season......2022

10 matches with over 3 million viewers...and then 11 matches with less than 500,000 viewers... like Memphis-SMU with 213k...

If you page through the weeks of season on the link...you will see great disparity in viewership...

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2025 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

 

[Rufus]

Do viewership charts exist for basketball games? I’m assuming the large state schools in the B1G and SEC dominate those ratings as well.

 

[Sole]

Well...when you congregate all football...you have a weighting of viewers towards certain teams...and thus more media money for those conferences that have those matches.

Week 13 of season......2022

10 matches with over 3 million viewers...and then 11 matches with less than 500,000 viewers... like Memphis-SMU with 213k...

If you page through the weeks of season on the link...you will see great disparity in viewership...

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2025 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

The top schools viewers are really high.. but the rest are not much better them basketball … it’s certainly not 80% better…I don’t get

 

[Fishy]

There is no way that football is worth 85% to 90% of the media contracts based on there is 2x the content hours for basketball and the average ratings are ~42% of football. Of course, these numbers are skewed by matchups, number of games on a network,... but they are representative.

No P5 conference has tried to separate their media rights, so we don't know for sure.

And yet it is.

There’s a reason the Big 10 distributes $55M a year to each of its members while the entire Big East shares about $40M a year.

Football is far more valuable than basketball.

 

[Hondo 77]

Word on the street is that the B12 have put out feelers to Princeton.

 

[billybud]

The top schools viewers are really high.. but the rest are not much better them basketball … it’s certainly not 80% better…I don’t get

Basketball....2021-22

The top games for the regular season of college hoops involved the usual suspects. Leading the way was North Carolina’s 94-81 upset of Duke in Blue Devils coach Mike Krzyzewski’s final game at Cameron Indoor Stadium on March 5, which drew 3.98 million viewers on ESPN. Next was Duke’s 84-81 win over then-No. 1 Gonzaga on Nov. 26, which drew 2.79 million. CBS had the next two spots, both featuring Kentucky: the Wildcats’ loss at Auburn on Jan. 26 (2.48 million) and their defeat at Arkansas on Feb. 22 (2.36 million). In all ESPN had five of the top 10 games, CBS had four and Fox (St. John’s win over Georgetown on Jan. 16, which came in eighth at 2.02 million) had one.

The highest viewed basketball games of the entire regular season are equaled or bettered every week of the football season by 10 or so football games.

 

[Sole]

Theres also a lot of games in the 200,000 to 900,000 range for both football and basketball…

 

[billybud]

What the media loves for selling ads are those games with millions watching.....that's why they can sell Superbowl ads for a premium.

And marquis matchups are what the media and Big Ten and SEC have emphasized.

A billion a year to show B1G football...Why? Because 17 million watched Ohio State-Michigan...and then there are other big matches...

 

[Sole]

I certainly get the big money for the big football games..but the difference for the middle and lower football games is not as much as I thought with the basketball games.. which makes me optimistic the big east tv deal won’t be that bad

 

[Hogoff]

And yet it is.

There’s a reason the Big 10 distributes $55M a year to each of its members while the entire Big East shares about $40M a year.

Football is far more valuable than basketball.

So it had nothing to do with the superior brands in the Big 10 compared to the Big East?

 

[Fishy]

So it had nothing to do with the superior brands in the Big 10 compared to the Big East?

How long have you been an imbecile?

Good god.

Brands are why the Big Ten makes more than the Big 12, despite arguably putting out an inferior product.

The multiple paid to these conferences over the Big East is the market's determination of relative value of football versus basketball.

 

[Hogoff]

How long have you been an imbecile?

Good god.

Brands are why the Big Ten makes more than the Big 12, despite arguably putting out an inferior product.

The multiple paid to these conferences over the Big East is the market's determination of relative value of football versus basketball.

How long have you had a micro penis?

 

[ScottVib]

I certainly get the big money for the big football games..but the difference for the middle and lower football games is not as much as I thought with the basketball games.. which makes me optimistic the big east tv deal won’t be that bad

The dollars are driven by the big games. The lesser (filler) content is valued (much like basketball) as a small fraction of the value of those big games. If you accept that football drives 80% of the value, those premium games are 75% of the football value. (Read it as 60% premium games, 20% secondary football, 20% basketball)

 

[coachcap]

Just a random thought: Could the Pitino & Cooley hirings add credence to the notion that the XII is thinking of adding UConn, St. Johns, Nova, & Georgetown to gain a Northeast presence?