Non-Key Tweets | Page 699 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

metsfan2323 said:
If the PAC 12 gets a good contract and holds together I would think San Diego St would prefer to be in the Pac12.
Expand ...
San Diego State could stand to learn from UConn. Do not allow themselves to be led by the nose by the PAC like we have been by the ACC. Everyone knows their exit fee triples after 7/1, a date that is quickly approaching. If there is an offer for us and them to Big12 they would be stupid to wait out the PAC.
 
My bet is the PAC 12 stays together for another 5-6 years. Plus I am not sure how the Big12 is more valuable than the Pac12. Doesn’t really make any sense looking at the two on paper.
 
.-.
noeynox said:
San Diego State could stand to learn from UConn. Do not allow themselves to be led by the nose by the PAC like we have been by the ACC. Everyone knows their exit fee triples after 7/1, a date that is quickly approaching. If there is an offer for us and them to Big12 they would be stupid to wait out the PAC.
Expand ...
I hear what you're saying, but just because we didn't get into the ACC doesn't mean we were led by the nose by the ACC.
 
noeynox said:
San Diego State could stand to learn from UConn. Do not allow themselves to be led by the nose by the PAC like we have been by the ACC. Everyone knows their exit fee triples after 7/1, a date that is quickly approaching. If there is an offer for us and them to Big12 they would be stupid to wait out the PAC.
Expand ...

If both the ACC and B12 offered UConn tomorrow, you think it's a slam dunk we join the B12? I have no idea what we would do but that would be a tough decision. (assuming the payout is about the same, if there is a 10 million difference then take the extra money)

I do think the ACC would unite the fanbase as even most of our basketball only fans would be onboard for the ACC.
 
Last edited:
metsfan2323 said:
If both the ACC and B12 offered UConn tomorrow, you think it's a slam dunk we join the B12? I have no idea what we would do but that would be a tough decision. (assuming the payout is about the same, if there is a 10 million difference then take the extra money)

I do think the ACC would unite the fanbase as even most of our basketball only fans would be onboard for the ACC.
Expand ...
Agree with everything you said. For me personally, all things equal i would take the Big 12 because the ACC is a house divided right now.

They have pro rata for any additions but only way they would add UConn IMO is at a discounted amount so they could make other members happy.

Additionally, i hate that they screwed UConn at every turn.
 
C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
Big 12 fans have a needless inferiority complex driving their PAC 12 lust. Let it go. We are the middle class. The ACC is going to implode. The PAC 12 parties after everyone has gone to bed. We win the bronze! Be happy.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
That 4th window everybody is yapping about has the greatest value to the PAC 12. And here’s a fact… the further East you go, the less that 4th window is worth.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
If the Big 12 wants to expand out west so badly then release WVU from the GoR.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
Look, I want the PAC 12 to sign a TV deal. I want the PAC 12 to stay intact. I don’t want WVU flying to Timbuktu to play a football game that ends at 2:00 a.m.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12

Jun 10
Let me give you one indisputable fact to consider when you hear Big 12 rumors… The Big 12 CAN NOT expand with G5 schools . Adding G5 schools would REDUCE the annual payout. Expansion is about THE ADDITION of $ not the SUBTRACTION of $.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
This one goes out to all fans of the truck stop conference - A 10 member P12 - without USC - has to see an 82% increase over their prior value to match the Big 12’s annual TV money share.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
WVU AD Wren Baker made a few telling comments about potential Big 12 expansion westward. I know he was trying to keep WVU’s position under wraps but I think he said enough to suggest WVU isn’t thrilled with the idea.
 
jostar1 said:
C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
Big 12 fans have a needless inferiority complex driving their PAC 12 lust. Let it go. We are the middle class. The ACC is going to implode. The PAC 12 parties after everyone has gone to bed. We win the bronze! Be happy.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
That 4th window everybody is yapping about has the greatest value to the PAC 12. And here’s a fact… the further East you go, the less that 4th window is worth.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
If the Big 12 wants to expand out west so badly then release WVU from the GoR.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
Look, I want the PAC 12 to sign a TV deal. I want the PAC 12 to stay intact. I don’t want WVU flying to Timbuktu to play a football game that ends at 2:00 a.m.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12

Jun 10
Let me give you one indisputable fact to consider when you hear Big 12 rumors… The Big 12 CAN NOT expand with G5 schools . Adding G5 schools would REDUCE the annual payout. Expansion is about THE ADDITION of $ not the SUBTRACTION of $.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
This one goes out to all fans of the truck stop conference - A 10 member P12 - without USC - has to see an 82% increase over their prior value to match the Big 12’s annual TV money share.


C.W. Lambert@InsideTheBig12
·
Jun 10
WVU AD Wren Baker made a few telling comments about potential Big 12 expansion westward. I know he was trying to keep WVU’s position under wraps but I think he said enough to suggest WVU isn’t thrilled with the idea.
Expand ...
CW Lambert is really a small thinker. Conference realignment decisions have historically been based on decades-long decisions/horizons. True, it is getting shortened because of general business cycles and the looming CFP changes and payouts, but realignment decisions won't be driven by the plus or minus 2 or 3m dollar annual comparisons. That is pocket change as compared to overall budgets, future CFP monies, academic research budgets, donor contributions, etc. etc.
 
.-.
metsfan2323 said:
If both the ACC and B12 offered UConn tomorrow, you think it's a slam dunk we join the B12? I have no idea what we would do but that would be a tough decision. (assuming the payout is about the same, if there is a 10 million difference then take the extra money)

I do think the ACC would unite the fanbase as even most of our basketball only fans would be onboard for the ACC.
Expand ...
It’s a slam dunk that we’d join the ACC. No doubt about it.
 
TheDrifter75 said:
In the past I would have agreed. Right now the ACC seems to have self hate and a real sketch future. The Big 12 seems to have a plan. One contract or change of administration can flip all that on its head though.
Expand ...
I agree…between the ACC, the PAC, and the Big 12, the only conference where all its members seem fully committed to its survival is the Big12. In truth, that is probably because no current Big12 school is likely to garner interests from the BIG10 or SEC so they know it’s ride or die with the Big12.

Our time in the old Big East taught us what happens when some members aren’t committed long term to the league. Seems the current PAC and ACC have those issues and the Big12 doesn’t.
 
dwalks93 said:
I agree…between the ACC, the PAC, and the Big 12, the only conference where all its members seem fully committed to its survival is the Big12. In truth, that is probably because no current Big12 school is likely to garner interests from the BIG10 or SEC so they know it’s ride or die with the Big12.

Our time in the old Big East taught us what happens when some members aren’t committed long term to the league. Seems the current PAC and ACC have those issues and the Big12 doesn’t.
Expand ...
If we get an ACC and a B12 offers today, we should take the B12.

The writing is on the wall that ESPN will do to the ACC what it did you the Big East over their media contract is up. They will get SEC to take the best properties of the ACC and leave the rest on their own. Big 12 might pick up a few pieces, and some like BCU might not even have a place to go. ESPN will make a deal with the ACC leftovers at a much reduced rate. Overall, it will save ESPN money, which will always be their goal.

There is a good chance PAC-12 might stay together for a few more years if their media deal comes through. For academic reasons, most current PAC-12 teams would prefer to stay together vs. going to the Big 12. In this case, Big 12 should definitely invite UConn asap.
 
WestCoastHusky said:
If we get an ACC and a B12 offers today, we should take the B12.

The writing is on the wall that ESPN will do to the ACC what it did you the Big East over their media contract is up. They will get SEC to take the best properties of the ACC and leave the rest on their own. Big 12 might pick up a few pieces, and some like BCU might not even have a place to go. ESPN will make a deal with the ACC leftovers at a much reduced rate. Overall, it will save ESPN money, which will always be their goal.

There is a good chance PAC-12 might stay together for a few more years if their media deal comes through. For academic reasons, most current PAC-12 teams would prefer to stay together vs. going to the Big 12. In this case, Big 12 should definitely invite UConn asap.
Expand ...

ESPN will be lucky to be more than a website by the time the ACC deal is done. ESPN's days as a kingmaker in college sports are long past.
 
.-.
TheDrifter75 said:
In the past I would have agreed. Right now the ACC seems to have self hate and a real sketch future. The Big 12 seems to have a plan. One contract or change of administration can flip all that on its head though.
Expand ...
That’s just a few schools being angry and struggling to accept that they are stuck in the 3rd best conference. But it isn’t going to change anything. It has all the importance of a toddler throwing a tantrum at Stop & Shop.

The Big 12 plan is simple, get a contract before the Pac12 so we can starve them out and poach them. A day before they got their deal everyone assumed that the Big 12 wouldn’t survive. Big 12 just made sure they’d be #4. The ACC was never even threatened.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Unlike you two, I recognize that joining the Big 12 could be the worst case scenario. UConn could join, the Big 12 could come apart, and then UConn is finished as an athletic program. The fact that you two can't recognize that scenario as a possibility is a problem for your credibility, not mine.
Expand ...

Or we could do well in the B12 and eventually find ourselves in the B1G. Success is usually brought forth by people who are not ruled by fear. Holy Cross was probably fearful of something when they turned down a Big East invite in 1979.

Edit: I just looked it up, and yes Holy Cross feared the Big East would damage their academic mission. Clearly Villanova and BC are doing just fine academically so I think it is safe to say that was a really bad decision by Holy Cross.
 
Last edited:
.-.
metsfan2323 said:
Or we could do well in the B12 and eventually find ourselves in the B1G. Success is usually brought forth by people who are not ruled by fear. Holy Cross was probably fearful of something when they turned down a Big East invite in 1979.

Edit: I just looked it up, and yes Holy Cross feared the Big East would damage their academic mission. Clearly Villanova and BC are doing just fine academically so I think it is safe to say that was a really bad decision by Holy Cross.
Expand ...
Actually, Holy Cross is doing fine academically. I don’t know that Holy Cross is trying to make up for lost time or feels it made a bad decision.
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
What makes you say this?
Expand ...

ESPN was on every cable box in the country, and had a critical mass of sports programming to give it good positioning on those boxes, often with multiple spots in the first 50 channels. That real estate in the cable channel directory was really valuable, 20 years ago. In a streaming world where every content provider can go direct to consumer, that real estate is virtually worthless. It is no easier or harder to find ESPN than it is to find any other content provider.

It is not just the channel, but the broadcast times, that gave ESPN a massive advantage over other channels. ESPN's willingness to commit blocks of time to sports programming gave it an advantage over say CBS or Fox or NBC, who would have to preempt something else to broadcast a game. That is not the case anymore. ParamountPlus (aka CBS) or Apple or even MAX can broadcast a game to any user that wants to watch it. This has simultaneously made the content more valuable to every streaming service, and less valuable to ESPN, because ESPN has lost one of the things that gave it a monopoly position. The non-SEC, non-Big 10 leagues are no longer competing with each other to get whatever broadcast slots are left on ESPN.

ESPN has had a monopoly on much of sports programming, particularly for college sports. Those days are over. Any conference can easily access their fans directly or with any broadcast partner. The technology is fairly basic now, the production costs are manageable, and sports programming is valuable to lots of potential buyers.

This has been one of my biggest arguments against the panic worrying of a massive concentration of market power by 2 or 3 conferences. Other than restricting access to scheduling their members, it is really difficult for the P2 to enforce their market power on other leagues.
 
metsfan2323 said:
Or we could do well in the B12 and eventually find ourselves in the B1G. Success is usually brought forth by people who are not ruled by fear. Holy Cross was probably fearful of something when they turned down a Big East invite in 1979.

Edit: I just looked it up, and yes Holy Cross feared the Big East would damage their academic mission. Clearly Villanova and BC are doing just fine academically so I think it is safe to say that was a really bad decision by Holy Cross.
Expand ...

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
ESPN was on every cable box in the country, and had a critical mass of sports programming to give it good positioning on those boxes, often with multiple spots in the first 50 channels. That real estate in the cable channel directory was really valuable, 20 years ago. In a streaming world where every content provider can go direct to consumer, that real estate is virtually worthless. It is no easier or harder to find ESPN than it is to find any other content provider.

It is not just the channel, but the broadcast times, that gave ESPN a massive advantage over other channels. ESPN's willingness to commit blocks of time to sports programming gave it an advantage over say CBS or Fox or NBC, who would have to preempt something else to broadcast a game. That is not the case anymore. ParamountPlus (aka CBS) or Apple or even MAX can broadcast a game to any user that wants to watch it. This has simultaneously made the content more valuable to every streaming service, and less valuable to ESPN, because ESPN has lost one of the things that gave it a monopoly position. The non-SEC, non-Big 10 leagues are no longer competing with each other to get whatever broadcast slots are left on ESPN.

ESPN has had a monopoly on much of sports programming, particularly for college sports. Those days are over. Any conference can easily access their fans directly or with any broadcast partner. The technology is fairly basic now, the production costs are manageable, and sports programming is valuable to lots of potential buyers.

This has been one of my biggest arguments against the panic worrying of a massive concentration of market power by 2 or 3 conferences. Other than restricting access to scheduling their members, it is really difficult for the P2 to enforce their market power on other leagues.
Expand ...
I agree with what you said about committing to sports and not pre-empting other programming. That made ESPN unique, along with SportsCenter, which was the only place to really get sports news.

I don't think they are in danger of irrelevance though. Cable isn't dead yet and won't be a long time, even if it is diminished. The main difference between the streaming services and cable is in how they are monetized. Subscription vs advertising. The value in live sports is that it still has advertising value. Serial TV shows have lost much of that value with the advent of DVR, so a subscription streaming service was a better way to monetize that content. It's still shifting that way. But sports remains the thing people watch live, so is better suited to the advertising model than the subscription model.

It's all in motion of course, but Apple is unlikely to make a huge splash on college sports. Reports are the MLS deal isn't really working for them, although Messi may change that. Streaming services only have a toe in the water on sports, but the early results are that they don't drive more subscribers. If they stream sports, it will be with advertising, but Apple/Amazon don't know how to do that well. This is why I think we may see a shift to PPV on streaming services. So if Apple or Amazon picks up a conference, you aren't likely to get that content free with a normal subscription.
 
HuskyHawk said:
I agree with what you said about committing to sports and not pre-empting other programming. That made ESPN unique, along with SportsCenter, which was the only place to really get sports news.

I don't think they are in danger of irrelevance though. Cable isn't dead yet and won't be a long time, even if it is diminished. The main difference between the streaming services and cable is in how they are monetized. Subscription vs advertising. The value in live sports is that it still has advertising value. Serial TV shows have lost much of that value with the advent of DVR, so a subscription streaming service was a better way to monetize that content. It's still shifting that way. But sports remains the thing people watch live, so is better suited to the advertising model than the subscription model.

It's all in motion of course, but Apple is unlikely to make a huge splash on college sports. Reports are the MLS deal isn't really working for them, although Messi may change that. Streaming services only have a toe in the water on sports, but the early results are that they don't drive more subscribers. If they stream sports, it will be with advertising, but Apple/Amazon don't know how to do that well. This is why I think we may see a shift to PPV on streaming services. So if Apple or Amazon picks up a conference, you aren't likely to get that content free with a normal subscription.
Expand ...

The cable model was really about forcing people who didn't use ESPN to pay for ESPN, or ESPN would pull itself off the cable system. There were dozens of public spats between ESPN and cable providers over pricing, and ESPN won every time, because it was basically a sports monopoly. This ability to force every single cable subscriber to pay ESPN's carriage fee was a massive revenue producer for ESPN, and made it difficult for anyone to compete with it. Fox had the financial muscle to get a foothold with a few conferences, and no one else could compete at all. Those days are over. Everything is going to be a la carte soon.

The streamers all have the same problem. Original content is insanely expensive, and the audience response is uncertain. For example, Apple's The Morning Show costs $15 million an episode to produce. That is $150 million a season, for 10 hours of content, that a user can just wait until they have all been released, sign up, binge watch them all, and then cancel Apple until the next season comes out in 18 months. Apple needs enough new content to keep subscribers from cancelling.

Max, ParamountPlus, Peacock and Hulu/Disney have huge libraries, but Apple does not, and Netflix has a lot of junk in theirs. The libraries may keep subscribers on for a while, but all of them need to produce new content, and that is expensive, and can be gamed by subscribers. Sports can not be gamed. It needs to be watched when it is played, and the streamer can advertise during it and viewers won't switch or turn it off.

What evidence do I have? ESPN just paid a boatload for the Big 12 and SEC. Either you have to assume that ESPN is stupid, or that they are going to make a return on that massive investment, even in a streaming world. In a fragmented streaming market with few barriers to entry beyond money (which all of the streamers already have), if those leagues are worth that much to ESPN, then other content must be worth a lot to someone else too.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,204
Messages
4,556,819
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom