Conference Expansion

They should have taken Oklahoma and then been patient while Texas twisted in the wind after losing their 2 biggest rivals to other leagues. Then every year reach out to UTex and remind them they were welcome anytime if they decided to fold their LHN into the leagues network. Long range modelling is obviously not the PAC's strong suit.

 

SEC needs to do a similar thing with ref$u. Let ‘em flap in the wind, and periodically remind them they turned down an invitation to join back in the early 90s

 

This is an interesting article from an insider at the U of Arizona how things all went down. One of the many mistakes the PAC made was not reading the room when it came to valuation of the Conference minus the LA schools. The PAC was offered $30 million a year for everything, including the PAC-12 Network from ESPN, and the PAC response was minimum $40 million a year. ESPN, at that point, left the negotiating table and never really returned. Instead, Yormack and the BIG12 took the offer, and the rest is history.

Still think the PAC could have gotten around $32 million from ESPN had they countered with a number closer to $30 million. I think the PAC could have also taken $28 million from ESPN and found a streaming option to take the PAC-12 Network for an additional $4 - $5 million a year. What the PAC-12 Network has that streaming options want is a full production capability to show athletic events. Amazon has rent equipment from NBC for Thursday Night Football. While Amazon was never a major player in PAC negotiations, the rumor was all they wanted was a Friday night game, and to take over the Network.

All water under the bridge now. The PAC schools had no option but to reject the Apple deal, and while I'm not excited about Arizona joining the BIG12, I'm happy President Robbins had Plan B all dialed up and ready to go so when Plan B was the only remaining real option, pulling the switch was quick.

 

Take Houston, Baylor, Clemson, UNC, NC State, UVA....hell even UCF before fsu.

 

Take none of those.
ever

 

I think the even bigger mistake was the Pac-12's self valuation versus reality. There has been a real arrogance by the Pac-12 for years about it's self worth.

This is the estimated number of "fans" by conference for 2022 per NBC Sports:
1. SEC: 54.1 million
2. Big Ten: 44.6 million
3. ACC: 31.7 million
4. Pac-12: 23.5 million
5. Big 12: 11.6 million

These are only estimates and there are a couple of notes. The SEC numbers are inflated by about 11 million, because they included Texas and OU, which I assume also means the Big-12 numbers are underestimated by that 11 million. And the ACC numbers are over-inflated because they included Notre Dame, even though they're not actually in the ACC for football.

So going into the first round of Pac-12 TV negotiations, I believe the Big-10 and SEC both had roughly 45 million fans and the ACC, Pac-12 and Big-12 all probably had roughly 25 million fans in round numbers.

The Pac-12 was arrogant. It has always seen itself on a similar level as the Big-10. Culturally and historically, that's probably fair, but in today's TV market the Pac-12, even with USC and UCLA, was pretty clearly on a level at or maybe even below the ACC and Big-12, due to the time zone issues.

Even with USC and UCLA still in their portfolio, roughly half the number of fans, and a fanbase size that's comparable to the Big-12 and ACC (but probably less rabid), the Pac-12 was arrogant enough to think it deserved a deal just below the SEC and Big-10, but expected to be clearly above the Big-12 (with OU and UT) and ACC. This despite the SEC and Big-10 both having established TV networks of their own with national carriage.

The initial ESPN $30 million ESPN offered was probably fair market, maybe even a little above. Just my guess but I don't think ESPN had a lot of interest in the Pac-12 Network. I think they learned their lessons with the LHN and ACCN that without national carriage, they can't make much money right now.

Streaming may change that down the road but the future is still unclear. I may be wrong but I think ESPN is likely to position itself as a single subscription sport streaming service offering the most overall content for a flat fee (pretty much what they are now on cable), as opposed to offering individual sports or team streaming packages. That, in my view, would play to their strength of existing content inventory and nobody else could compete with them. But that future and determining the value of adding a conference channel is pretty murky.

 

“So, what is the priority these days? Branding. That's why the best rivalries in the game (arguably) reside in the 34 teams that comprise the Big Ten and SEC beginning in 2024.

That highlights suggestions within the industry that realignment has reached a sort of critical mass. Not that it's over forever; it's over for now.

Industry sources repeat that there is not much desire by either conference to add the likes Clemson, Florida State, etc. That says loads about the reality of the market compared to how those schools view themselves.”

Options dwindling as California, Stanford, Oregon State, Washington State prepare to take financial hits

 

I think this is exactly right. The thing now is that the Big-10 and SEC are only going to add programs that will earn the conference an ADDITIONAL $60-70 million in revenues per year. Notre Dame and UNC are the only programs I think meet that criteria.

Oregon and UW didn't, but they were close enough that the Big-10 gave them a reduced payout. I think FSU and Clemson would be in a similar position if they were able to get out of the ACC. I don't think FSU or Clemson would be offered a full revenue split, even if they were available.

 

The challenge is many focus on whether or not a school adds value under the current structure.

For example adding additional teams opens up the possibility of a SEC playoff, which would be a massive revenue booster.

 

Not just an sec playoff, but if they make the top 12 they make the big playoff and are a big revenue gainer.
And the big 10 didn’t add UW and UO for incremental revenue gains, they did it to create a west coast pod and shut out the idea of real competition there. It killed the pac 12, and it gives more regional rivalries and lower travel costs to the LA schools. And they got that done at a discounted rate reportedly.
FSU also has value, more than people here want to admit. They are the second biggest name left after ND. UNC and UVA are better schools with better all around athletic programs, but football drives the train and fsu is a national name there, much more than those 2. For the big 10 it also gets them into the south and into SEC country, gets them greater access to the third largest state, and its recruiting grounds. They are then truly a national conference at that point, which is one of their primary goals. And FSU television wise is worth at least as much as the average big18 school, so they won’t be a money suck. My bet though is that the noles (outside their academic admins) want the sec, and if Sankey wants to protect the south they could be on offer. The question is how much the big18 cares about AAU status, or whether that requirement dies. If the big18 doesn’t want them, we have no reason to try and get them. Which would be hilarious if they paid a bunch to get out of the GOR and neither conference took them.
But until the GOR gets sorted out it’s all academic, fun to speculate though.

 

Today is put up or shut up day!

 

At some level, but USC didn't want Oregon to be added. It was done because it was a good economic deal. But the Big-10 wouldn't have added them if they didn't agree to the partial payout.

I would argue that ND and UNC are without question, the top 2 names out there for both the Big-10 and SEC. After that, it's anyone's guess. But you are absolutely right that Clemson and FSU are both near the top of the list. This may not be the top choice of the schools, but for the SEC, outside of Notre Dame, it could be argued that UNC and UVA have the most value. For Big-10, it would probably be UNC and either UVA or FSU.

FSU and Clemson probably prefer SEC and UNC and UVA probably prefer the Big-10.

 

That’s the question. Would the consider taking Clemson and FSU to block the B1G’s access to the south?

 

I guess they chose to shut up!

 

The current structure is probably all they have. I don't think the networks, especially ESPN, are in a financial position to offer more per school than they've already committed.

 

Now they are tied to the ACC the for 23 and 24 seasons. Earliest they could make a move 2025. But it seems they have nowhere to go for now.

 

I mean, I guess I understand the money. But if they cant win in the ACC, what makes them think they would win in the SEC or Big 10? They are much better football conferences? If anything they are more likely to be subject to a lesser bowl, with lesser payout.

 

When it's all over College will have its version of the NFC / AFC. Not now but it's inevitable IMO. NFL light, it soon will be.

34 - 36 teams sound right.

REST OF power 5 will be reclassified into lower level NCAA categories.

I suspect the divisions will have some nod to old conference affiliations.

Just my opinion.