Conference Realignment

[BurdellJacket]

Oh, excuse me. I thought this thread was about B1G expansion?

 

[RonJohn]

Also remember this: ESPN is owned by ABC/Disney.

There is heavy speculation that ESPN will not be owned by Disney very much longer. (measured in years not in days or months) The ESPN business model is trending downward and if nothing is changed will not have enough money to pay for the content. Disney is happy to pull in easy money while it is rolling in, but isn't going to subsidize ESPN if it starts losing money.

One of the speculations is that a spin-off ESPN company will get into sports betting. (Something that Disney likely wouldn't do from a company image perspective) They could make money by tying the broadcasts into their own online sports betting business. They could show spreads, could show updated odds during an entire game and keep bets coming in. I think that business model would suit the SEC well. I'm not sure the Big10 would be excited about it. I think the ACC is probably split between schools/fans that would see that as a positive and those that would see it as a negative.

Overall, with conference expansion, there is a lot more involved that simply whether the football program is good or not. Some people believe that ND would be happy in the SEC, but would they be happy to potentially be heavily involved with gambling in the future? People see Miami as a potential SEC team, I don't think Miami would have any issues with gambling if it raised their revenue.

 

[85Escape]

One of the speculations is that a spin-off ESPN company will get into sports betting.

That might be awesome. I could get other people to pay for my sports-watching

Isn't Bally already starting down this path? I realize that it is Sinclair + someone else and they just sold the naming rights to Bally, but that's where they are going don't you think?

 

[mistaben]

The first part is why it's a good time to go after the PAC12 teams I named. If you click on the link, outside of USC, Oregon/Washington/Utah dominate the ratings on the West Coast. Those are all flagship schools for their states, and they all have VERY good programs. Oregon is probably more popular than USC nationally at this point. Oregon is backed by MASSIVE amounts of money by Phil Knight/Nike...a relationship conferences would be dumb not to exploit. IMO, this most definitely increases the value of the ACC's media bargaining power.

This isn't just about more schools, this is about strategic additions to the ACC that can fortify our conference, while growing the ACC brand...and by extension, growing the fanbase of the schools in the ACC. Outside of the LA market, the addition of Arizona as well locks up the West Coast for the ACC with all the largest state schools on the West Coast. As @RonJohn states, this isn't about what's cool now, it's about the next 20-50 years.

acc + big 12 + pac 10 currently have an aggregate of 36 members + ND.
what if we move two teams (net) from acc to pac, then we have three 12 team conferences (which could be divided into two 6 team divisions each).
For football, this would allow each team to play 5 division opponents and 3 opposing division opponents each year (i.e play everyone each 2 years) leaving room for OOC opponents.

Playoffs could be held at division & Conference levels (coordinated with bowl tie-ins) which might offer an attractive alternative playoff format if/when SEC/Big exit NCAA.

EXAMPLE:

ACC: North: Dook, Wake, UNC, UVA, 'Cuse, BC;
South: GT, NCSU, Climpson, FSU, Miami, Central FL (from Big 12),

BIG 12 North: Kansas, Cincinnati, West Va, & from ACC: Louisville, Pittsburgh, Va Tech;
South: Houston, Baylor, TCU, Tx Tech, Oky St, Kansas St;

PAC North: OR, OR St, Wash, Wash St, BYU, Iowa St;
South: Az; Az St, Colorado, Utah, Stanford, Cal;

ND: Can do this with or without them.

Initially we might expect football to be stronger in ACC South, BIG 12 South (although North might be good as well), and PAC North.
B'ball might be good in ACC North and Big 12 North. Over time competition should lift all boats - and provide incentives to renegotiate broadcast contracts.

 

[bobongo]

Amid backstabbing and shaky college football reality, ACC commish Jim Phillips just wants everyone to get along

While the college football landscape shifts drastically in real time, Jim Phillips is pleading for everybody to think of the common good.

www.yahoo.com

Phillips kicked off the ACC's football media festivities with a stump speech and question-and-answer session that could have been delivered two generations ago.

He assailed the relentless pursuit of profits. He cautioned that every school and league needed to consider the greater good, not simply their own bottom line. He spoke up for non-revenue sports, smaller conferences and even the bowl industry.

He said hokey things like, “We owe it to those kids” when talking about the importance of athletics at places such as Northern Illinois, where he was once the athletic director.

"Any new structure of the NCAA must serve the many, not a collective few,” Phillips said. “We are not the professional ranks. This isn't the NFL- or NBA-Lite. This shouldn't be a winner-take-all or zero-sum structure. College sports have never been elitist or singularly commercial."

 

[Richard7125]

I think what people are confusing is the buildup to streaming. That will be the future. I linked to an article earlier in the thread where ESPN is on record saying that all of their programming will be exclusively streaming in the future. I would venture to guess that will be what Fox Sports, CBS Sports, NBC Sports will also all do. Then you have the Amazon Prime and Apple who want to get in on streaming sports. Why is that? Because they know they are going to make money. More competition, more money for the conferences.

Sports has the most loyal viewer following. That's why media companies are willing to pay so much money for broadcast rights. In the future, viewers won't have a choice but to pay for sports. It won't be like pay per view where you have to pay per game, but if you want to watch ESPN, it will cost you...and if you want to watch certain games, it will only come with an additional paid enhanced package (SEC network package, B1G network package, ACC network package, etc.). We're already seeing some of that now...in the future, it will be 100% that.

A viewer's choice will be either pay to watch sports, or don't watch it at all. Sports fans are loyal, so a good portion will pay for it. After about 5-10 years, this model will be normal...much like how internet became normal, paying for MLB package or NFL network package became normal.

I think you’re significantly overestimating streaming. I think a much more likely scenario is there will eventually be an equilibrium between traditional cable/satellite and streaming services.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Anyone who ever says anything along the lines of “it’s for the kids” etc. is either corrupt to the core or dumber than a box of rocks. I refuse to believe Phillips is dumb.

 

[bigrabbit]

No... each team in the BIG is making $50M and the value of the new deal with USC and UCLA is $70M to all, so that’s $70M for new members plus $20M each to existing members.
Big round numbers and assumptions here- no knowledge of what the BIG deal Actually pays...

Yes, we can presume that the existing value of the conference has increased some amount based upon the fact that the deal is being renegotiated, but if the existing BIG is bringing in new teams you have to believe those new teams carry their own weight in terms of value PLUS the incremental increase to the other 14 existing teams... whatever that increase is. If you could get the increase without them, why incur the additional scheduling issues and logistics of adding more teams? And if all they add is their own value with no incremental increase to other members, again, no reason to bring them on.

This sounds like something I used to teach entrepreneurship students called “network effects”. Basically, it’s a business model that grows in value nonlinearly based on participation, pretty typical for internet businesses among others.

Probably the assumption to make the math work for conference expansion, works until it doesn’t any more (you can google examples where it can break down and reverse).

 

[CEB]

This sounds like something I used to teach entrepreneurship students called “network effects”. Basically, it’s a business model that grows in value nonlinearly based on participation, pretty typical for internet businesses among others.

Probably the assumption to make the math work for conference expansion, works until it doesn’t any more (you can google examples where it can break down and reverse).

Thanks for the validation!

I’m self taught and arrived at this theory employing the “blind squirrel finds nut” methodology.
You could probably articulate it much more eloquently, but I also concluded that we have to be near the point of diminishing return....

 

[MusicalBuzz]

I think you’re significantly overestimating streaming. I think a much more likely scenario is there will eventually be an equilibrium between traditional cable/satellite and streaming services.

I would need to re-confirm latest industry plans (and will and report back), but I work for Cox Communications here at Atlanta HQ. Two years ago our SVP projected that within five years traditional cable video would be gone. That the model of a service provider providing a set-top box and a selling video packages would end. Service providers would optionally provide a streaming device .. but the content packages would be between the consumer and content owner. And this is already started by Comcast (as expected).

I think it’s well-known how little money our companies make on video service. Money is made from Internet because — of course — the company owns the plant. (It might also not be a surprise that an extraordinary amount of money is made on this plant reselling bandwidth to other companies)

So not to completely stomp on your prediction — and I will bring this topic up internally to confirm — but my understanding is that cable companies are already re-projecting revenue streams (which is why you’re seeing Comcast heavily promote its 1GB Internet + Wireless package .. wireless is the next big thing and already a huge growth product for Comcast) and can’t wait to ditch video, which is very expensive and very little margin.

 

[orientalnc]

I would need to re-confirm latest industry plans (and will and report back), but I work for Cox Communications here at Atlanta HQ. Two years ago our SVP projected that within five years traditional cable video would be gone. That the model of a service provider providing a set-top box and a selling video packages would end. Service providers would optionally provide a streaming device .. but the content packages would be between the consumer and content owner. And this is already started by Comcast (as expected).

I think it’s well-known how little money our companies make on video service. Money is made from Internet because — of course — the company owns the plant. (It might also not be a surprise that an extraordinary amount of money is made on this plant reselling bandwidth to other companies)

So not to completely stomp on your prediction — and I will bring this topic up internally to confirm — but my understanding is that cable companies are already re-projecting revenue streams (which is why you’re seeing Comcast heavily promote its 1GB Internet + Wireless package .. wireless is the next big thing and already a huge growth product for Comcast) and can’t wait to ditch video, which is very expensive and very little margin.

I have already ditched video from Spectrum. I get all of my video via streaming. And, I love it.

 

[Techster]

There is heavy speculation that ESPN will not be owned by Disney very much longer. (measured in years not in days or months) The ESPN business model is trending downward and if nothing is changed will not have enough money to pay for the content. Disney is happy to pull in easy money while it is rolling in, but isn't going to subsidize ESPN if it starts losing money.

One of the speculations is that a spin-off ESPN company will get into sports betting. (Something that Disney likely wouldn't do from a company image perspective) They could make money by tying the broadcasts into their own online sports betting business. They could show spreads, could show updated odds during an entire game and keep bets coming in. I think that business model would suit the SEC well. I'm not sure the Big10 would be excited about it. I think the ACC is probably split between schools/fans that would see that as a positive and those that would see it as a negative.

Overall, with conference expansion, there is a lot more involved that simply whether the football program is good or not. Some people believe that ND would be happy in the SEC, but would they be happy to potentially be heavily involved with gambling in the future? People see Miami as a potential SEC team, I don't think Miami would have any issues with gambling if it raised their revenue.

If anyone wants to know the end game, this is a good glimpse at the big picture for ABC/Disney/ESPN:

Disney highlights value of its streaming bundle by increasing price of ESPN+ 43% to $9.99 per month

Disney is raising the price of ESPN+ 43% to $9.99 per month while keeping the price of its Disney bundle unchanged at $13.99 per month.

www.cnbc.com

As cable becomes less and less of a factor, the price of those streaming services will increase over time for consumers. At some point, maybe 10-20 years down the road, cable may cease to exist as we know it, and streaming becomes the dominant form of viewing. There are also other ways of monetizing streaming (think the value of consumer data similar to what Facebook and Twitter are doing), and new forms of advertising through streaming. We are thinking in terms of an old 2D model of subscribers and advertising, when streaming will take monetization to a 3D model. ABC/Disney isn't subsidizing ESPN, or vice versa, they're using their symbiotic growth to enhance the subscriber base for all of their assets.

While Disney doesn’t break out how many of the more than 22 million ESPN+ subscribers are paying for it through the bundle, narrowing the price difference between only paying for ESPN+ and paying for all three Disney streaming services should move some solo ESPN+ customers toward the bundle. That will help increase the aggregate Disney+ number, potentially enabling Disney to reach its 2024 target.

Hitting that mark is arguably Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek’s top priority. While Disney shares tend to trade on Disney+ subscription numbers, investors have largely ignored ESPN+ and Hulu’s quarterly performances. Disney renewed Chapek’s contract last month through July 2025.

ESPN+ has become a stronger product in the past year as Disney moves more exclusive live games to the service. ESPN+ now includes the NHL.TV out-of-market package and PGA Tour Live, which were once both subscription products that cost $9.99 per month or more by themselves.

BTW, if you look at the bottom of that article, there's this key statement:

“Being in the sports space is still very valuable, but you’ve got to go where the consumer is going,” former Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger told CNBC in December. “The question that Bob [Chapek] will deal with and is dealing with is do you accelerate that or try to accelerate it, or do you hold back as long as you possibly can? I happen to believe the future of ESPN is bright if it can make that successful migration to the new platforms.”

There's a link to an old 2020 press release, and in it you can see they were already thinking about the shift to streaming then, but time wasn't (and still isn't now) to exclusive streaming.

I mentioned in other threads that we are thinking about college sports and media revenue in classic terms. The game (both college sports and media) is changing and we have to look at things differently now. This is why the B1G and SEC have been aggressive with national "brands", and this why the ACC would be wise to move heaven and earth to expand their footprint and go after large flagship schools on the West Coast as a counterweight to the moves the SEC and B1G have made.

 

[Techster]

Amid backstabbing and shaky college football reality, ACC commish Jim Phillips just wants everyone to get along

While the college football landscape shifts drastically in real time, Jim Phillips is pleading for everybody to think of the common good.

www.yahoo.com

Phillips kicked off the ACC's football media festivities with a stump speech and question-and-answer session that could have been delivered two generations ago.

He assailed the relentless pursuit of profits. He cautioned that every school and league needed to consider the greater good, not simply their own bottom line. He spoke up for non-revenue sports, smaller conferences and even the bowl industry.

He said hokey things like, “We owe it to those kids” when talking about the importance of athletics at places such as Northern Illinois, where he was once the athletic director.

"Any new structure of the NCAA must serve the many, not a collective few,” Phillips said. “We are not the professional ranks. This isn't the NFL- or NBA-Lite. This shouldn't be a winner-take-all or zero-sum structure. College sports have never been elitist or singularly commercial."

As bad as you make that article and the ACC sound, reading the article makes the ACC and what Jim Phillips says worse.

Not only is the ACC's media revenue predicament of our own making, but we pretty much cut off our own legs last year by voting against playoff expansion. Now when the B1G and SEC teams have doubled and possibly tripled their revenue, it will make it harder for anyone outside of the Super 2 conference to make the playoffs.

This is why I keep bringing up the nuclear option of dissolving the ACC. Teams like UNC/FSU/Clemson/Miami that have a national "brand" do NOT want to fall behind teams they consider their peers ('Bama/UGA/Ohio State/Texas/LSU/Oklahoma/etc). The only way out of the ACC's GOR anchor and "keep up with the Joneses" for them is to find a way out...and the only clear cut way is to dissolve unless the ACC the capability of pulling off a miracle...and does anyone have confidence in that from the ACC? GT and UVA will probably also have suiters...so is it financially responsible for them to wait around until the GOR ends?

I'm sure Jim Phillips is a good person and wants the best for the ACC, but when he starts talking about the greater good and "owing it to the kids"...it sounds like the last desperate words of someone who knows the days of their company is numbered.

 

[billga99]

That might be awesome. I could get other people to pay for my sports-watching

Isn't Bally already starting down this path? I realize that it is Sinclair + someone else and they just sold the naming rights to Bally, but that's where they are going don't you think?

yes most streaming services have dropped Bally. Last thing I saw they were looking to charge 19 per month. In the Atlanta area, they have Braves, Hawks and Atlanta United. So would people pay that to drop Comcast or AT&T? Don't know but Sinclair overpaid for Fox Sports networks, significantly tried to raise fees and got cancelled by most services. I think during College Football season there are enough rabid fans who would pay dollars to watch their teams. Other sports not sure. If this is the model, going for teams with large fan bases becomes important

 

[orientalnc]

As bad as you make that article and the ACC sound, reading the article makes the ACC and what Jim Phillips says worse.

Not only is the ACC's media revenue predicament of our own making, but we pretty much cut off our own legs last year by voting against playoff expansion. Now when the B1G and SEC teams have doubled and possibly tripled their revenue, it will make it harder for anyone outside of the Super 2 conference to make the playoffs.

This is why I keep bringing up the nuclear option of dissolving the ACC. Teams like UNC/FSU/Clemson/Miami that have a national "brand" do NOT want to fall behind teams they consider their peers ('Bama/UGA/Ohio State/Texas/LSU/Oklahoma/etc). The only way out of the ACC's GOR anchor and "keep up with the Joneses" for them is to find a way out...and the only clear cut way is to dissolve unless the ACC the capability of pulling off a miracle...and does anyone have confidence in that from the ACC? GT and UVA will probably also have suiters...so is it financially responsible for them to wait around until the GOR ends?

I'm sure Jim Phillips is a good person and wants the best for the ACC, but when he starts talking about the greater good and "owing it to the kids"...it sounds like the last desperate words of someone who knows the days of their company is numbered.

I think this is correct. The problem lies with the lack of a clear end result for the ACC school, or schools, that challenge the ACC GOR. The SEC probably already has all the revenue from Florida and SC media markets that is attainable. As a NC resident I can say that few people here care enough about a game between Auburn and LSU to move the needle even a little. Virginia is likely very much the same.

 

[UgaBlows]

As bad as you make that article and the ACC sound, reading the article makes the ACC and what Jim Phillips says worse.

Not only is the ACC's media revenue predicament of our own making, but we pretty much cut off our own legs last year by voting against playoff expansion. Now when the B1G and SEC teams have doubled and possibly tripled their revenue, it will make it harder for anyone outside of the Super 2 conference to make the playoffs.

This is why I keep bringing up the nuclear option of dissolving the ACC. Teams like UNC/FSU/Clemson/Miami that have a national "brand" do NOT want to fall behind teams they consider their peers ('Bama/UGA/Ohio State/Texas/LSU/Oklahoma/etc). The only way out of the ACC's GOR anchor and "keep up with the Joneses" for them is to find a way out...and the only clear cut way is to dissolve unless the ACC the capability of pulling off a miracle...and does anyone have confidence in that from the ACC? GT and UVA will probably also have suiters...so is it financially responsible for them to wait around until the GOR ends?

I'm sure Jim Phillips is a good person and wants the best for the ACC, but when he starts talking about the greater good and "owing it to the kids"...it sounds like the last desperate words of someone who knows the days of their company is numbered.

I agree, the teams you listed have got to be losing their minds right now, Surely there are at least 8 ACC teams that can work together to make this work. I have to believe that they would want to negotiate landing spots ahead of time with the SEC/BIG/big12 etc before they would make such a move. It’s pretty easy to imagine AD Drad at UM spearheading something like this. Keeping it secret would be incredibly difficult though

 

[RonJohn]

“Being in the sports space is still very valuable, but you’ve got to go where the consumer is going,” former Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger told CNBC in December. “The question that Bob [Chapek] will deal with and is dealing with is do you accelerate that or try to accelerate it, or do you hold back as long as you possibly can? I happen to believe the future of ESPN is bright if it can make that successful migration to the new platforms.”

In that video with Iger, there are two CNBC people discussing ESPN after the comments from Iger. Discussing the transition away from cable/sat packages they say that ESPN will have to develop a second revenue stream because "so many people are subsidizing who don't watch sports" in the current system. That is what I have been saying. Even the model of raising the ESPN+ price to almost the same as the Disney bundle is along the same lines. Get EVERYONE subscribing to EVERYTHING. People who don't watch Star Wars will pay full price and subsidize those who enjoy Star Wars, while those who don't give a rip about sports will subsidize the sports. The pricing now is still at a level where they are trying to get people hooked. I think they will end up with the same type of issues that cable packages have now. If in 8 years you have to pay $65 to watch Disney (cartoon) movies with your kids, because it is all bundled with Marvel, SW, and sports, are young parents going to pay that?

Things will change in the future. I myself doubt that ESPN will remain part of Disney. ESPN will not be able to continue to follow the "have 70 percent of people subsidize the sports fan" model. I think there are a few ways that ESPN can build revenue that will be outside of the comfort zone of Disney.

I do think that is relevant to conference expansion. ESPN's subscription revenue has been decreasing. They are going to be pushing for new/different involvement from the conferences, whether that be related to gambling or something else. Schools might be asked to do things they aren't comfortable with. Conference affiliation is about more than simply how much money can we make together from playing football.

 

[Richard7125]

I would need to re-confirm latest industry plans (and will and report back), but I work for Cox Communications here at Atlanta HQ. Two years ago our SVP projected that within five years traditional cable video would be gone. That the model of a service provider providing a set-top box and a selling video packages would end. Service providers would optionally provide a streaming device .. but the content packages would be between the consumer and content owner. And this is already started by Comcast (as expected).

I think it’s well-known how little money our companies make on video service. Money is made from Internet because — of course — the company owns the plant. (It might also not be a surprise that an extraordinary amount of money is made on this plant reselling bandwidth to other companies)

So not to completely stomp on your prediction — and I will bring this topic up internally to confirm — but my understanding is that cable companies are already re-projecting revenue streams (which is why you’re seeing Comcast heavily promote its 1GB Internet + Wireless package .. wireless is the next big thing and already a huge growth product for Comcast) and can’t wait to ditch video, which is very expensive and very little margin.

I’m not sure I’m following you. Are you saying Comcast and Dish/Direct TV don’t make money providing service? Maybe Cox doesn’t make much money, I don’t know, but industry is littered with some companies succeeding while others don’t. I am not saying there isn’t a market for Streaming. I’m simply saying there is a market for Cable/Satellite services too. I know there are many who love streaming, but there a many who also enjoy consuming content via one provider, one user interface, instant channel changing, one payment plan, etc.

A few years ago cutting the cord was the rage because it was significantly cheaper, however that is slowing down as streaming services become more expensive. Again, I think an equilibrium on how people consume content is much more plausible.

 

[slugboy]

I agree, the teams you listed have got to be losing their minds right now, Surely there are at least 8 ACC teams that can work together to make this work. I have to believe that they would want to negotiate landing spots ahead of time with the SEC/BIG/big12 etc before they would make such a move. It’s pretty easy to imagine AD Drad at UM spearheading something like this. Keeping it secret would be incredibly difficult though

OK, from the point of view of outside conferences

1. Clemson: The most appealing team we have right now. Unlikely for B1G, but they'd think about it. SEC might give a "Maybe, but not today". It's not a gimme that either conference would take Clemson right now even if they were free to go, but it's more likely than not that they'd be able to find a new home
2. Miami, FSU, UNC: Like Oregon, I think these three schools would be wait-listed for SEC or B1G if they were free to go (no one is).
3. Duke, UVA: Intriguing because of basketball. Probably also wait-listed for SEC or B1G.
4. VT, Louisville, NCST: I think you're looking B12 here, at best.
5. Pitt, Wake, GT, Syracuse, BC: Our last tier, looking B12.

If you're looking for 8 votes to dissolve the conference, on an optimistic day here I think you might be able to get 2 or 3. B12 is a step down for ACC schools. The only reason to move is to move to the two super conferences, and maybe six teams have an outside shot. 8 would be downgrading their payouts.

Keep in mind that Oregon, with all their Nike money, who has been in the playoffs RECENTLY, got told "nah, we're full" by the B1G.

 

[Vespidae]

OK, from the point of view of outside conferences

1. Clemson: The most appealing team we have right now. Unlikely for B1G, but they'd think about it. SEC might give a "Maybe, but not today". It's not a gimme that either conference would take Clemson right now even if they were free to go, but it's more likely than not that they'd be able to find a new home
2. Miami, FSU, UNC: Like Oregon, I think these three schools would be wait-listed for SEC or B1G if they were free to go (no one is).
3. Duke, UVA: Intriguing because of basketball. Probably also wait-listed for SEC or B1G.
4. VT, Louisville, NCST: I think you're looking B12 here, at best.
5. Pitt, Wake, GT, Syracuse, BC: Our last tier, looking B12.

If you're looking for 8 votes to dissolve the conference, on an optimistic day here I think you might be able to get 2 or 3. B12 is a step down for ACC schools. The only reason to move is to move to the two super conferences, and maybe six teams have an outside shot. 8 would be downgrading their payouts.

Keep in mind that Oregon, with all their Nike money, who has been in the playoffs RECENTLY, got told "nah, we're full" by the B1G.

Dissolving the conference might be one option. But the unintended consequence is that GT will have NO local/regional rivals. That's not going to be good for fan interest and I expect we will take a huge hit in attendance and/or any future conference GOR. The more this trends, the more I expect Tech will end up like Tulane in a smaller, less prestigious conference.