Conference Realignment

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,382
I just feel the the money for college football has peak out, ESPN losing money . Maybe I’m wrong I have be before.

I think there's a good chance that this is correct. ESPN is never going to make as much from cable companies as they did when cable subscribers were at an all time high.

I'm not sure TV market areas drive decisions like they used to. With streaming the norm now, the universities brand is more important than the market share of the universities location. Ohio State, Michigan, and other B1G alums in ATL are likely already subscribing to the B1G network via streaming. The average college football fan in ATL is likely a uga or Bama fan and likely won't subscribe to a B1G network with a GT addition. The SEC and B1G are adding brands, not markets.
I think/hope you need proximity of events too, especially to keep the fans of the middle-of-the-pack schools subscribed.

I'm in CA and when GT's bad I don't really bother watching the rest of the ACC. But if there were conference schools playing games out here, maybe it would stay more interesting?

And just *more* games. In a direct streaming world, the number of people paying for B1G Network directly is going to be less than the number who are happy to get it in their existing cable package. So I think one of two things happens: either (a) a multi-conference streaming package, or (b) further league expansion to make *your* league the one that gets the most national subscribers. And I don't see any way the market supports more than a couple of those, and I think that's a lot easier to sell past the diehards if you've got more games. And then population comes back into play: when GT has good years, they can pull interest from all over a big city (assuming competent marketing and such ;) ).
 

ThatGuy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,024
Location
Evergreen, CO
I like the regional aspect of the SEC or ACC more for every sport outside FB and MBB. Travel across the country would be brutal for smaller revenue sports’s budgets. Even kn the major rev sports I like that students can drive and tailgate at the away games. Familiarity breeds comparison, comparison is the thief of joy, and I want to steal happiness from our in-conference rivals early and often.

I like the academic aspect of the B1G and ACC. Being among quality programs who compete on the field and the classrooms fits our vibe.

I like the money of the B1G and SEC. We can’t keep plunking away as an also ran in the [$̲̅(̲̅100)̲̅$̲̅] department if we want to win big time trophies.

All this to say, there aren’t perfect options in my mind, I just want to understand the logic for why we go somewhere (if anywhere) and how it helps us compete.

Some interesting points here that reflect a lot of my take - but with potentially different outcomes. As many here, I'd love to be in a place where we have to choose between the Big 10 or the SEC - so all of this is wishful thinking.

I also love the regional aspect of CFB - which is why if the ACC was no more and I had to choose, the SEC would be compelling. I love the old rivalries, and I think that CFB is primarily about regional relationships and pride. It took me getting outside of the Southeast to see just how true that is.

At the same time, I also dislike the profile of the SEC. As someone else pointed out, the mindset of "I hope to one day build a school our football team can be proud of" was really a moment in time - most SEC teams don't really seem to care about building a school, period. I think the Big10 (and the current ACC) are a better match for us from a profile standpoint. And I like that.

As far as the non-rev sports, I've mentioned before that my wife is a Cornhusker, and according to her family one of the reasons Nebraska bounced from the Big12 to the Big10 (aside from Texas and the Longhorn Network) was that they were having trouble getting support for all their non-rev teams in their previous conference. Their women's volleyball team, for instance, is incredibly well-supported, and is in a much better place in the Big10 playing against that competition than having trouble finding people to compete against in the Big12.

I hadn't considered the travel impact for non-rev. That might throw a wrinkle into my thinking. But I would really like to see our non-rev sports find a home where they can thrive. Not sure the SEC is that place, given its extreme "football or nothing" view of athletics.

As far as the national aspect, there is something valuable there, too. I think there's a scenario when every team eventually becomes part of the Big 10, as it's already coast-to-coast, and its name isn't regionally specific. Based on secondhand, completely-biased opinions (and a number of my own firsthand interactions with the burnt orange school), my guess is that in that scenario, Texas will continue to overestimate its own importance and pull another me-first Longhorn-Network-style move at the expense of the other SEC members, which will lead to a wedge being driven into the conference and a number of them jumping ship. Have seen that movie before multiple times, and I'm confident there are more sequels in the queue.

Anyway, would be nice to be courting multiple suitors when and if the ACC goes down. Interested/hopeful to see it play out, when and if it does.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,523
I really don’t think the SEC cares what happens to us. And I don’t think we are very high on the list for the Big 10.
Think you're right about the SEC and us and don't know how high we are on the BIG 10 list but do believe if they are coming down the eastern side of USA which I do think they will do at some point, then I think we will be pretty high on their list because they're going to FL I feel sure and they will want an AAU school in the state of GA to go with UNC, MD and possibly UVA and they will definitely want the Atlanta media mkt in their footprint.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,724
Maybe but I doubt it. The networks will get theirs one way or the other by forcing more advertising and higher subscription costs onto the consumer.

ESPN needs to streamline and focus on the shows, personalities and major sports that actually make them money
Then we’ll get 24 hours of “Pardon the Interruption”. I can’t even watch a slice of that.
 

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
541
Don’t know. But I’m sure they wouldn’t like it. The B1G is a powerhouse conference that the SEC would probably like to keep out of the neighborhood.

Remember when Jim Harbaugh and other coaches were having Satellite Camps in Georgia (Cedar Grove) plus other southern states (2016). Sabin and Harbaugh had a twitter war for a while, and before 2016 ended, the Satellite Camps were outlawed by the NCAA. I don't believe the SEC wants the BIG in the South, particularly Georgia or Florida due to recruiting!
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,130
Remember when Jim Harbaugh and other coaches were having Satellite Camps in Georgia (Cedar Grove) plus other southern states (2016). Sabin and Harbaugh had a twitter war for a while, and before 2016 ended, the Satellite Camps were outlawed by the NCAA. I don't believe the SEC wants the BIG in the South, particularly Georgia or Florida due to recruiting!
Exactly.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
465
College football has never blacked out games because of ticket sales. I don't think the NFL even does that any more. The reason you couldn't get the GT games is because Raycom produced games were on the Bally Sports network of stations, which almost no TV carrier carries anymore.

Things are getting very conflated and confused. People who talk about streaming being the future are talking about direct streaming. The idea is that eventually you will purchase Big10 directly from the Big10 and bypass cable/sat/streaming television providers. There are still a lot of issues with that being able to generate the same level of income as going through television providers. At the moment, the SEC, Big10, and ACC all get more money for TV subscribers who are in a region with a conference team than in areas that don't have conference teams. Nobody knows exactly how things will shake out in the future, but most are predicting that direct to consumer streaming will eventually take over. I think we are still at least 10 years away from that actually happening.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying if Tech were to join the Big10 that Fox/NBC that will increase the payout to all of the Big10 teams just because they added a school in the Atlanta market? Would they get the same benefit if they added Ga State?
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,044
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying if Tech were to join the Big10 that Fox/NBC that will increase the payout to all of the Big10 teams just because they added a school in the Atlanta market? Would they get the same benefit if they added Ga State?
Using the current revenue model, it would increase the amount that each TV subscriber pays for the Big10 Network. The Big10 would get more TV revenue. For Fox/NBC, adding more teams would add more available games that would be negotiated to increase the revenue. That doesn't mean that the payout per team would be bigger, because the revenue would be divided among more teams. The Big10 is expected to payout about $60million per school in 2023. I think the projections are over $100million per team per year in a few years. Adding another team would need to increase the revenue by more than that amount to increase the payout per school.

The overall money situation isn't simple. More games should add more money. Currently more regions will add more money, but that is going away as people cut TV subscriptions. I have heard, but can't confirm that the SEC wanted to negotiate 9 conference games with ESPN, but ESPN told them they will not pay any more no matter what. There is a bubble in NCAA football licensing prices that is bound to burst at some point.

EDIT: I'll add an example. When the SEC Network first started, according to reports they charged every TV subscriber 25 cents outside of SEC regions, but $1.30 in regions with SEC teams. When Texas A&M joined the SEC I am not sure how many TV markets in Texas were upped to the in region pricing, but it could have been more than $5 million per month additional to the SEC Network with a large part of that going to the SEC.
 
Last edited:

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,724
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying if Tech were to join the Big10 that Fox/NBC that will increase the payout to all of the Big10 teams just because they added a school in the Atlanta market? Would they get the same benefit if they added Ga State?
I don’t know the B1G contract. For the ACC Network contract, if there’s a material change, there can be an adjustment.

If it’s similar with the B1G contract, adding Notre Dame or FSU would probably cause a sizable adjustment. GT would be less, and GaState would be a smaller adjustment than that.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
465
I agree 100% with your first statement. I also agree that the SEC is not considering us at all, too much bad blood there. But surely the BIG people making these expansion decisions are smart enough to not place much importance on the recent success or failures of a program? I mean hell they've added Rutgers, Maryland, and UCLA in the past few years.
Too much bad blood? Really? Tech left the SEC in 1964. The people running the SEC today, the college presidents, the ADs at all of these schools has changed 10x over since Tech left. I’m sure there are some “old fans” that still remember things, but “bad blood” stuff that happened nearly 60 years ago is certainly not preventing any expansion considerations today. If the money is there, expansion will happen. If it's not there, it won't happen.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
465
I don’t know the B1G contract. For the ACC Network contract, if there’s a material change, there can be an adjustment.

If it’s similar with the B1G contract, adding Notre Dame or FSU would probably cause a sizable adjustment. GT would be less, and GaState would be a smaller adjustment than that.
yeah, but now we are back to "brands" versus "markets."
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
465
Using the current revenue model, it would increase the amount that each TV subscriber pays for the Big10 Network. The Big10 would get more TV revenue. For Fox/NBC, adding more teams would add more available games that would be negotiated to increase the revenue. That doesn't mean that the payout per team would be bigger, because the revenue would be divided among more teams. The Big10 is expected to payout about $60million per school in 2023. I think the projections are over $100million per team per year in a few years. Adding another team would need to increase the revenue by more than that amount to increase the payout per school.

The overall money situation isn't simple. More games should add more money. Currently more regions will add more money, but that is going away as people cut TV subscriptions. I have heard, but can't confirm that the SEC wanted to negotiate 9 conference games with ESPN, but ESPN told them they will not pay any more no matter what. There is a bubble in NCAA football licensing prices that is bound to burst at some point.

EDIT: I'll add an example. When the SEC Network first started, according to reports they charged every TV subscriber 25 cents outside of SEC regions, but $1.30 in regions with SEC teams. When Texas A&M joined the SEC I am not sure how many TV markets in Texas were upped to the in region pricing, but it could have been more than $5 million per month additional to the SEC Network with a large part of that going to the SEC.
I’m not saying the Atlanta market doesn’t matter. I just don’t think it's as important as many suggest. Over the past 10 years, cable/satellite penetration has dropped from 88% to 66% and it’s only decreasing. That extra $1.30 in region meant a lot more when you had 5.5 million households versus 4 million households today (and decreasing).
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,044
yeah, but now we are back to "brands" versus "markets."
Both matter. In the past the market has mattered more due to TV subscribers. It is predicted that in the future brands will matter more due to the decline of TV subscribers. The big problem with brands in my opinion is that a brand can be built and a brand can decline. Fifty years ago, FSU was not a big brand. 35 years ago, Miami was a huge brand. They had the whole Catholics-vs-Convicts rivalry with ND. Miami still gets donations and can get revenue, but they don't demand a national TV audience like they used to. Basing decisions about the future on the current condition isn't always the right thing to do. Teams that are hot or well liked today might not demand a national audience in a few years, even if they have a large local following.

My pet peeve about the entire market situation is that the majority of people who have been paying the cost of sports broadcasting are not interested in sports at all, they simply want to have local stations and CNN/Fox News. They have been forced to pay for sports fans to watch sports and have heavily subsidized the licensing bubble.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,785
My pet peeve about the entire market situation is that the majority of people who have been paying the cost of sports broadcasting are not interested in sports at all, they simply want to have local stations and CNN/Fox News. They have been forced to pay for sports fans to watch sports and have heavily subsidized the licensing bubble.
Your last couple of posts about the bubble are kind of where my head has been going. I don’t see more than one or two ACC teams making a jump, and maybe it’s just ND at this point. I’m not sold on the “end game” of a power 2 and I’m not sure the revenue will be there when the ACC teams become available.

The GOR may do exactly what its supposed to do and hold the ACC together until the bubble bursts. Not good for ACC revenue, but may be reality.

If the streaming takes hold as the primary media revenue stream, aren’t media markets moot? After this big consolidation we may see the whole market based approach change and start to see these large conferences splinter back into more regional groups.

Just spitballing, but if that happens, wouldn’t revenue be based more on “brand” than market? Makes SEC adds like Tx, OU, aTm look brilliant. Not that USC and UCLA are slouches, but I suspect Rutgers and Maryland probably wouldn’t look as good...
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,044
I’m not saying the Atlanta market doesn’t matter. I just don’t think it's as important as many suggest. Over the past 10 years, cable/satellite penetration has dropped from 88% to 66% and it’s only decreasing. That extra $1.30 in region meant a lot more when you had 5.5 million households versus 4 million households today (and decreasing).
I agree that the value of markets is declining. That is also causing issues with sports broadcasting revenue because non-sports fans have been subsidizing the sports revenue for 40 years now. As TV subscriptions decline, people who are not sports fans are no longer paying $10 per month for ESPN.

Direct streaming can work, but in order to get the same revenue as before, ESPN would have to charge probably $25 per month to each subscriber.(And that is using numbers from several years ago.) If direct streaming subscribers were allowed to subscribe/unsubscribe monthly as sports they were interested in were in or out of season, then the subscription fees would need to be higher for ESPN to have the same revenue. That doesn't include college football from other sources. If the Big10 went to direct subscriptions only, then you would have to have a subscription to the Big10 in order to watch Big10 games. It could get so bad as to need subscriptions to: ESPN, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, ACC, Big10, Big12, Pac12, and SEC in order to watch the games you can currently watch. That could end up being well over $100 per month per fan in order to watch what you can currently watch and probably wouldn't increase the revenue to the conferences/teams.

Some people believe they have everything figured out, but I don't think anyone does. Not even the people who are in the conferences nor in the broadcasting companies. Things will work themselves out eventually. The only thing I can accurately predict is that I will not be paying $1,200 per year to watch college football on TV. I'll be exceeding that for tickets and travel costs to attend GT games in person, but I won't be paying that to watch hours of other teams on TV.
 

TampaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,240
Maybe but I doubt it. The networks will get theirs one way or the other by forcing more advertising and higher subscription costs onto the consumer.

ESPN needs to streamline and focus on the shows, personalities and major sports that actually make them money
I don't pay much attention to ESPN anymore other than to watch a game every now and then. They evolved into something unwatchable with all the "argument" shows without any meaningful insight. People arguing for the sake of arguing and calling it entertainment. :yuck:
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,727
I don't pay much attention to ESPN anymore other than to watch a game every now and then. They evolved into something unwatchable with all the "argument" shows without any meaningful insight. People arguing for the sake of arguing and calling it entertainment. :yuck:
Probably a lot of fake arguments. They get together and say, you take this side and I'll take that side and we'll stir up a tempest in a teapot.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,044
That would thrill me. I currently pay $70/month for YouTube TV and I watch ESPN and my local channels. Bring it on!
It may seem that way, but it won't work out that way. I am making number up. I think they are realistic, but they are not based on accurate data. You would probably get the main ESPN channels for $25 per month. Then you would have to pay another $10 for the ACCN. Then if you want to watch GT play at Ole Miss, you would have to pay $10 per month for the SECN. Then if you want to watch GT play at Colorado, you would have to pay $10 for the Pac12 Network.

There was a movement to "unbundle" television subscriptions. That works well if you are only interested in content from one group. It doesn't work well if you are interested in content from multiple groups. People were upset about paying more than $100 per month for their TV subscription, but many are now paying more than $100 for various streaming services. The smart way to get around that has been to have a list of streaming services that you want to watch, subscribe to only one per month, and rotate the services every month. HBO has started removing content, which I believe is an attempt to stop people from subscribing one or two months a year and consuming all of the content in that month. I have heard some commentators talk about getting companies to work to "bundle" streaming content in order to lower the cost to the consumer.

Streaming appealed to people at first as a way to increase choice and reduce cost. It hasn't really worked out that way. The content providers will work to increase revenue instead of allowing it to decline. To the consumers, it appears as though there are opportunities to get better content at a lower cost, but it rarely works out that way in the end.
 
Top