Big Ten Media Rights / Conference Realignment

drwillini · May 2, 2016

Second and Chalmers said:
I would argue it is clearly and emphatically the former. A brand isn't a list of talking points, it's something that has emotional resonance with people.

In my heart I agree with you, but I'll advance a contrary opinion that I think will determine the way things will go. BIG is not about combines, corn and fall days, rather it is the confluence of academically oriented University Presidents and marketers. The BIG has the most comprehensive academic alliance to match the athletic alliance. If you don't think that is important look at what the ACC and SEC are trying to do in that regard and remember that imitation is sincere flattery. Academics will always be a significant hurdle for expansion.

But this isn't just elitism, it also is part of the branding. BIG schools are the combination of biggest and best schools in the country, with great graduate research and professional schools. This means that that BIG schools have a lot of alumni, that are making a lot of money. There is a reason why golf and tennis are on TV, and its not just ratings, its the "right" ratings for advertisers.

True unaffiliated sports fans might prefer the SEC these days, but advertisers will pay a premium to reach BIG alum. I think that is the brand the Delany is trying to expand.

Second and Chalmers · May 2, 2016

drwillini said:
In my heart I agree with you, but I'll advance a contrary opinion that I think will determine the way things will go. BIG is not about combines, corn and fall days, rather it is the confluence of academically oriented University Presidents and marketers. The BIG has the most comprehensive academic alliance to match the athletic alliance. If you don't think that is important look at what the ACC and SEC are trying to do in that regard and remember that imitation is sincere flattery. Academics will always be a significant hurdle for expansion.

But this isn't just elitism, it also is part of the branding. BIG schools are the combination of biggest and best schools in the country, with great graduate research and professional schools. This means that that BIG schools have a lot of alumni, that are making a lot of money. There is a reason why golf and tennis are on TV, and its not just ratings, its the "right" ratings for advertisers.

True unaffiliated sports fans might prefer the SEC these days, but advertisers will pay a premium to reach BIG alum. I think that is the brand the Delany is trying to expand.

I humbly respond that literally the only people who see B1G as an academic brand are sports fan B1G alums searching for an excuse for why their teams don't win.

The overall profile of the conference academically is not meaningfully different than the ACC or the Pac-12, and as the geographical meaning of the Big Ten breaks down, the academic collaborative aspect (which has always been wildly overrated anyway) will break down in tandem.

The Big Ten is nothing more and nothing less than a craven, financially-motivated holding company for media assets. Pretending it is otherwise is like pretending Fortune 500 companies really care about their charity work, or whatever. You're being sold a line of nonsense.

champaignchris · May 2, 2016

When Big 10 elites talk about "academic fit" or "academic profile" they are not talking about US News undergraduate rankings. As long as those are respectable, they don't matter. What they are taking about is research endowment. Particularly how many hundreds of millions of dollars are in them.

The Big Ten wants universities that bring resources to the table in terms of bringing more grants to current Big 10 schools. You may be top-whatever in undergraduate whatever major, but do you have a hyper-super-duper radio wave accelerator micro-electron scope that our research profs can borrow?

The research budgets of Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. dwarf their athletic budgets. We're talking billions with a 'b' dollars. To the Big 10 Presidents, that is what matters to them, it's what pays their salaries. They are not going to open those resources to another member school unless that school brings something of value to the them.

This is why - let's take Oklahoma as an example - Oklahoma, a perfectly fine undergraduate school with a storied football program, is a bad fit for the Big 10. Its athletics budget is about the same as its research budget.

Texas is nice for its athletics program, but what gets the Big 10 really salivating about the Longhorns is their massive amount of research resources.

So, if you take what the Big 10 is really looking for in expansion partners, you're talking about - 1. Plays 1A football, 2. Isn't in a market already covered by the BTN, and 3. Has gobs of money in its research endowment. If we assume Texas is out, the number 1 and 1a targets of the Big10 should be Virginia and North Carolina. Those schools are Big 10 schools that just don't know it yet.

Joel Goodson · May 2, 2016

champaignchris said:
When Big 10 elites talk about "academic fit" or "academic profile" they are not talking about US News undergraduate rankings. As long as those are respectable, they don't matter. What they are taking about is research endowment. Particularly how many hundreds of millions of dollars are in them.

The Big Ten wants universities that bring resources to the table in terms of bringing more grants to current Big 10 schools. You may be top-whatever in undergraduate whatever major, but do you have a hyper-super-duper radio wave accelerator micro-electron scope that our research profs can borrow?

The research budgets of Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. dwarf their athletic budgets. We're talking billions with a 'b' dollars. To the Big 10 Presidents, that is what matters to them, it's what pays their salaries. They are not going to open those resources to another member school unless that school brings something of value to the them.

This is why - let's take Oklahoma as an example - Oklahoma, a perfectly fine undergraduate school with a storied football program, is a bad fit for the Big 10. Its athletics budget is about the same as its research budget.

Texas is nice for its athletics program, but what gets the Big 10 really salivating about the Longhorns is their massive amount of research resources.

So, if you take what the Big 10 is really looking for in expansion partners, you're talking about - 1. Plays 1A football, 2. Isn't in a market already covered by the BTN, and 3. Has gobs of money in its research endowment. If we assume Texas is out, the number 1 and 1a targets of the Big10 should be Virginia and North Carolina. Those schools are Big 10 schools that just don't know it yet.

Bravo. Nailed it. Truly think the BIG is attempting to cater to two primary interests: money, power, athletics and academia, research and administration.

illinoisportsfan · May 2, 2016

Those who say that Academics don't matter ignore the fact that in the history of realignment, no university has ever willingly moved to a conference with a lower academic profile.

Second and Chalmers · May 2, 2016

champaignchris said:
When Big 10 elites talk about "academic fit" or "academic profile" they are not talking about US News undergraduate rankings. As long as those are respectable, they don't matter. What they are taking about is research endowment. Particularly how many hundreds of millions of dollars are in them.

The Big Ten wants universities that bring resources to the table in terms of bringing more grants to current Big 10 schools. You may be top-whatever in undergraduate whatever major, but do you have a hyper-super-duper radio wave accelerator micro-electron scope that our research profs can borrow?

The research budgets of Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. dwarf their athletic budgets. We're talking billions with a 'b' dollars. To the Big 10 Presidents, that is what matters to them, it's what pays their salaries. They are not going to open those resources to another member school unless that school brings something of value to the them.

This is why - let's take Oklahoma as an example - Oklahoma, a perfectly fine undergraduate school with a storied football program, is a bad fit for the Big 10. Its athletics budget is about the same as its research budget.

Texas is nice for its athletics program, but what gets the Big 10 really salivating about the Longhorns is their massive amount of research resources.

So, if you take what the Big 10 is really looking for in expansion partners, you're talking about - 1. Plays 1A football, 2. Isn't in a market already covered by the BTN, and 3. Has gobs of money in its research endowment. If we assume Texas is out, the number 1 and 1a targets of the Big10 should be Virginia and North Carolina. Those schools are Big 10 schools that just don't know it yet.

There aren't pooled research resources that B1G programs have access to. Certainly not financial ones. They hold meetings, they share best practices, there is some most favored nation status stuff on library transfers and things like that, but this idea that the Big Ten is a single research entity is absolutely false, and I know this firsthand working with University research at a CIC member.

Truthfully, in a lot of ways, even the Universities themselves aren't single research entities. It's school by school, department by department, even faculty member by faculty member.

Any of these folks are going to be no more or less free to collaborate with their counterparts at UT-Austin regardless of who the Longhorns play in football on Saturday. It's totally immaterial.

drwillini · May 2, 2016

Second and Chalmers said:
There aren't pooled research resources that B1G programs have access to. Certainly not financial ones. They hold meetings, they share best practices, there is some most favored nation status stuff on library transfers and things like that, but this idea that the Big Ten is a single research entity is absolutely false, and I know this firsthand working with University research at a CIC member.

Truthfully, in a lot of ways, even the Universities themselves aren't single research entities. It's school by school, department by department, even faculty member by faculty member.

Any of these folks are going to be no more or less free to collaborate with their counterparts at UT-Austin regardless of who the Longhorns play in football on Saturday. It's totally immaterial.

I get your point, but I think a deeper inspection is worthwhile. I have always thought it would be an interesting MS thesis for somebody to do a correlation analysis of university degrees. My hypothesis would be that conference affiliation was a stronger effect than geographical proximity. I think Ivy league BS grads are more likely to go to Ivy grad school. I think more BIG BS grads get grad degrees at BIG schools. (I can personally vouch anecdotally for the connection between Purdue and Illinois) I think SEC and ACC degrees are correlated.

Academic networking is the prime factor, and it is a bit more subtle than directly collaborative research. Also anecdotally, I can tell you that in the automotive industry most engineering meetings in the fall begin with pleasantries about the most recent BIG football games. Can't measure it, but that doesn't mean its not important.

Second and Chalmers · May 2, 2016

drwillini said:
I get your point, but I think a deeper inspection is worthwhile. I have always thought it would be an interesting MS thesis for somebody to do a correlation analysis of university degrees. My hypothesis would be that conference affiliation was a stronger effect than geographical proximity. I think Ivy league BS grads are more likely to go to Ivy grad school. I think more BIG BS grads get grad degrees at BIG schools. (I can personally vouch anecdotally for the connection between Purdue and Illinois) I think SEC and ACC degrees are correlated.

Academic networking is the prime factor, and it is a bit more subtle than directly collaborative research. Also anecdotally, I can tell you that in the automotive industry most engineering meetings in the fall begin with pleasantries about the most recent BIG football games. Can't measure it, but that doesn't mean its not important.

But the problem you run into there is a correlation/causation thing. Ivy League schools are all nationally elite and located very close to one another. Big Ten schools are also all geographically and culturally tied BEYOND just belonging to the same athletics conference.

You can add Texas or Georgia Tech (or Rutgers or Maryland) to the Big Ten, but that doesn't just wave a magic wand and make them Big Ten schools in the way that you're talking about.

drwillini · May 3, 2016

I think it comes down to what we mean by cultural. Let's look at Nebraska and Penn St. Both relatively recent additions to the BIG on the periphery geographically. I'm sure some people would say that Nebraska is more culturally BIG. I honestly disagree. I think Penn St. is a much better fit culturally.

I think Maryland was a great add. Rutgers was OK. To me, Rutgers sort of balanced out Nebraska in every way. I agree with the comment that UNC and UVa are BIG schools that just don't know it yet.

Second and Chalmers · May 3, 2016

drwillini said:
I agree with the comment that UNC and UVa are BIG schools that just don't know it yet.

If that's true, then why do they need to join?

The idea that a school of UVa's caliber gains anything academically by joining a league in which 13 of 14 schools are their inferior is, well, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

UVa or UNC will join if that is the only way to keep their athletic departments among the Joneses. That's it. That's the whole thing.

And if that happens, if we go THAT big and THAT far, the Big Ten brand we grew up with is dead. World Domination was never a part of that story.

Joel Goodson · May 3, 2016

Second and Chalmers said:
And if that happens, if we go THAT big and THAT far, the Big Ten brand we grew up with is dead. World Domination was never a part of that story.

Ludacrisp. If the conference grows to 20, the west is the ol' B10 (minus IU). The vast majority of the fans in the midwest will gladly take that in a heartbeat. Vast improvement over the status quo. And if we're making more money than everyone else, that's #Winning!

Greensboro · May 4, 2016

Second and Chalmers said:
UVa or UNC will join if that is the only way to keep their athletic departments among the Joneses. That's it. That's the whole thing.

And if that happens, if we go THAT big and THAT far, the Big Ten brand we grew up with is dead. World Domination was never a part of that story.

Joel Goodson said:
Ludacrisp. If the conference grows to 20, the west is the ol' B10 (minus IU). The vast majority of the fans in the midwest will gladly take that in a heartbeat. Vast improvement over the status quo. And if we're making more money than everyone else, that's #Winning!

The 20 team conference plan is fan based plan. Delany's plan seems to be to maximize sport's revenue with a nod to maintaining academic quality and slow playing this and waiting for opportunities. I think the hope is that if we are maximizing resources, then winning goes up & the fans will be happy & keeping paying up.

With all this in mind seeing some article floating around about Big 12 adding members.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/big-12-ponders-expansion-american-guard-losses

https://twitter.com/DooleyMcStitch
Most likely targets Uconn, Cincinnati, Houston, Brigham Young...chart in there showing some numbers on the schools. Comments Oklahoma is fighting expansion.
Another tweet on this page, likely speculation:

Rumblings Notre Dame Could Have Eye On Joining Big Ten

Also saw a tweet of someone saying We (Texas) need to get out of this conference.

Out Texas/ND in play, probably not; but does that send shivers through ACC...probably. There are now 45 Million+ reasons for something to happen.

Greensboro · May 6, 2016

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/06/01/pac-12-conference-revenue-comparisons-with-the-sec-big-12-and-big-ten-projections-only/

Fyi...looking at analysis/estimate of what PAC12 payoff for 2015 would be & found this comparison of conference money.

SEC: $31.2 million per school
Big Ten: $30.9 million
Big 12: $25.6 million per school (critical point: does not include revenue from Tier 3 media deals...states this was average, Texas ~40mil, Oklahoma ~30 mill)
Pac-12: $25.1 million per school
ACC not included.

Another opinion piece questioning if Texas is better/worse than before last round of realignment.

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2015/6/11/8766461/texas-longhorns-conference-realignment-winners-losers

ACC numbers look to be tax year, but Clemson max at 21 mil, FSU 20 mil, others < 20 mil
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/12/accs-record-revenue-surpasses-300-million/

So does 45 mil+ start getting Texas' attention? What if someone makes a play on Oklahoma?

Greensboro · May 9, 2016

Syracuse article on conference realignment
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2016/5/4/11589268/acc-network-and-conference-realignment-talk-heating-up-its-2010-12-all-over-syracuse

Second and Chalmers · May 9, 2016

I read a quote somewhere today from someone at Oklahoma saying that the Pac-16 (with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & Colorado) was "30 minutes away" from being a reality.

And of course it all blew up because of stupid Texas and their stupid Longhorn Network that will be bankrupt in 5 years anyway.

It's a shame that didn't happen, because this whole thing would have been settled immediately back in 2010. Now it almost certainly never will, at least not in a 4X16 arrangement.

drwillini · May 9, 2016

Texas definitely hosed OSU and TTech.

Interesting article from Syracuse. I really think as this all plays out we are going to appreciate the BIG brand as it creates value through BTN. Huge schools that lock down individual states and yet have national alumni that collaborate and cross pollinate in research. It might not make sense, but Purdue is a more valuable long term collegiate property than Mississippi St.

If ESPN is really pulling back, that is going to force consolidation even faster. It will be musical chairs except the music is faster and they are two chairs away at a time.

I am very happy with where Delaney has taken the BIG. As much as I don't like the Nebraska add from an academic standpoint, it makes sense otherwise, Rutgers is the opposite, and Penn St. and Maryland are complete coups. We have many options, all good.

Greensboro · May 10, 2016

Second and Chalmers said:
I read a quote somewhere today from someone at Oklahoma saying that the Pac-16 (with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & Colorado) was "30 minutes away" from being a reality.

And of course it all blew up because of stupid Texas and their stupid Longhorn Network that will be bankrupt in 5 years anyway.

It's a shame that didn't happen, because this whole thing would have been settled immediately back in 2010. Now it almost certainly never will, at least not in a 4X16 arrangement.

I don't think the Longhorn Network is going anywhere, until/unless Texas is forced to share the network to keep the Big 12 alive. Texas is supposed to be making 40 million today, that is enough money to keep the LHN alive in the same fashion as Texas has kept the Big 12 alive, just enough concessions to keep things going, but no one is really happy with the arrangement.

Greensboro · May 10, 2016

drwillini said:
Texas definitely hosed OSU and TTech.

Interesting article from Syracuse. I really think as this all plays out we are going to appreciate the BIG brand as it creates value through BTN. Huge schools that lock down individual states and yet have national alumni that collaborate and cross pollinate in research. It might not make sense, but Purdue is a more valuable long term collegiate property than Mississippi St.

We should already appreciate what the B1G & BTN have done. Look at schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Oklahoma, Kansas that are scrambling for a home. For what it's worth, you've moved to the Dark Side & become a PU lover, Purdue's main value though is giving Illinois someone we can beat.

If ESPN is really pulling back, that is going to force consolidation even faster. It will be musical chairs except the music is faster and they are two chairs away at a time.

I think what really moves this along for the B1G is if Delaney can leverage BTN enough that B1G is relatively immune from ESPN pulling back, such that money gap between B1G and others continues to grow. I don't know where Texas/ND price point is, but if Delaney pulls out something from ESPN for the 2nd half of rights close to the first half with Fox we may find out sooner rather than later. Even if 45 million+ won't shake out Texas/ND, it is enough to make the ACC buyout not look nearly as significant and start the music.

I am very happy with where Delaney has taken the BIG. As much as I don't like the Nebraska add from an academic standpoint, it makes sense otherwise, Rutgers is the opposite, and Penn St. and Maryland are complete coups. We have many options, all good.

It will be interesting to follow the split between academics/research & football. Delaney still has to make the president's happy on academics, but TV money is all about football. At some point we will reach the value decision of what schools will bring in more money than they bring in & the higher Delaney raises the payout, the higher that bar becomes. Maryland may be the new bar to clear.

Joel Goodson · May 10, 2016

Greensboro said:
It will be interesting to follow the split between academics/research & football. Delaney still has to make the president's happy on academics, but TV money is all about football. At some point we will reach the value decision of what schools will bring in more money than they bring in & the higher Delaney raises the payout, the higher that bar becomes. Maryland may be the new bar to clear.

VG points.

I think we all agree (miracle) that 14 is transitory. The conference is eventually going to 18 and probably 20. At which point, the west is the old B10, minus IU. Which will make traditionalists very happy. The revenue gap will widen. Hoops, and other sports, would probably be a pod type deal.

16: FSU & GT (thereby rendering the ACC very wobbly)
18: NC & Va (absolute no brainers)
20: ??? (last chance, ND?, Duke, Clemson?)

If Texas wants in and is willing to be an equal member (very doubtful), the conference will take them and OU. If we're already at 20, we'll still take them.

Greensboro · May 11, 2016

Joel Goodson said:
VG points.

I think we all agree (miracle) that 14 is transitory. The conference is eventually going to 18 and probably 20. At which point, the west is the old B10, minus IU. Which will make traditionalists very happy. The revenue gap will widen. Hoops, and other sports, would probably be a pod type deal.

16: FSU & GT (thereby rendering the ACC very wobbly)
18: NC & Va (absolute no brainers)
20: ??? (last chance, ND?, Duke, Clemson?)

If Texas wants in and is willing to be an equal member (very doubtful), the conference will take them and OU. If we're already at 20, we'll still take them.

The B1G & Delaney have showed patience on the number of teams, staying at 11 for a long time. Order may matter in the final number, if Notre Dame and Texas were to jump on board I think the bar gets higher on who you would add that wouldn't dilute value. But I could see a scenario happening like you have below where the B1G takes 2 ACC teams and it starts the shake up with NC & VA coming into play, if that happens ND could come into play quickly. I also think Texas has to be weighing there options as well, with new contract it looks like B1G will pass Texas in TV money, isn't that part of the reason for the LHN? Texas A&M has improved stock in SEC, that has to hurt the Texas ego. Big 12 stock seems to be falling, that has to hurt Texas long term value as well. Not sure how the long term rights deal with ESPN/LHN would work out, but with ESPN not making money on that deal I can't help but think a deal couldn't be worked out.

Greensboro · May 13, 2016

Conference Realignment

http://gridironnow.com/big-12-sec-conference-realignment/

SXM College Sports ‎@SiriusXMCollege
"If Boren doesn't get what he wants, Oklahoma is going to leave." -@john_shinn
12:26 PM - 10 May 2016

Not sure how much is poker, how much is real, but looks like the tweet is coming from the beat writer for Oklahoma, the article from an SEC guy. Is Delaney ready to take Oklahoma or does academics stand in the way?

ILLmatic04 · May 13, 2016

Greensboro said:
http://gridironnow.com/big-12-sec-conference-realignment/

Not sure how much is poker, how much is real, but looks like the tweet is coming from the beat writer for Oklahoma, the article from an SEC guy. Is Delaney ready to take Oklahoma or does academics stand in the way?

I can assure you that academics stand in the way.

WesterveltVictoryCigar · May 13, 2016

Greensboro said:
Not sure how much is poker, how much is real, but looks like the tweet is coming from the beat writer for Oklahoma, the article from an SEC guy. Is Delaney ready to take Oklahoma or does academics stand in the way?

IMO this is just a bluff. Not sure if Delaney would take OU by itself, doesn't really add a lot of new markets, despite the author's misrepresentation of the impact on the BTN in TX. I guess if you think the OU national brand works as it did with Nebraska, then maybe? But it seems to me that Jim's more focus on the east coast.

Second and Chalmers · May 13, 2016

It may happen, but it can't happen until 2025.

Greensboro · May 13, 2016

WesterveltVictoryCigar said:
IMO this is just a bluff. Not sure if Delaney would take OU by itself, doesn't really add a lot of new markets, despite the author's misrepresentation of the impact on the BTN in TX. I guess if you think the OU national brand works as it did with Nebraska, then maybe? But it seems to me that Jim's more focus on the east coast.

I think this is right. OK was suppossedly in study last expansion, so there is interest, but it seems like the rumors where that OK was willing, B1G was not. I think in cable cutting, OK brand is relatively more valuable than some schools that bring market, but poor football. The other question in my mind is what does this do to Texas in the Big 12? Taking OK out of the Big 12 would be a huge hit for a conference thinking about adding UConn, Houston, BYU,... At some point, Texas needs someone decent to play. But you could let the SEC have OK and still shake the Big 12