Super Conferences

[CaribouJim]

Do we assume that the dust will settle only after there are at least 4 Super Conferences. When all this started I thought it would end up with four 16 team conferences - 64 teams in total - a nice round number. If it does end up that way are UCONN and Cinci already on the outside looking in? Are there any other higher profile schools be in a similar situation as UCONN and Cinci?

See the link below:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/28/louisville-acc/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a9&eref=sihp

"Louisville was always considered a logical candidate for the Big 12, as it would give West Virginia a geographic partner. The looming question is whether Big 12 presidents feel pressure to expand from 10 schools now that the Pac-12 (12), SEC (14), ACC (14) and Big Ten (14) are all significantly bigger."

That is 64 schools there -do they consolidate into 4 conferences or too much brand equity in each of the 5 to dissolve one? Do they look for another 6 schools and make it five 14 team conferences or does the law of diminishing returns kick in right now at 64 or is not necessary to have each of the "Super Conferences" have the same number? Does Texas say enough - we're good with 10?

In any event, get the disgusting $ grab over with so the rest of the world can plan accordingly.

[MUBasketball]

I don't understand why people keep saying it would be dumb for the Big XII to expand, since then they would be slicing the TV $ pie into smaller pieces per school. Well...doesn't that same logic apply to all conferences? Yet, all the other big ones are expanding.

[IWB]

The one that is expanding is the Big 10 and that is because with every expansion, the Big 10 Network forces a new TV market to pay them for their cable programming.

The Big XII does not have the Big XII network that they can force people to pay for, the Big 10 does.

If the Big XII adds, they still have the same TV contract that they have to split up.
If the Big 10 adds, they force the NJ/NY cable companies to pay them per subscriber, as well as the Maryland/DC/Baltimore markets, so they have a lot more cash.

[Tmreddevil]

Isn't the SEC rolling out a network in 2014?

[IWB]

Yes, but no idea what it will be. Will it be the Big 10 model? Will it be something different? Not sure.

Here is why the Big 10 model won't work for them.....

First-tier rights: $825 million, CBS, 15 years through 2023-24
Second-tier rights: $2.25 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2023-24

So, do you think the cable or satellite companies in the South can convince people to pay for a network full of sports other than football and basketball like the Big 10 has? I don't think so, and CBS & ESPN have given them $3.75 BILLION reasons not to follow that model.

[Tmreddevil]

Yes, but no idea what it will be. Will it be the Big 10 model? Will it be something different? Not sure.

Here is why the Big 10 model won't work for them.....

First-tier rights: $825 million, CBS, 15 years through 2023-24
Second-tier rights: $2.25 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2023-24

So, do you think the cable or satellite companies in the South can convince people to pay for a network full of sports other than football and basketball like the Big 10 has? I don't think so, and CBS & ESPN have given them $3.75 BILLION reasons not to follow that model.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/09/21/sec-network-will-prove-the-conferences-dominance-off-the-field-too/

More info on the SEC network. Quick summary - ESPN is backing it and scrapping the second tier games. It will be expensive for them to buy back the rights to third tier and basketball, but in the long run is projected to pay off significantly. My interpretation of this forbes article will eventually be like the BTN, but with a better first tier right deal with CBS. Damn.

[TheSultan]

The one that is expanding is the Big 10 and that is because with every expansion, the Big 10 Network forces a new TV market to pay them for their cable programming.

The Big XII does not have the Big XII network that they can force people to pay for, the Big 10 does.

If the Big XII adds, they still have the same TV contract that they have to split up.
If the Big 10 adds, they force the NJ/NY cable companies to pay them per subscriber, as well as the Maryland/DC/Baltimore markets, so they have a lot more cash.


Remember that the B12 doesn't evenly split all of their television rights. Texas has the Longhorn Network and keeps all of that revenue. It is an inequitable model that schools like Kansas and Iowa State are forced to live with, but they earn enough through the first tier and bowl rights that it is the most lucrative option for them.

[Goose85]

Sultan, I thought with the last tv deal that the Big 12 did share their tv rights. I thought the Longhorn network was more related to the third tier level which teams are able to sell on their own, like the SEC. The overall first tier and second tier are shared as a conference. I could be wrong though.

[IWB]

First off, good stuff TMreddevil.....

I think Goo is right - Big XII people keep saying that it is unbalanced because of the Longhorn Network, and I don't think that is necessarily true. The old TV deal gave Texas more, because they needed to do that to keep them from leaving (big reason why Nebraska left), but I think the new deal is evenly split. Yes, Texas gets everything from the Longhorn network, but the Texas vs anybody in conference games in both football and basketball are televised on network/ESPN TV.

In the situations like MU, whereas no one picks a game up so TWS 32 takes it - I believe those games are property of the Big East Network and they are paid as such, but in that type of situation with Texas, the Longhorn Network takes it, and does not share. So, what are people really complaining about? A buy game in football and a few buy games in basketball?

[Goose85]

The Longhorn network / Texas / ESPN made the mistake of thinking that they would be showing Texas high school athletics to generate interest and provide content. The NCAA stepped in and said no to any showing of high school athletics and that really hurt what they thought they could do with the network.

As popular as all things Longhorn are in Texas, there is just not enough programing of value for one school to have a full network. I think they are finding that out (as is Mack Brown who complains about how much time he has to spend with the network).

[TheSultan]

OK, thanks for the clarification. In reading up on it, they do divide first and second tier rights equally, but they are independent on third tier rights. And each school does retain the ability to broadcast at least one football game, and four basketball games, on third-tier networks. So it is inequitable, but not nearly to the extent it was earlier.

[IWB]

Thanks for the explanation Sultan - Goo, great point about Mack Brown.

Yes, they were naive in thinking that they could showcase high school games. But with that, no question that a high school network could work in Texas, and also a collegiate network. If they didn't do the Longhorn network, and a cable channel did in Texas what TWS 32 has done here? You could have Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Rice, Houston and North Texas games on every night of the week.