Conference Realignment: What Next?

[DudeAnon]

Don't believe they are paying $100 million exactly. I am admittedly not smart enough to understand the difference though.

Per the Big 12, "Compensation to the conference for the early withdrawals of the two schools totals $100 million in foregone distributable revenues, which OU and UT will be able to partially offset with future revenues."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 223648002/

[stever20]

Sort of surprised how little Fox got for losing Texas and Oklahoma in 2024. 20 million dollars- and the Michigan/Texas game got flipped to Michigan in 2024 and Texas in 2027. But even there, Fox not guaranteed to have Michigan/Texas as there's a selection process where NBC or CBS could get that game (though as was brought up on the CR board, there will be a lot of good games potentially in 2024 with say USC/Michigan and USC/Ohio St that could be huge ones that would make Fox's other choices better.

[kayako]

Understood about the comments from last year (and this year). Those are mostly from local IU-centric media. They can't grasp that there are 4 major programs in Indiana. Most notably, Dan Dakich, who, I'm sure, most of you can agree is a meat-head and already lost his local radio job this year.

Oh that makes sense. Dakich is a loose cannon.. lol

[kayako]

The problem is none of us have financials and can work out scenarios. Let's say for instance if Gonzaga lowers a level like they have this season, and then another level post-Few where they're a fringe Top 25 team (sometimes missing the Tournament like almost all teams do). At that point would they still improve the Big East payouts in future TV deals? Or would they actually bring our value per team down? I don't know, but if I were to guess, they wouldn't help.

.

Yes. I think you are massively downplaying the unique power the Gonzaga brand has become. They are literally a national brand, those fans are still going to be there watching even if they are fringe top-25 or whatever. And who expected every team to never go through a bumpy period? The point is Gonzaga has been so successful for so long that their brand and eyeballs they bring, even when they're having just an okay season, are worth it.

That being said, the ONLY actual reason to oppose Gonzaga is geography. All this other "how good are they gonna be post-Few" questioning is stupid. If it doesn't work well, it doesn't work - but its not because you're worried about them after Few. I used to think 25-75 it likely wouldn't work but after UCLA and USC to the B1G I'm not so sure.

Admittedly I am stupid most of the time I post here, but your argument amounts to basically Gonzaga is too big to fail. If you ask me, that's a questionable take that can be challenged. Like, at least provide some stats. Is having 11pm starts a net positive? What have you done for me lately is exactly how you've described Gonzaga. Talk about buying high. The cost is real high, as the geography issue is disproportionately higher for Olympic sports vs. Olympics + football with its revenue.

The BE's next TV deal is probably going to be significantly higher than the current one, with or without Gonzaga. Marquette blog wrote a good piece about this. I don't think there's any urgency to add a program that's constantly shopping around for a new conference. Like, imagine if Villanova was openly talking to the likes of ACC.

[ArmyVet]

The problem is none of us have financials and can work out scenarios. Let's say for instance if Gonzaga lowers a level like they have this season, and then another level post-Few where they're a fringe Top 25 team (sometimes missing the Tournament like almost all teams do). At that point would they still improve the Big East payouts in future TV deals? Or would they actually bring our value per team down? I don't know, but if I were to guess, they wouldn't help.

.

Yes. I think you are massively downplaying the unique power the Gonzaga brand has become. They are literally a national brand, those fans are still going to be there watching even if they are fringe top-25 or whatever. And who expected every team to never go through a bumpy period? The point is Gonzaga has been so successful for so long that their brand and eyeballs they bring, even when they're having just an okay season, are worth it.

That being said, the ONLY actual reason to oppose Gonzaga is geography. All this other "how good are they gonna be post-Few" questioning is stupid. If it doesn't work well, it doesn't work - but its not because you're worried about them after Few. I used to think 25-75 it likely wouldn't work but after UCLA and USC to the B1G I'm not so sure.

Admittedly I am stupid most of the time I post here, but your argument amounts to basically Gonzaga is too big to fail. If you ask me, that's a questionable take that can be challenged. Like, at least provide some stats. Is having 11pm starts a net positive? What have you done for me lately is exactly how you've described Gonzaga. Talk about buying high. The cost is real high, as the geography issue is disproportionately higher for Olympic sports vs. Olympics + football with its revenue.

The BE's next TV deal is probably going to be significantly higher than the current one, with or without Gonzaga. Marquette blog wrote a good piece about this. I don't think there's any urgency to add a program that's constantly shopping around for a new conference. Like, imagine if Villanova was openly talking to the likes of ACC.

I tend to agree. I mentioned in an earlier response that Gonzaga hasn't really been on my radar this year at all and if they aren't at the top of the polls, they are pretty easy to forget about. If the Big East adds them, it makes sense in so many ways, but I think the league has shown that it is in good shape as currently constructed. Now if a TV partner says, hey add Gonzaga and the contract increased by $$$, it's a different conversation.

[Omaha1]

@John_Fanta
In men’s soccer, starting next season: The Big East will develop a pair of six team divisions and construct divisional scheduling.
East: UConn, Georgetown, Providence, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Villanova.
Midwest: Akron, Butler, Creighton, DePaul, Marquette and Xavier.
10:07 AM · Nov 16, 2022

I had to go back and remind myself that this actually happened. The Big East is going to divisions for soccer. Not hard to imagine this could be a litmus test for other sports like basketball.

[Xudash]

The problem is none of us have financials and can work out scenarios. Let's say for instance if Gonzaga lowers a level like they have this season, and then another level post-Few where they're a fringe Top 25 team (sometimes missing the Tournament like almost all teams do). At that point would they still improve the Big East payouts in future TV deals? Or would they actually bring our value per team down? I don't know, but if I were to guess, they wouldn't help.

.

Yes. I think you are massively downplaying the unique power the Gonzaga brand has become. They are literally a national brand, those fans are still going to be there watching even if they are fringe top-25 or whatever. And who expected every team to never go through a bumpy period? The point is Gonzaga has been so successful for so long that their brand and eyeballs they bring, even when they're having just an okay season, are worth it.

That being said, the ONLY actual reason to oppose Gonzaga is geography. All this other "how good are they gonna be post-Few" questioning is stupid. If it doesn't work well, it doesn't work - but its not because you're worried about them after Few. I used to think 25-75 it likely wouldn't work but after UCLA and USC to the B1G I'm not so sure.

Admittedly I am stupid most of the time I post here, but your argument amounts to basically Gonzaga is too big to fail. If you ask me, that's a questionable take that can be challenged. Like, at least provide some stats. Is having 11pm starts a net positive? What have you done for me lately is exactly how you've described Gonzaga. Talk about buying high. The cost is real high, as the geography issue is disproportionately higher for Olympic sports vs. Olympics + football with its revenue.

The BE's next TV deal is probably going to be significantly higher than the current one, with or without Gonzaga. Marquette blog wrote a good piece about this. I don't think there's any urgency to add a program that's constantly shopping around for a new conference. Like, imagine if Villanova was openly talking to the likes of ACC.

I don't think you are stupid most of the time you post here and this post is spot on. What I would like to read is the Marquette blog piece if you wouldn't mind sharing it or how to gain access to it.

We are all simply fans, sitting on the periphery attempting to come up with a cogent case for how the Big East might end up in the next round of media rights negotiations and how expansion may or may not impact the conference. I respect that it won't be a simple linear process, but you have to believe that the question of expansion will get framed around the impact of any expansion candidate on the per school annual payout figure.

If "significantly higher" translates to, say $7+ million per school per annum with the existing 11, then it's one of three general scenarios:

1. Negative Addition: Adding a mid-major that would most likely drop the per school payout from that reset amount.

2. Neutral Addition: Adding a program for whatever reason or some reasons that maintains that payout level.

3. Accretive Addition: Adding what in essence would be a home run addition that would strengthen the BE and boost the payout.

#1 is a non-starter, IMHO, so that boxes out the A10, in particular. #2 would have to involve some interesting and damn good reasons, because the content being added is not strong enough to boost the payout, while the addition probably would boost expenses for Olympic Sports participation. Ah, #3. An elusive son of a bitch, to say the least.

What I imagine we can take comfort in is in knowing that Val and company are sharp and appear to have a good working relationship with Fox. They have the data necessary to make informed decisions. They're also not under any form of time pressure at this point to pull the trigger on anything.

In the meantime, the conference continues to perform well. Bringing home another 5 NCAAT bids this year, coupled with a few deep runs in the tournament will strengthen our position for the next round of media rights negotiations.

[gtmoBlue]

XUDash
We are all simply fans, sitting on the periphery attempting to come up with a cogent case for how the Big East might end up in the next round of media rights negotiations and how expansion may
or may not impact the conference. I respect that it won't be a simple linear process, but you have to believe that the question of expansion will get framed around the impact of any expansion candidate
on the per school annual payout figure.

If "significantly higher" translates to, say $7+ million per school per annum with the existing 11, then it's one of three general scenarios:

1. Negative Addition: Adding a mid-major that would most likely drop the per school payout from that reset amount.

2. Neutral Addition: Adding a program for whatever reason or some reasons that maintains that payout level.

3. Accretive Addition: Adding what in essence would be a home run addition that would strengthen the BE and boost the payout.

#1 is a non-starter, IMHO, so that boxes out the A10, in particular. #2 would have to involve some interesting and damn good reasons, because the content being added is not strong enough to boost the payout,
while the addition probably would boost expenses for Olympic Sports participation. Ah, #3. An elusive son of a bitch, to say the least.

What I imagine we can take comfort in is in knowing that Val and company are sharp and appear to have a good working relationship with Fox. They have the data necessary to make informed decisions. They're
also not under any form of time pressure at this point to pull the trigger on anything.

In the meantime, the conference continues to perform well. Bringing home another 5 NCAAT bids this year, coupled with a few deep runs in the tournament will strengthen our position for the next round of media
rights negotiations.
XAVIER
Xudash

Posts: 2371
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:25 pm

Firstly: Our content has increased and the quality of our content has greatly increased over the last 12 years.
Dash makes some good points. Gonzaga is probably a 2 of his 3 possible levels. Zags alone will not move the needle much, if at all.

$250k x 20 = $5M/tm, x 11 = $55M/yr league, x 6yrs = $330M
$350k x20 = $7M/tm, x 11 = $77M/yr league, x 6 yrs = $462M
$450k x 20 = $9M/tm, x 11 = $99M/yr league, x 6 yrs = $594M
$500k x 20 = $10M/tm, x 11 =$110M/yr league, x 6 yrs = $660

HOWEVER, as stated previously... I expect an implosion of the ACC and its' GoR agreement (by the football contingent). As such several ACC football schools move to the SEC/BIG.
When this occurs (and it will), the lesser footballers - S'cuse, Duke, and Indy Notre Dame will bolt to the Big East to preserve their basketball pedigrees. The addition of these 3
schools will peg the BEast needle at $12M/tm ($600K x 20), x14 = $168M/yr league, x 6 yrs = $1.008 Billion

you heard it here, on the HLOH, 1st!

[Omaha1]

Good ‘ol git! Glad you’re back!

[Xudash]

Good ‘ol git! Glad you’re back!

Please allow me to second that! It’s great to have you posting again, and I enjoy reading your thought process about this.

And congratulations on your victory over UConn.