Conference Realignment thread

[Did I hear a WOOSH?]

On 9/19/2023 at 12:44 PM, bornontheblue said:

I hear UCF has high academic standards. 

 

Compared to tcu and the lot, yes.  Forgive me if my attempt to relate fell flat.

[Did I hear a WOOSH?]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:06 PM, 818SUDSFan said:

Even if that's accurate, it's irrelevant to the Pac situation. Nobody in their right mind thinks that conference has a chance to retain autonomy status or whatever the new term for power conference is. So that's not the goal of rebuilding the Pac. The goal is to create the best conference among the non-autonomous and if the twins could obtain the most valuable half-dozen MWC schools, that goal would be achieved.

And don't try to tell me they can do that by merging with the 12-member MWC. As I continue to say without logical rebuttal, going forward, college football will be more about the money than it has ever been and the revenue per university of a new Pac-8 would be double that of the current MWC plus OSU and WSU.

Networks aren’t going to pay more for the mw schools in a new/rebranded PAC when they can pay them the same they’re getting in the new/rebranded MWC plus wazzu and beavs.  Why would they?There’s not any evidence that shows any networks want to pay anyone at this point, they have all the leverage.  

[HawaiiMongoose]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:06 AM, 818SUDSFan said:

As I continue to say without logical rebuttal, going forward, college football will be more about the money than it has ever been and the revenue per university of a new Pac-8 would be double that of the current MWC plus OSU and WSU.

This is where the rebuttal comes in.

What shred of evidence exists that any media company is prepared to pay twice as much to a subset of MWC schools than those schools would be paid otherwise, just because OSU and WSU are now in the picture?

I know it’s an awful thing to accept and deal with for OSU and WSU, but the reality is that what previously separated them from MWC schools with respect to athletics was their association with the other Pac schools.  That association is now gone, and along with it, the power conference visibility, revenue and recruiting advantages that allowed them to sustain a competitive edge versus what are otherwise peer schools in the MWC.  Going forward there is no reason for the media companies to expect OSU and WSU to outperform the top MWC schools, and consequently, to place any greater valuation on OSU’s or WSU’s broadcast rights than on Boise State’s, Fresno State’s, or San Diego State’s.

Before any of this happened the MWC was already looking forward to a new media deal that might bump the per-school payout from $4 million per school up to perhaps $8 million per school.  Now that renegotiation can take place sooner, and it may still yield $8 million per school, and if OSU and WSU sign on that’s what they’ll get too.  But I just don’t see any market forces that would pump that up to a $16 million per school deal by excluding half of the current MWC membership.  No combination of six current MWC schools plus OSU and WSU is going to be paid that much, especially since there’s no chance of the deal including a GOR to protect the media partner.

I think at best, a Pac-8 might earn $10-$12 million per school instead of $8 million.  Over the term of a six-year deal that would produce a net revenue benefit of $12-$24 million.  That’s not enough of a differential to cover the MWC’s exit fee, even if the fee were significantly reduced in exit negotiations.  Moreover a Pac-8 would have higher travel costs than the current MWC due to the average distance between members being greater, and would have more challenges with scheduling and with sponsoring niche sports because of its small size.

Despite all of the above I don’t rule out the possibility that some MWC schools will opt to defect as part of a Pac rebuild led by OSU and WSU.  But if it happens I don’t believe the reason will be that it makes sense financially.  It will happen because of ego.

[Billings]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:26 AM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Networks aren’t going to pay more for the mw schools in a new/rebranded PAC when they can pay them the same they’re getting in the new/rebranded MWC plus wazzu and beavs.  Why would they?There’s not any evidence that shows any networks want to pay anyone at this point, they have all the leverage.  

It isn't all about Networks anymore as we saw with the APPLE proposal to the PAC

[Did I hear a WOOSH?]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:51 PM, Billings said:

It isn't all about Networks anymore as we saw with the APPLE proposal to the PAC

Apple wasn’t hurting for the pac, they played hardball and walked away.  They were looking for a deal.  If they even come to the table at all for the MWC in a couple years, they won’t offer more than the traditional networks will-it’s objectively not their style.   There’s much bigger fish on the horizon for them to set their sites on anyway.  It’s a legitimately bad time to be entering the open market, which is why I expect ultimately an extension of the current deal if anything.  

[818SUDSFan]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:28 AM, HawaiiMongoose said:

This is where the rebuttal comes in.

What shred of evidence exists that any media company is prepared to pay twice as much to a subset of MWC schools than those schools would be paid otherwise, just because OSU and WSU are now in the picture?

I know it’s an awful thing to accept and deal with for OSU and WSU, but the reality is that what previously separated them from MWC schools with respect to athletics was their association with the other Pac schools.  That association is now gone, and along with it, the power conference visibility, revenue and recruiting advantages that allowed them to sustain a competitive edge versus what are otherwise peer schools in the MWC.  Going forward there is no reason for the media companies to expect OSU and WSU to outperform the top MWC schools, and consequently, to place any greater valuation on OSU’s or WSU’s broadcast rights than on Boise State’s, Fresno State’s, or San Diego State’s.

Before any of this happened the MWC was already looking forward to a new media deal that might bump the per-school payout from $4 million per school up to perhaps $8 million per school.  Now that renegotiation can take place sooner, and it may still yield $8 million per school, and if OSU and WSU sign on that’s what they’ll get too.  But I just don’t see any market forces that would pump that up to a $16 million per school deal by excluding half of the current MWC membership.  No combination of six current MWC schools plus OSU and WSU is going to be paid that much, especially since there’s no chance of the deal including a GOR to protect the media partner.

I think at best, a Pac-8 might earn $10-$12 million per school instead of $8 million.  Over the term of a six-year deal that would produce a net revenue benefit of $12-$24 million.  That’s not enough of a differential to cover the MWC’s exit fee, even if the fee were significantly reduced in exit negotiations.  Moreover a Pac-8 would have higher travel costs than the current MWC due to the average distance between members being greater, and would have more challenges with scheduling and with sponsoring niche sports because of its small size.

Despite all of the above I don’t rule out the possibility that some MWC schools will opt to defect as part of a Pac rebuild led by OSU and WSU.  But if it happens I don’t believe the reason will be that it makes sense financially.  It will happen because of ego.

What evidence do you have to support your contention the MWC will double its TV revenue to $8M each under its new deal? I also don't understand why you think travel expenses would be greater for a Pac-8 than a MWC 12. As an example, the only problematic travel for SDSU athletes would be to Pullman and how different would that be than traveling to Laramie?

[Did I hear a WOOSH?]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:28 PM, HawaiiMongoose said:

This is where the rebuttal comes in.

What shred of evidence exists that any media company is prepared to pay twice as much to a subset of MWC schools than those schools would be paid otherwise, just because OSU and WSU are now in the picture?

I know it’s an awful thing to accept and deal with for OSU and WSU, but the reality is that what previously separated them from MWC schools with respect to athletics was their association with the other Pac schools.  That association is now gone, and along with it, the power conference visibility, revenue and recruiting advantages that allowed them to sustain a competitive edge versus what are otherwise peer schools in the MWC.  Going forward there is no reason for the media companies to expect OSU and WSU to outperform the top MWC schools, and consequently, to place any greater valuation on OSU’s or WSU’s broadcast rights than on Boise State’s, Fresno State’s, or San Diego State’s.

Before any of this happened the MWC was already looking forward to a new media deal that might bump the per-school payout from $4 million per school up to perhaps $8 million per school.  Now that renegotiation can take place sooner, and it may still yield $8 million per school, and if OSU and WSU sign on that’s what they’ll get too.  But I just don’t see any market forces that would pump that up to a $16 million per school deal by excluding half of the current MWC membership.  No combination of six current MWC schools plus OSU and WSU is going to be paid that much, especially since there’s no chance of the deal including a GOR to protect the media partner.

I think at best, a Pac-8 might earn $10-$12 million per school instead of $8 million.  Over the term of a six-year deal that would produce a net revenue benefit of $12-$24 million.  That’s not enough of a differential to cover the MWC’s exit fee, even if the fee were significantly reduced in exit negotiations.  Moreover a Pac-8 would have higher travel costs than the current MWC due to the average distance between members being greater, and would have more challenges with scheduling and with sponsoring niche sports because of its small size.

Despite all of the above I don’t rule out the possibility that some MWC schools will opt to defect as part of a Pac rebuild led by OSU and WSU.  But if it happens I don’t believe the reason will be that it makes sense financially.  It will happen because of ego.

Nobody is getting anywhere near those numbers.  That’s silly.

[RSF]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:17 PM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I’m not going to speculate as to the particulars just that there isn’t a buyout that has not been reduced.  

UConn, Houston, TCU, UCF, Cincinnati all say hi...

[Did I hear a WOOSH?]

On 9/19/2023 at 3:22 PM, RSF said:

UConn, Houston, TCU, UCF, Cincinnati all say hi...

All our buyouts were lowered.  Tcu too irrelevant to check.  

[RSF]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:23 PM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

All our buyouts were lowered.  

No, they weren't.  All paid MORE to leave early.  The AAC bylaws had no provision for buyouts for leaving early.  They paid less than the AAC demanded, but you cant lower something that doesnt exist.

 

 

Put the shovel down, dude.

[RSF]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:22 PM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Compared to tcu and the lot, yes.  Forgive me if my attempt to relate fell flat.

So cute the way you keep trying...like the kid wearing a hockey helmet to school...

[jewelz4562000]

On 9/19/2023 at 12:18 PM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

FS1 is getting frustratingly low viewership regardless of who’s playing this season it seems.

Which is odd. It's not the old era where you remembered every tv channel number and were like oh espn is channel 240 or whatever and go to it. I just pull up an app, it shows all games, I click the game I want, don't even know what channel I'm picking.

[RSF]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:38 PM, jewelz4562000 said:

Which is odd. It's not the old era where you remembered every tv channel number and were like oh espn is channel 240 or whatever and go to it. I just pull up an app, it shows all games, I click the game I want, don't even know what channel I'm picking.

Neilsen ratings dont track such viewership.  so, at this point, if you're watching on YTTV or Fubo or whatever, it doesnt register.  Yet.

[Billings]

On 9/19/2023 at 12:01 PM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Apple wasn’t hurting for the pac, they played hardball and walked away.  They were looking for a deal.  If they even come to the table at all for the MWC in a couple years, they won’t offer more than the traditional networks will-it’s objectively not their style.   There’s much bigger fish on the horizon for them to set their sites on anyway.  It’s a legitimately bad time to be entering the open market, which is why I expect ultimately an extension of the current deal if anything.  

IF we merge into the PAC there is no current deal

[RSF]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:49 PM, Billings said:

IF we merge into the PAC there is no current deal

There will be.  JMO, but a new deal will come quickly once things shake out.  It wont be a long deal, though - no more than 3 years would be my guess.

[HawaiiMongoose]

On 9/19/2023 at 9:06 AM, 818SUDSFan said:

What evidence do you have to support your contention the MWC will double its TV revenue to $8M each under its new deal? I also don't understand why you think travel expenses would be greater for a Pac-8 than a MWC 12. As an example, the only problematic travel for SDSU athletes would be to Pullman and how different would that be than traveling to Laramie?

I used "perhaps", "may", and "might" to qualify the $8 million figure.  It could be only $6 million.  In any case the amount of the new payout with 14 MWC members isn't the key point.  What I'm disputing is the assertion that any subset of eight of the 14 is going to earn twice that amount by dumping the other six.

We're not talking here about removing six Vanderbilts from the SEC or six Northwesterns from the Big 10.  In the MWC even the non-marquee schools are competitive and contribute to the conference's value.  These proposals to build a Pac-8 never seem to include SJSU or USU, which have won two of the past three MWC football titles.  They don't include Hawaii which brings its own time zone, the Week Zero exemption, a bowl tie-in, and before its recent roster implosion (damn you Todd Graham) knocked off BYU and Houston in consecutive bowl games.  They don't include Wyoming which just garnered some important credibility for the conference by beating Texas Tech at home and going toe-to-toe for three quarters with UT in Austin.

Regarding travel, I grant that the expense increase from dumping six schools wouldn't be large.  But as a general matter, if the conference footprint were just as spread out (which it presumably would be if the Pac-8 included WSU, OSU, SDSU, CSU and AFA) but were occupied by fewer members, then it stands to reason there would be fewer short trips and hence the average trip distance/time/cost would increase.  From SDSU's perspective, you wouldn't only be trading the long trips to Logan and Laramie for even longer trips to Corvallis and Pullman.  You'd also be giving up the shorter trips to San Jose, Reno, and Albuquerque.

[Billings]

On 9/19/2023 at 12:52 PM, RSF said:

There will be.  JMO, but a new deal will come quickly once things shake out.  It wont be a long deal, though - no more than 3 years would be my guess.

Oh I agree.   Just pointing out to Whoosh there will not be an extension of the existing MWC contract in that scenario.  I expect they already know the rough numbers and the media players involved.

[RSF]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:59 PM, Billings said:

Oh I agree.   Just pointing out to Whoosh there will not be an extension of the existing MWC contract in that scenario.  I expect they already know the rough numbers and the media players involved.

Yep...the benefits of a shorter term deal.  Its the conferences that have the long deals that are taking it the shorts right now.

[Billings]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:02 PM, RSF said:

Yep...the benefits of a shorter term deal.  Its the conferences that have the long deals that are taking it the shorts right now.

yes but also some teams with limited option like a Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech love the long contracts

[bornontheblue]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:41 PM, RSF said:

Neilsen ratings dont track such viewership.  so, at this point, if you're watching on YTTV or Fubo or whatever, it doesnt register.  Yet.

Not true anymore. Check the fine print in the app. By default they pass along your viewing habits to Nielson