Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Boxerdaddy]

It breaks it down that the PAC w/Oregon and Washington has viewership pretty similar to us. They got offered 24.5 MM per school. Does that mean we are worth about that now?

My take away was the money that was projected for B12 AFTER OuT was slightly under the numbers that P12 had WITH USCLA, and that USCLA was estimated to be about 40% of that value.

But there's also the part about whatever the media giants do will determine so it's really up to them

 

[Triggermv]

Everything Oregon AD Rob Mullens said at Pac-12 Media Day

Oregon Athletic Director Rob Mullens spoke with a collection of the media Friday morning at the Pac-12 Media Day. Mullens addressed conference realignment, NIL, the

247sports.com

Ouch to PAC stability

 

[GBlade]

It breaks it down that the PAC w/Oregon and Washington has viewership pretty similar to us. They got offered 24.5 MM per school. Does that mean we are worth about that now?

It's all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to determine which side of the ship sinks first: PAC or BigXII.

 

[JUKEBOX]

It's all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to determine which side of the ship sinks first: PAC or BigXII.

There's a lot that can kill the Pac-12:

1. Money isn't enough
2. B1G invites Oregon/Washington/Stanford
3. Unequal revenue sharing
4. GOR issues
5. Any of the Mountain schools defecting (which I think is a better move for them if acting in self-interest)

What keeps the Pac-12 together:

1. George Kliavkoff puts together some kind of creative deal to be competitive with B12. (Longer this drags on, the more I think it's going to be more difficult that this will actually happen. However even if he gets it done, this still doesn't fix some of the existential threats to the conference.)

 

[Clonedogg]

I think Mike Leach and Gardner Minshew had a lot to do with the Wazzou numbers in recent history.

Wazzu's biggest game every year is vs UW so if it's only the top 3.x games a year...Think if we had Iowa games in our metrics.

 

[BMWallace]

ISU TV viewership is only relevant from the CMC era to present. Similarly, Baylor should only be viewed thru lenses post Briles rape era.

Wash St is also only relevant since Leach left. Which I bet is awful.

No, that's not how you use statistics. You can't just ignore the data that doesn't fit your viewpoint. That's what Stew has been doing, and what the whole article is pointing out as wrong.

 

[AlaCyclone]

It wasn’t that many years ago that the undefeated SEC Champion Auburn was not in the College Football Championship. PAC 12 Champ USC and Big 12 Champ Texas with Texas winning. Perceptions can change if Big 12 starts winning head to head.

As a part time Alabama fan, I found that delicioso! However, to be fair, Alabama would have been left out that year with a 12-0 record too. Both USC and Texs were SUPERB! Fortunately, the Tide didn't have to worry about that as they finished 6-6 after losing to Minnesota in the Music City Bowl!

FWIW, I was at that Bowl Game, and 'Bama played tough without their entire starting Backfield (QB, RB and FB) to injuries. They were still throwing in the end zone from 20 yards out at the end but came up just short 16-20 to Maroney, Barber and Company. Ah, the good old days!

 

[Ace000087]

Holy carp Tony Altimore... I love statistical data, but dam he's in full hate mode on twitter for ISU.

 

[isucy86]

ESPN as a subsidiary is subject to spin-off. But as another 'insider' information poster stated, they're in the 'know' on this stuff. So, I'll just step back and wait and see. That said, there are 'levels' of bankruptcy which would allow ESPN to forego and eliminate some of their debt. So, again, we'll see.

Disney is not going into bankruptcy because of ESPN sport league contracts. They have plenty of cash on their B/S. And their overall brand is still very strong.

They could always sell ESPN if the price was right or Disney decided sports inventory didn't fit their strategic plan. But that would go against the common belief that live sport content attracts viewership and at a specific time.

One also has to look at how ESPN fits with the long term vision for Disney+ and Hulu. Both are streaming platforms owned all or in-part by Disney. I am sure they view ESPN as a hook to gain more subscribers to Disney+.

They are already dipping their toe with the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle.

 

[NWICY]

The house of cards will have collapsed long before this happens.

1. Somebody still has to lose, and some of those premiere 24 schools are going to be unsatisfied with being perennial losers, even if they’re paid bank.

2. ESPN and FOX are going to realize just how much they’ve overestimated how much of a “national product” college football really isn’t as they push more and more of the schools they don’t want to broadcast out of the picture. Even some of the talking heads on ESPN (despite their employer largely being responsible for this) are starting to ask the question if this is a healthy direction for college sports. There are even some predictions that in 20 years college football may have gone the way of boxing and horse racing in America (this was openly discussed on PTI yesterday).

Well horse racing still gets 3 events a year, except nobody pays any attention if the Derby winner doesn't win the 2nd race. Boxing heck I couldn't even till you who the heavy weight champ is.

 

[besserheimerphat]

SIAP

 

[AlaCyclone]

SIAP

For damn!

 

[isucy86]

No, that's not how you use statistics. You can't just ignore the data that doesn't fit your viewpoint. That's what Stew has been doing, and what the whole article is pointing out as wrong.

I agree that data can't be selective.

But I question when people include old data. Is 2015 & earlier TV viewership #'s relevant to projecting 2023 and later? Sure there might be situations where 5 years of data hurts a school like Florida State or USC which have been down recently, but have a strong national brand over the last 30 years.

I guess I would rather look deeper at the exceptions vs. the broad brush of 10 years of viewership history for all schools. If TV viewership logistics were the same today as 2012, then maybe 10 years would be reasonable. But I think how people watch TV and competing viewership options (Netflix, Gaming, etc.) would seem to support a shorter window.

But in the end, I not sure the networks care about viewership vs. market size where schools are located and brand name.

 

[Boxerdaddy]

I agree that data can't be selective.

But I question when people include old data. Is 2015 & earlier TV viewership #'s relevant to projecting 2023 and later? Sure there might be situations where 5 years of data hurts a school like Florida State or USC which have been down recently, but have a strong national brand over the last 30 years.

I guess I would rather look deeper at the exceptions vs. the broad brush of 10 years of viewership history for all schools. If TV viewership logistics were the same today as 2012, then maybe 10 years would be reasonable. But I think how people watch TV and competing viewership options (Netflix, Gaming, etc.) would seem to support a shorter window.

But in the end, I not sure the networks care about viewership vs. market size where schools are located and brand name.

It's all selection bias. How much is going to be applicable to the future? Hard to say.

 

[2speedy1]

I agree that data can't be selective.

But I question when people include old data. Is 2015 & earlier TV viewership #'s relevant to projecting 2023 and later? Sure there might be situations where 5 years of data hurts a school like Florida State or USC which have been down recently, but have a strong national brand over the last 30 years.

I guess I would rather look deeper at the exceptions vs. the broad brush of 10 years of viewership history for all schools. If TV viewership logistics were the same today as 2012, then maybe 10 years would be reasonable. But I think how people watch TV and competing viewership options (Netflix, Gaming, etc.) would seem to support a shorter window.

But in the end, I not sure the networks care about viewership vs. market size where schools are located and brand name.

I do think with how much things have changed over the last decade in how people get their TV its hard to nail down the actual numbers on some of this. I also think the trend on CFB and on some teams has changed a lot.

TV and streaming has changed the game so much, that I think some of this should be shown in trends not straight up stats. Especially when talking about data from 10+ years ago.

This is why I think what would be better is when they use these kinds of data, they a need to compare, FS1 to FS1, and ABC to ABC, not ABC to FS2 like most do. I also think they need to add a trend stat. So if ISUs numbers are on an upward Trend that should be highlighted, and by how much. Similarly if Wazzu is on a downward trend.

I also dont think excluding 2020 is really a necessary variable, considering the entire country went through the same thing, if one conference or school did a better job during that time, it should reflect on that program as a positive as well. But in the grand scheme of things when discussing viewership numbers, it really should not matter, it still about the average viewers during those games. And everyone TV views should have went up, regardless if they had 5 games or 10.

Too many of these stats not only dont show the entire picture, but then are manipulated to show the narrative the author desires, because of biases.

 

[LLCoolCY]

Really George? If I get GOR worth anything they’ll (fingers crossed) sign.



And now he’s reading School President text messages?


Yormark is sitting back and smiling after seeing the ACC and now PAC10 commissioners he’s facing.

 

[AuH2O]

Yeah but Bama, Texas, tOSU, ND, Michigan, PSU, Georgia, OU.... maybe LSU, maybe Auburn, are the only programs on that really elite brand level. That's 10 megaultrasuperleague members at best. Oregon? They haven't even gotten a B1G invite.

Failing to get an invite to the Big 10 doesn’t mean Oregon isn’t in that group. They aren’t getting an invite yet because they may not be a per team revenue benefit. OSU is worth so freaking much it’s insane. Michigan is crazy valuable. These teams are driving value so much above and beyond the rest of the league that you probably have to be somewhere around that next tier of Ped St and Wisc to even be a per team net benefit in the current setup. Now I don’t think Oregon is as good as many think, but if we are using the bar of who would be at the level to be a Big 10 add that makes the league more money, that’s a different bar than blowing everything up and picking the most valuable few.

A league with OSU and Michigan is probably pushing $100m per team no matter who else is in. PSU and Wisconsin certainly lock that up. After that you are optimizing in the absolute margins in terms of how it impacts per team revenue. Iowa certainly is more valuable than many teams, but the Big 10 and SEC dollars are so huge and driven by the ridiculous values at the top, those value advantages don’t really matter much any more.

 

[clonehome]

So you are telling me that OuT left to play miss state and wake? Don’t think so, they left for money. How do you get that, the big teams.

There are teams out there that are doing poorly that have/had the name. Nebraska, Minnesota, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas are all examples of teams that still have that name but are basically your low rung teams for close to 20 years or better now. They still have pull. Heck BYU hasn’t done a whole lot lately and they are still a name. Those teams will be there that have nattys in their past.

Then you have teams like Auburn that sling shot to the pinnacle every great once in a while and believe they can keep it up. That includes USC, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ole Miss.

It will depend on the size they are looking at. 24 could be two divisions with a 4 team playoff of run and 8 where they basically get half the slots and they make more money and have the best shot at a natty.

OU and Texas left for the money for sure. My point is that for every couple games against LSU and Alabama they want 3 games against Miss St, Arkansas and Missouri. Without a consistent group of weaklings they would not have moved. The last thing OU wants is to become a 500 (or worse) team in a 24 team super conference. So the bottomline is that for half the teams in the expanded B1G and SEC their role is to lose to the heavyweights. For that they get to fund their AD’s with $80 or $100 million in TV money. It’s not much different than FCS teams cashing a big check to play FBS teams.

 

[cyclones500]

Really George? If I get GOR worth anything they’ll (fingers crossed) sign.



And now he’s reading School President text messages?


Yormark is sitting back and smiling after seeing the ACC and now PAC10 commissioners he’s facing.

“They’ll sign as soon as I have a deal in front of them that they want to sign up for.”

Key is in the italix.

 

[JHUNSY]

Lol