Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[HoopsTournament]

I agree with a lot of this but there are some things to point out.

1. Netflix numbers are dropping and with the price hike they are going to drop even more.
2. Most people have Amazon video becuase they have prime. Amazon doesn’t have that many people who regularly watch their service to the point that they rarely even release ratings on shows.
3. That cable bill item is from a US news article that admits that it isn’t just cable service. It’s internet, equipment rental, etc. Internet alone is more then half of that bill for most people and you have to have that for streaming.
4. YouTube TV, Fubo, sling, etc are not included in those numbers but they are also essentially cable. While it’s not an insane increase it’s still an increase.
5. The younger generation is slowly moving away from watching games. For the next couple years the main audience is still on some form of cable.

Streaming will inevitably be the future but how far in the future no one really knows. The Big12 could be innovators by going full streaming or could set themselves back by having no one watch. High risk, high reward

There are over 200 million Prime customers. About 40% watch the streaming service. That is still more than have cable.

 

[alarson]

I can’t remember the last time I watched a game that I DIDN’T stream. It has probably been over 5 years.

When people are talking about 'streamers' theyre almost exclusively talking about the non-linear platforms, not the ones like youtube tv that are basically 'cable, but on the internet'.

There are significant downsides in terms of getting casual audiences on those platforms. Not least of which you have to get people to switch from the platform where the majority of the games are (the platform that contains all the broadcast networks plus ESPN\2\U\News\FS1\SECN, etc) just to watch your game, which isn't something people will casually do, whereas people will flip between games on the more cable-like platforms.

 

[JUKEBOX]

Also do we think ESPN knew they weren't getting in on the B1G media deal when they "low-balled" the Pac-12?

 

[CycloneSpinning]

Yep it 100% looks like they are back in. Like I said I had no new info since the Cali schools were added. My main point of that post stands that NBC wasn’t planning on putting big ten games on sundays.

We're arguing semantics. Taking SDSU would be a preemptive strike by the Big 12. In my judgement, that's about as offensive as you can get.

SDSU's value isn't just what they themselves bring to the conference. Their value is ending the Pac's hopes for expansion, which ends the PAC as we know it, which causes numerous PAC teams to jump to the Big 12.

This isn’t buying Baltic to keep your buddy from putting hotels on Baltic and Mediterranean. We only have a certain number of gets here. We can’t go around picking up every school we think the PAC 12 might want so we do them in. Be patient and think long-term. Who do you want in the conference? The Big 12 is in decent shape. We don’t need to add worthless schools.

 

[alarson]

So you're saying the Big 12 would be better off standing pat with 12 teams (excluding Texas and Oklahoma) than to add SDSU and at least 3 Pac teams. I'd have to disagree with that.

Getting SDSU isn't going to save the PAC. It isn't additive there. Nor is it going to entice teams to come to the big 12. Its not a game changer either way. If the teams in the PAC 12 are fine with where they're at over the big 12, the big 12 adding SDSU (which would dilute the pie even further) is a worse argument.

Honestly, all this stuff about SDSU is the stupidest **** since all the Colorado State talk we used to see on here.

 

[HoopsTournament]

When people are talking about 'streamers' theyre almost exclusively talking about the non-linear platforms, not the ones like youtube tv that are basically 'cable, but on the internet'.

There are significant downsides in terms of getting casual audiences on those platforms. Not least of which you have to get people to switch from the platform where the majority of the games are (the platform that contains all the broadcast networks plus ESPN\2\U\News\FS1\SECN, etc) just to watch your game, which isn't something people will casually do, whereas people will flip between games on the more cable-like platforms.

My point is that I stream everything. Streaming on one app is no different than streaming on another. For me, I watch a game because I want to watch a specific game.

With that being said, Big 12 will be on traditional cable channels. It will only be Tier 3 that will be non-linear.

 

[HoopsTournament]

Getting SDSU isn't going to save the PAC. It isn't additive there. Nor is it going to entice teams to come to the big 12. Its not a game changer either way. If the teams in the PAC 12 are fine with where they're at over the big 12, the big 12 adding SDSU (which would dilute the pie even further) is a worse argument.

Honestly, all this stuff about SDSU is the stupidest **** since all the Colorado State talk we used to see on here.

Boise State?

 

[Pope]

Getting SDSU isn't going to save the PAC. It isn't additive there. Nor is it going to entice teams to come to the big 12. Its not a game changer either way. If the teams in the PAC 12 are fine with where they're at over the big 12, the big 12 adding SDSU (which would dilute the pie even further) is a worse argument.

Honestly, all this stuff about SDSU is the stupidest **** since all the Colorado State talk we used to see on here.

Respectfully, that's not what Jon Wilner just told Chris, and I think he's a little more connected to the PAC than you.

 

[CycloneSpinning]

Iowa State and the Big 12 are both in need of exposure. ISU needs to build the brand and show that our current programs are different from most of our history. And the B12 needs to prove that it's quality of play and fan following make us the strongest conference after the P2. To change those perceptions we need to capture the eyes of casual fans. Nobody that isn't already a B12 fan would follow us to Amazon Prime. We would be digging ourselves into a niche.

We need network games. Those will be turned on in every bar, restaurant, bowling alley, and airport in America each weekend. And those networks will be covering and promoting those games all week, and focusing on those games during shows like GameDay. Games on Amazon would be invisible to the world outside of dedicated B12 fans. Repeat that for years and the gap between us and the P2 will grow and grow.

Streaming has grown, but I don't see this new world CW is talking about yet. It may be coming, but it isn't here now. All in on streaming now is demoting ourselves to a second class conference.

I’m not sure I agree here. When did you watch a game in a bar and become a follower of that team? I would not be at all surprised if we are approaching the day (or are already there) when more households have an Amazon prime membership than have access to ESPN. And my guess would be that being able to watch a league or team consistently is where the fandom is grown.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Also do we think ESPN knew they weren't getting in on the B1G media deal when they "low-balled" the Pac-12?

They knew it was a possibility

 

[aeroclone]

When people are talking about 'streamers' theyre almost exclusively talking about the non-linear platforms, not the ones like youtube tv that are basically 'cable, but on the internet'.

There are significant downsides in terms of getting casual audiences on those platforms. Not least of which you have to get people to switch from the platform where the majority of the games are (the platform that contains all the broadcast networks plus ESPN\2\U\News\FS1\SECN, etc) just to watch your game, which isn't something people will casually do, whereas people will flip between games on the more cable-like platforms.

Amazon in particular is a total afterthought to me. I've had it forever because of the free shipping, but I never watch anything on video. Hell, I never even browse Prime Video.

But on Saturday I will look around YTTV or Hulu live to see who is playing and pick the game I want to watch. There will probably be 4 or 5 to choose from. I'm not going to bother digging through several apps beyond that for more options. The only reason I would go elsewhere is if ISU was there. I'm not going to casually find a game on Prime, and I think that will be typical of many CFB fans, and that is a problem if we want to put a lot of our league content somewhere like that.

 

[LLCoolCY]

Also do we think ESPN knew they weren't getting in on the B1G media deal when they "low-balled" the Pac-12?

I think the “low-balled” the PAC12 because there don’t believe there are other serious offers. I have my doubts that they significantly up there offer now even w/o the Big10. Fox already said they are out. NBC and CBS just made their big move. I don’t see a streamer paying up past ESPN level for them to rish being off a traditional platform.
The PAC12 hope is they may pay just enough to keep it alive and together but it won’t be a rich deal.

The reason the Big 12 is thought to have the advantage is due to FOX vs ESPN in negotiations. It is a real possibility the would make it worth the Big 12 to poach the PAC12 then too.

 

[aeroclone]

I’m not sure I agree here. When did you watch a game in a bar and become a follower of that team? I would not be at all surprised if we are approaching the day (or are already there) when more households have an Amazon prime membership than have access to ESPN. And my guess would be that being able to watch a league or team consistently is worth fandom is grown.

It isn't about turning them into fans, it is just about building up impressions of our program with casual fans. We need to rehab our brand. A lot of people around the country still see us as a perennial doormat, a football wasteland, a place that kills coaching careers, etc. The only way to change that is playing good football in front of people who aren't ISU fans. And getting talked up on shows like GameDay. Things like that won't happen to us on Prime.

And we need all the help we can in the reputation department to build our value for whatever is coming next in college football lest we be left further behind.

 

[Pope]

This isn’t buying Baltic to keep your buddy from putting hotels on Baltic and Mediterranean. We only have a certain number of gets here. We can’t go around picking up every school we think the PAC 12 might want so we do them in. Be patient and think long-term. Who do you want in the conference? The Big 12 is in decent shape. We don’t need to add worthless schools.

We wouldn't be "picking up every school we think the PAC is interested in". We'd be picking up the only attractive school still available to the PAC. A school that brings an excellent football program, fantastic facilities, one of the larger markets in the nation, and a presence in southern California. But most importantly, as Jon Wilner just told Chris, it ends the PAC and that will cause numerous PAC schools to jump to the Big 12.

Is it guaranteed to be a great move for the Big 12? No, but it's a calculated risk that I believe will pay off. The Big 12 can't afford to sit back and play cautious and still expect to survive and thrive.

 

[alarson]

Respectfully, that's not what Jon Wilner just told Chris, and I think he's a little more connected to the PAC than you.

Wilner doesn't know ****.

Neither do most of these guys. They know coaches, who know next to nothing when it comes to realignment.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Respectfully, that's not what Jon Wilner just told Chris, and I think he's a little more connected to the PAC than you.

Let's face it, Jon Wilner nor anyone else is connected any more than anyone else. The people on the inside that know what is going on, are not saying anything. Look at the OuT movement, no one knew anything until Texas aTm broke the story, read on the Athletic that 7 people knew about the talks between USC, UCLA and the B10.

If someone is talking, they are doing one of two things, pushing an agenda that they want to happen, or a person like the rest of us, looking at the parts and trying to figure out what is happening and predicting the future. But few actually know what is going on, and if Jon Wilner was on the inside and actually knew, by telling everyone, that source would immediately never talk to him again.

SDSU is a horrible choice to bring into the conference, it's that simple. Taking them or not taking them does nothing to the Pac 12 nor helps the outlook for the B12 and are just another mouth to feed. If you made a list of schools located in the Pac 12 or in the region, the last three on the list to take would be Oregon St., Boise and SDSU, they would all be behind Washington St. that at least has some data showing they can draw fans on TV. The only thing that SDSU bring to any conference is the city of San Diego, but they struggle to draw fans and always have, few care in their home city about SDSU, they are a lot like Houston. We already have the Cougars, let's not take another one.

 

[exCyDing]

We wouldn't be "picking up every school we think the PAC is interested in". We'd be picking up the only attractive school still available to the PAC. A school that brings an excellent football program, fantastic facilities, one of the larger markets in the nation, and a presence in southern California. But most importantly, as Jon Wilner just told Chris, it ends the PAC and that will cause numerous PAC schools to jump to the Big 12.

Is it guaranteed to be a great move for the Big 12? No, but it's a calculated risk that I believe will pay off. The Big 12 can't afford to sit back and play cautious and still expect to survive and thrive.

The PAC lives if all 10 stick together, and dies if WA/OR/Stanford get an invite to the Big 10 or the corner schools move to the Big XII before that can happen. The PAC’s survival as a power conference has nothing to do with SDSU.

 

[HawaiiClone]

Obstruction sounds like defense to me. Again, I don’t understand how some can be so comfortable promoting more G5 teams. We can’t afford to have increased competition as this significant round of realignment continues to shake out. They were vetted at least once and weren’t selected. We should already be nervous about the four new adds, versus ISU, in the future.

I wonder how much Iowa State can increase its donations, ticket/ merchandise revenue and viewership so that it is in a decisively better position than the four new adds. I know the program is hard at work on that.

 

[timinatoria]

Do you realize the CA state gov’t is already involved?

How so? What exactly are they doing?

 

[timinatoria]

Again, how did NIL come about?

The NCAA lost a case. What does the NCAA have to do with conference media deals or conference realignment?