College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Yeah, but that's not the question. UA and ASU were under consideration back in the late 70s, and the circumstances were completely different - both for their resumes and the criteria conferences were looking for.

And ratings alone aren't necessarily the key issue, footprint matters more. That's why the Big Ten is uninterested in Iowa State. That's why an obvious athletic and academic fit like Pitt is also on the outside looking in. That's why the Pad-10 would be far more interested in Colorado alone, not Colorado State. It's also why it would make more business sense for the Pac-10 to grab Utah and Colorado (and grab both the Salt Lake and Denver markets) instead of Utah-BYU, or Colo-Colo St.

Basically, the marginal benefit to complete domination of a market is slim compared to the foothold into it.

It's at least part of the question. Iowa State brings no market whatsoever (alright, very little). It would be stupid to take one Arizona team, say ASU, and not the other. Then the WAC or Mountain West or whoever takes U of A, and you end up sharing the Phoenix/Arizona market. Plus of course Arizona geographically fits better into the Pac than either Utah or Colorado, let alone Texas. Much smarter to take both ASU and U of A, even back in the 70s.

The reason (amongst others) you don't take both Utah schools is that SLC isn't that big a market. If it was 8 million people or something, you wouldn't bat an eyelash at taking two Utah schools, assuming there wasn't some other major hangup. For smaller markets, grabbing one major team is enough (if there is more than one as in Utah). You want both footprint and to be "the" controlling conference in the major markets, on top of academics and some sense of geography. If UCLA and USC were up for grabs, you can't tell me that the Pac Ten would just take USC and call it good enough. Same with Cal and Stanford.

An interesting aspect of the Pac is its current five distinct pairs of teams, which helps for travel, rivalries, etc. I really don't know how important it is to the Pac to have two new teams forming some sort of logical pairing like all the current teams do.

Another interesting tidbit. At times in the past, Montana (way back) and Idaho (not quite so far back) have been part of conferences that were the predecessor to the Pac Ten.

And of course, Boise State (amongst others) is already an associate Pac Ten member, through its participation in Pac Ten wrestling.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

And of course, Boise State (amongst others) is already an associate Pac Ten member, through its participation in Pac Ten wrestling.

I think San Diego State also has a team or two in the Pac-10 (soccer?). They would bring the second largest metro area in the West (behind Denver), but I can't ever see them getting in for a laundry list of reasons.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Iowa State doesn't bring any market whatsoever - certainly nothing that Iowa doesn't already bring to the BTN's table.

Sure, it would be 'stupid' to not bring UA and ASU from a competition and a political standpoint, but that's my whole point - these factors matter a lot less now in today's media-financial environment.

Pitt would be one of those obvious choices for the Big Ten, yet they add no new markets at all and would require teams to split everything 12 ways instead of 11. Notre Dame doesn't expand the footprint at all, but they have the national cachet to make it work. Mizzou is on the radar because they bring St. Louis and (to a lesser extent) Kansas City in play.

Point being, when talking of conference realignment, the dollar is the ultimate issue here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I think San Diego State also has a team or two in the Pac-10 (soccer?). They would bring the second largest metro area in the West (behind Denver), but I can't ever see them getting in for a laundry list of reasons.

Yah, I think they are in the Pac for soccer or something. Agreed that they aren't on the radar screen for a variety of reasons. In some ways it's odd that San Diego doesn't have at least one top level university that would warrant Pac Ten inclusion, but I guess with the year round nice weather and all, folks there generally aren't as into sports teams and such.

I mentioned Boise State because of their having the top notch football team that would at least be of interest to the Pac, though other issues exist for Boise State.

 

[Priceless]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Yah, I think they are in the Pac for soccer or something. Agreed that they aren't on the radar screen for a variety of reasons. In some ways it's odd that San Diego doesn't have at least one top level university that would warrant Pac Ten inclusion, but I guess with the year round nice weather and all, folks there generally aren't as into sports teams and such.

I mentioned Boise State because of their having the top notch football team that would at least be of interest to the Pac, though other issues exist for Boise State.

How important is the academics/research REALLY for the Pac-10? I know they say it is, but come on...this is a cash grab and football money is leading the way. Would the Pac-10 be so opposed to letting a "lesser" academic school in if it meant a lot of football dollars for the schools?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Iowa State doesn't bring any market whatsoever - certainly nothing that Iowa doesn't already bring to the BTN's table.

Sure, it would be 'stupid' to not bring UA and ASU from a competition and a political standpoint, but that's my whole point - these factors matter a lot less now in today's media-financial environment.

Pitt would be one of those obvious choices for the Big Ten, yet they add no new markets at all and would require teams to split everything 12 ways instead of 11. Notre Dame doesn't expand the footprint at all, but they have the national cachet to make it work. Mizzou is on the radar because they bring St. Louis and (to a lesser extent) Kansas City in play.

Point being, when talking of conference realignment, the dollar is the ultimate issue here.

Agreed on the dollar.

I think Pitt has some cache. Penn State already gives a good presence in Pennsylvania, but I think adding Pitt would ramp that up a bit and give the Big Ten an overall stronger presence in the northeast media markets. Not as obvious as the new markets Missouri would present, but still worth consideration.

Overall, I'd say Notre Dame is the obvious first choice for the Big Ten if they want in. If not, Missouri and Pitt are probably the two other most interesting possibilities. I've seen Syracuse mentioned, but somehow I just think Pitt might be more likely than Syracuse. Somehow a New York team in the Big Ten just strikes me as a little odd and unlikely, though there are dollar reasons to maybe try to do it.

 

[Priceless]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Somehow a New York team in the Big Ten just strikes me as a little odd and unlikely, though there are dollar reasons to maybe try to do it.

Like a team from Indiana in the Big East?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

How important is the academics/research REALLY for the Pac-10? I know they say it is, but come on...this is a cash grab and football money is leading the way. Would the Pac-10 be so opposed to letting a "lesser" academic school in if it meant a lot of football dollars for the schools?

Academics isn't the end-all, be-all, but I think it's more important than we sometimes think it is. Regarding the Pac, I think it does carry some real weight. The whole ivory tower/academic attitude of university administrators can't be discounted. I don't ever see a school coming into the Pac that is significantly below expectations for academics, regardless of what they bring to the table on the football field. That's why Texas would be such a catch. They bring both to the table in spades.

Under your hypothetical, if some school materialized that added a lot athletically to the conference, I'd guess they'd be a little more flexible on the academics, but not hugely so. And I don't see a team out there for the Pac that comes close to being a total athletic blockbuster, but a bit weak academically. Or is someone bolting the SEC for the Pac?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

It's going to be Notre Dame. They can't afford not to. Plus the big ten will then carry 12 members, what I would consider a "full" conference. Unless someone elects to leave the richest conference in college sports, it will remain full. This is notre dame's last chance essentially and both parties know it. They can die a slow independent death or they can have a chance to become a powerhouse again.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Hahaha. I don't think ND is in any sort of trouble.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Hahaha. I don't think ND is in any sort of trouble.

No, but they're not raking in the TV dough either - at least not relative to the Big Ten.

As far as this being their last shot, if the Big Ten does opt to add someone else to fill it up, then yes - there goes ND's chance to get in.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

No, but they're not raking in the TV dough either - at least not relative to the Big Ten.

As far as this being their last shot, if the Big Ten does opt to add someone else to fill it up, then yes - there goes ND's chance to get in.

What are you talking about? They have their own network deal. That they don't share with anyone.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Like a team from Indiana in the Big East?

Indiana. That's nothing. Try Wisconsin. And Florida.

The Big East is a mess of a conference, at least IMHO. It's an amalgamation that was thrown together in lousy circumstances and doesn't remotely show the stability of a conference like the Big Ten. And I think the Big Ten is a bit stodgier about adding teams than the Big East has been and how those teams fit into long term conference plans.

Who knows for sure. I don't think anyone would have predicted that the ACC would stretch from Massachusetts to Miami.

You get into the small conferences, and things get weirder. Louisiana Tech must feel a bit out of place in the WAC, with the closest team to them being in New Mexico. Talk about no nearby conference rivals!

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

No, but they're not raking in the TV dough either - at least not relative to the Big Ten.

As far as this being their last shot, if the Big Ten does opt to add someone else to fill it up, then yes - there goes ND's chance to get in.

.

REgarding notre dame's demise, no, they aren't going to die a literal death. They're going to die a "gopher football"-esque death. "National powerhouse fades into a mediocrity."

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

What are you talking about? They have their own network deal. That they don't share with anyone.

Right, and they get about $9 million a year from it. Each Big Ten team gets $22 million a year from their collective TV deals (ESPN, ABC, BTN, and CBS for hoops).

The economics have changed. Notre Dame is not the big fish anymore.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Notre Dame is fine for now, but eventually if their football program fades into mediocrity, the support and interest will gradually decline. In that case, joining the Big Ten would be a good thing longterm. But, if they can keep the football cash cow going, and be part of the Big East (and CCHA!) for other stuff, they really don't need to Big Ten.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Citations for the ND TV figures:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

Of course, it’s easy to see what’s in it for the Big Ten. However, the issue has always been about what’s in it for Notre Dame. While I personally believe that Notre Dame will continue with its current stance in favor of independence, the college sports financial landscape has drastically changed since the Fighting Irish rejected a Big Ten invite in the late-1990s. What the average sports fan doesn’t realize is that Notre Dame’s NBC contract, which is what the uninformed pundits point to as the major reason why the Irish wouldn’t join the conference, pales in comparison to what every single Big Ten and SEC school makes from their respective conference TV contracts. Notre Dame reportedly makes around $9 million per year from NBC, which was a level that made it the top TV revenue school back in 1999. In contrast, ESPN’s Outside the Lines reported last week that the Big Ten is currently making $242 million per year in TV revenue which is split equally among the 11 schools, meaning that everyone from Michigan to Northwestern is taking in $22 million per year. Think about that for a second: the vaunted Notre Dame was the #1 TV revenue maker in the entire country up until just a few years ago, yet it’s now only #3 in its own home state behind Purdue and Indiana (and less than half as much of each, at that).

How did this happen? It’s the fact that the TV landscape has tipped completely in favor of cable over the past decade. Cable channels have a dual revenue stream, where they make a certain amount of money for each subscriber it has every month plus advertising on top of that. In contrast, over-the-air networks can only rely on advertising. For instance, about $3 of your monthly cable bill goes to ESPN whether or not you watch it. ESPN is in over 100 million households, which means that it’s making $300 million per month and $3.6 billion per year in subscriber fee revenue… and that’s before the network sells a single ad… and that’s not counting its revenue from ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU and ESPN Classic. As a result, ESPN is the single most profitable entity in the entire Disney empire, which is why the network can afford to pay much more for high profile sports events such as Monday Night Football (note that ESPN is paying almost twice as much for MNF as NBC is for a better flex option slate of Sunday Night Football) and the BCS bowls than the traditional TV networks. When Comcast bought NBC Universal last month, the main prize was the stable of profitable cable channels such as CNBC, MSNBC and Bravo. In contrast, NBC itself is bleeding over several hundred million dollars per year in losses and is the main reason why General Electric wanted to sell the entertainment unit in the first place.

While the Big Ten has ensured that its top tier games continue to be shown on ABC for football and CBS for basketball, it has taken advantage of the sports landscape by securing massive cable revenue for its second tier games on ESPN and its own Big Ten Network. The SEC has done the same via its own wide-ranging media rights deal with ESPN. Notre Dame’s issue is that it’s almost impossible for it to take advantage of these financial changes by being outside of a conference unless it moves all or most of its games to cable (i.e. Versus, which is now a sister company to NBC in the new Comcast conglomerate), which defeats the main advantage of having an independent TV contract in the first place (nationwide over-the-air NBC coverage whether you have cable or just rabbit ears). As a result, independence has turned from Notre Dame’s greatest financial asset into possibly its greatest long-term financial liability.

Therefore, the “Notre Dame makes way too much money as an independent with the NBC contract to ever join a conference” argument is simply not true anymore. For the first time in a century, it may very well be in the rational economic interest of Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. The academics and faculty in South Bend already strongly supported a move to the Big Ten in the 1990s because of the CIC research opportunities and now the financial people might be on board.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Huh. That's hard to believe, but makes sense when you connect the dots. Notre Dame the #3 team in Indiana in tv revenue. Who'd have predicted that? Would Notre Dame be able to top those $ if they did a cable deal of some sort? Very interesting.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Huh. That's hard to believe, but makes sense when you connect the dots. Notre Dame the #3 team in Indiana in tv revenue. Who'd have predicted that? Would Notre Dame be able to top those $ if they did a cable deal of some sort? Very interesting.

Well, now that's not quite an apples to apples comparison, as ND still gets some money from the Big East for hoops on TV, and that shared BT revenue also contains the Big Ten's bowl earnings. However, that $22 million number apparently only includes the guaranteed payouts from the BTN to the schools, not any of the raw profits on top of that. So it could be more.

Point being, ND's TV deal isn't above anyone.

As far as negotiating a better deal, they run into problems of scale. The fact that the Big Ten (or any conference, really) can offer a whole slate of games makes it far easier to leverage those kinds of deals, and allows them to have the best of both worlds (network exposure on ABC and CBS, cable revenue on ESPN and BTN). Notre Dame is only selling one game a week, hard for them to do that - they can't take advantage of the economies of scale there.

This also shows why NBC would be interested in the Pac-10 - packaging network TV on the Peacock with cable TV on Versus, perhaps?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I was just quoting the article you cited on the #3 thing.

Certainly ND gets revenue from basketball, etc. But if football brings in $9 million to ND, I doubt they make enough elsewhere to catch up to Purdue or Indiana.