TCU Turns Down Big XII?

[Aughnanure]

Nahh, they didn't really do this...did they?


@dennisdoddcbs: TCU out of the Big 12, SMU in, West Virginia on hold.

http://j.mp/naB7eH
http://j.mp/pgDBgv

TCU board on this is fun to read too.

http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=143328&st=0

[avid1010]

Nahh, they didn't really do this...did they?

http://j.mp/pgDBgv

TCU board on this is fun to read too.

http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=143328&st=0

TCU likes that the BEAST is the easiest path to a BCS championship...this would make me feel like the BEAST is confident it will stick together. 

[Aughnanure]

TCU likes that the BEAST is the easiest path to a BCS championship...this would make me feel like the BEAST is confident it will stick together. 

But can you believe that none of the other Beast teams will be swept up by the Big 12? The amount of money the Big 12 will make for its TV rights compared to the BEast, makes it an utterly stupid decision to stay.

[tower912]

But our football teams could not possibly compete in the Big 12.   Big 12 teams don't lose at home to MAC teams.  (UCONN)  Without looking, how did Louisville and Cincinnati do this past weekend?  Cinci and Louisville in B12 football would look like DePaul in BEast basketball. 

[Aughnanure]

But our football teams could not possibly compete in the Big 12.   Big 12 teams don't lose at home to MAC teams.  (UCONN)  Without looking, how did Louisville and Cincinnati do this past weekend?  Cinci and Louisville in B12 football would look like DePaul in BEast basketball.  

I hate this argument. The idea that whatever your program quality is currently, it will be that in perpetuity. Why would joining the Big 12 not help raise those programs up? There is no reason why Louisville cannot be a solid to very good program, same goes for Cincy even. Will they? I don't know. But remember there are Baylor, Iowa St and Kansas football programs competing already.

And please remember, the LAST thing conference realignment is about is competing.

[texaswarrior74]

Absolutely nothing about either school moving/staying put on Dallas Morning News or ESPN Dallas websites as of a minute ago.

Tweet sounds premature at best.

[avid1010]

But can you believe that none of the other Beast teams will be swept up by the Big 12? The amount of money the Big 12 will make for its TV rights compared to the BEast, makes it an utterly stupid decision to stay.

I'm not saying I agree with the move...just repeating what I had heard.  I do think there is something to continuously owning your conference in comparison to continually getting crushed.  I don't know enough about college football to understand what TCU's strategic plan should look like, but it seems to me like they have a solid one in place, which is why it would point towards good things for the BEAST if the report is true. 

[GGGG]

I'm not saying I agree with the move...just repeating what I had heard.  I do think there is something to continuously owning your conference in comparison to continually getting crushed. 

I know you are not making this argument, but to me that argument makes no sense.  And I don't think it makes much sense for the schools either.  I mean, if this were actually the case, no school would leave to go to a more lucurative conference.  I have yet to see a school turn down such an offer to remain in a conference they dominate.  In the long run, you are always better off going to a conference that gives you the most stability and $$$.

[brewcity77]

I know you are not making this argument, but to me that argument makes no sense.  And I don't think it makes much sense for the schools either.  I mean, if this were actually the case, no school would leave to go to a more lucurative conference.  I have yet to see a school turn down such an offer to remain in a conference they dominate.  In the long run, you are always better off going to a conference that gives you the most stability and $$$.

Asking because I don't know, but will the 14-way split give Syracuse and Pitt more money than the deal the Big East would have gotten from ESPN? Though either way the ACC looks more stable.

[GGGG]

Yes, very likely.  The ACC schools were already making $13M, which is bascially twice what football schools were making in the BE.  I am sure that they will be making somwhere in the $17-18M range. 

The latest offer that was turned down by the Big East would have been about $130M per year.  Not sure what the basketball / football breakdown would have been, but my guess is that you are talking $12M per year at best for the football schools.

[forgetful]

Yes, very likely.  The ACC schools were already making $13M, which is bascially twice what football schools were making in the BE.  I am sure that they will be making somwhere in the $17-18M range. 

The latest offer that was turned down by the Big East would have been about $130M per year.  Not sure what the basketball / football breakdown would have been, but my guess is that you are talking $12M per year at best for the football schools.

I can't see how adding Pitt and Syracuse will add ~82 M more per year to their contract (12 teams at 13M is 156 M, 14 teams at 17M is 238 M).  That is illogical, no one wants to see PITT v Duke or Syr v UNC in football.  If that were the case then Pitt and Syr would have been worth close to 80M to the big east alone.

The ACC will likely lose money per team in this deal, now whether the increased exposure to new markets compensates for that who knows.  Also, two more teams likely means two more crappy money losing bowl games without additional BCS games to compensate for the losses. 

As for the B12 teams making more money.  Yes right now they do make a lot more, but we don't know what the new contract will look like and how much of a difference there will be then.

[Aughnanure]

I can't see how adding Pitt and Syracuse will add ~82 M more per year to their contract (12 teams at 13M is 156 M, 14 teams at 17M is 238 M).  That is illogical, no one wants to see PITT v Duke or Syr v UNC in football.  If that were the case then Pitt and Syr would have been worth close to 80M to the big east alone.

The ACC will likely lose money per team in this deal, now whether the increased exposure to new markets compensates for that who knows.  Also, two more teams likely means two more crappy money losing bowl games without additional BCS games to compensate for the losses. 

As for the B12 teams making more money.  Yes right now they do make a lot more, but we don't know what the new contract will look like and how much of a difference there will be then.

No they will not. TV deals WILL consistently increase and each team will be making much more. If you're argument is that they could've made more per team w/out adding Pitt/Cuse, then fine, but all the ACC teams will be in for a nice raise when they negotiate the next deal.

[GGGG]

No they will not. TV deals WILL consistently increase and each team will be making much more. If you're argument is that they could've made more per team w/out adding Pitt/Cuse, then fine, but all the ACC teams will be in for a nice raise when they negotiate the next deal.

Yes this is correct.  The issue is that the current ACC is older and therefore less lucrative.  They were going to make a great deal more no matter if Pitt and Syracuse are in or not.

[avid1010]

Yes this is correct.  The issue is that the current ACC is older and therefore less lucrative.  They were going to make a great deal more no matter if Pitt and Syracuse are in or not.

What do you mean by older?

[Aughnanure]

What do you mean by older?

I think he means the TV deal is older than other BCS conferences, which is true. The conference with the most lucrative TV deal will always (unless its the Big East) be the one that negotiated most recently.

[bilsu]

No they will not. TV deals WILL consistently increase and each team will be making much more. If you're argument is that they could've made more per team w/out adding Pitt/Cuse, then fine, but all the ACC teams will be in for a nice raise when they negotiate the next deal.

That is assuming the economics do not cahnge. Of the four potential super conferences, the ACC is far inferior in football to the other three, so I do not think it is solid assumption that they will see a big increase the next contract.

[ATL MU Warrior]

That is assuming the economics do not cahnge. Of the four potential super conferences, the ACC is far inferior in football to the other three, so I do not think it is solid assumption that they will see a big increase the next contract.

When was the last time a sports entity did not receive a very large increase on it's next TV deal? 

[Silkk the Shaka]

When was the last time a sports entity did not receive a very large increase on it's next TV deal? 

"When was the last time housing prices went down?"
-MBS ratings analyst, 2007

[avid1010]

That is assuming the economics do not cahnge. Of the four potential super conferences, the ACC is far inferior in football to the other three, so I do not think it is solid assumption that they will see a big increase the next contract.

No way to know, but I'd be interested in knowing what the per team payout would be before and after Cuse/Pitt joined.  I think the ACC was trying to deliver a deadly blow to the BEAST more than anything else....looking more long-term.  They take a very large percentage (35% I believe) of their revenue from bball, which is why it's interesting to me that they didn't go after better football teams. 

[Aughnanure]

That is assuming the economics do not cahnge. Of the four potential super conferences, the ACC is far inferior in football to the other three, so I do not think it is solid assumption that they will see a big increase the next contract.

The power of the DVR disagrees with you.

[forgetful]

No they will not. TV deals WILL consistently increase and each team will be making much more. If you're argument is that they could've made more per team w/out adding Pitt/Cuse, then fine, but all the ACC teams will be in for a nice raise when they negotiate the next deal.

The ACC just negotiated their current contract in 2010.  My point is if they renegotiate now, they will get no where near 17-18M.  They likely will get little more if anything more than the current 13M. 

If they wait, maybe they could get 18M per team in a few years, but in that case they are only getting 11M per team until then.

[muhs03]

"The opportunity to reopen its 12-year, $1.86 billion deal with ESPN was a significant factor in the ACC’s decision to expand with Syracuse and Pittsburgh, Commissioner John Swofford told SportsBusiness Journal. The ACC signed that media agreement in May 2010, but subsequent rights-fee deals signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12 were considerably richer than the ACC’s.

“The marketplace certainly has changed since we did our deal,” Swofford said.

The ACC’s contract with ESPN, which is valued at $155 million a year, contains a standard line called a “composition clause” that allows either the conference or ESPN to reopen the deal if membership increases or decreases by at least two schools.

When asked if he anticipates the ACC’s per-school revenue of $12.9 million a year to increase from the current deal, Swofford said, “The simple answer is yes. We expect to do better than our schools staying even.”

Officials representing ACC schools wouldn’t say exactly how much more money they expect, but industry executives suggest that the ACC’s new contract could increase in value by as much as $2 million per school per year, which would make the overall conference deal worth nearly $210 million a year.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx

[forgetful]

"The opportunity to reopen its 12-year, $1.86 billion deal with ESPN was a significant factor in the ACC’s decision to expand with Syracuse and Pittsburgh, Commissioner John Swofford told SportsBusiness Journal. The ACC signed that media agreement in May 2010, but subsequent rights-fee deals signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12 were considerably richer than the ACC’s.

“The marketplace certainly has changed since we did our deal,” Swofford said.

The ACC’s contract with ESPN, which is valued at $155 million a year, contains a standard line called a “composition clause” that allows either the conference or ESPN to reopen the deal if membership increases or decreases by at least two schools.

When asked if he anticipates the ACC’s per-school revenue of $12.9 million a year to increase from the current deal, Swofford said, “The simple answer is yes. We expect to do better than our schools staying even.”

Officials representing ACC schools wouldn’t say exactly how much more money they expect, but industry executives suggest that the ACC’s new contract could increase in value by as much as $2 million per school per year, which would make the overall conference deal worth nearly $210 million a year.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx

This is probably pretty accurate.  In the end they will likely get about $2M more per school, but in return grant ESPN/ABC additional Television rights.  Ultimately, it will be a financial wash, but guaranteed as opposed to relying on the secondary markets for the additional TV rights.

[ATL MU Warrior]

"When was the last time housing prices went down?"
-MBS ratings analyst, 2007

Funny, but not the same at all. 

As the broadcast networks continue to falter in Primetime the rush of advertiser dollars into programming that attracts a sizable, engaged (and live) audience will continue.  As long as the advertiser money is there, the networks will bid up the prices to have the rights to air the programming. 

And barring a total economic collapse, the advertiser money will continue to flow.

[brewcity77]

Funny, but not the same at all. 

As the broadcast networks continue to falter in Primetime the rush of advertiser dollars into programming that attracts a sizable, engaged (and live) audience will continue.  As long as the advertiser money is there, the networks will bid up the prices to have the rights to air the programming. 

And barring a total economic collapse, the advertiser money will continue to flow.

+1

DVR is the game-changer. As an advertiser, would you rather put money into a primetime drama that people will fast-forward or a sports event that people will watch live? I'm a little surprised that the providers haven't altered programming to have one non-skippable commercial at DVR breaks like networks do with website rebroadcasts.