How Big 12, Big East may have committed suicide

[Benny B]

http://tinyurl.com/27asoq3

Interesting take by Dan Wetzel.  Granted, he's a journalist and is paid to write juicy, investigative stories, but assuming there's a little bit of truth to what he's saying, this whole conference re-alignment issue is about to go nuclear.

Advice to Jim Delaney, The Big Ten, The Pac-10, et al (if there's any truth to what Wetzel is writing):  Round up the best defense lawyers money can buy.  You're about to become the targets of the largest fraud/conspiracy case college sports has ever seen.

[GGGG]

That article is trash for a number of reasons.  The main one being that the Big 12 is a victim of its own unbalanced revenue model.  If they shared money equally, Nebraska would not want out of the conference.  But they don't. 

Furthermore, the idea that a 16 team playoff would save the conferences is false because it doesn't address the underlying revenue issue...conference-based television contracts.  No matter the post season model, the Big Ten is going to make more money than the Big 12 and the BE. 

He does say this:

"Consider the 2008-09 season where Big 12 members Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech all would've been selected. If the seeds held, those clubs would've combined to play nine playoff games meaning the league would've walked with $225 million in revenue."

But he never addresses the underlying issue that THE BIG 12, LARGELY BECAUSE OF TEXAS, DOESN'T SHARE ITS REVENUE EQUALLY!!!  What makes him think that they would even under this scenario? 

Furthermore, do you think that the BCS conferences are going to give up the guaranteed payouts that they get now in favor of a performance based system?

[bilsu]

I have to wonder if in the long run, if it will solve revenue problems. All of a sudden coaches will be paid more and more money will be spent on recruiting. The revenue will be eaten up by an increase in expenses. Which is what happens in all government supported organizations.

[Litehouse]

Wait a minute, I thought UW fans have claimed their athletic department was self-funding.

"The BCS has killed everyone financially. It's killed them to the point only a dozen or so schools break even each year on athletics. Most athletic departments need student fees or taxpayer funded general university budgets to cover expenses (nearly $900 million combined in 2008-09 according to USA Today).

That includes even Big Ten schools such as Illinois ($4.5 million), Wisconsin ($3.4 million) and Minnesota ($3.4 million). Even a powerhouse such as Ohio State needed to raise ticket prices this year to balance future books."

[GGGG]

Wait a minute, I thought UW fans have claimed their athletic department was self-funding.

"The BCS has killed everyone financially. It's killed them to the point only a dozen or so schools break even each year on athletics. Most athletic departments need student fees or taxpayer funded general university budgets to cover expenses (nearly $900 million combined in 2008-09 according to USA Today).

That includes even Big Ten schools such as Illinois ($4.5 million), Wisconsin ($3.4 million) and Minnesota ($3.4 million). Even a powerhouse such as Ohio State needed to raise ticket prices this year to balance future books."

"Self-funded" is a term that means different things to different people.

[GGGG]

I have to wonder if in the long run, if it will solve revenue problems. All of a sudden coaches will be paid more and more money will be spent on recruiting. The revenue will be eaten up by an increase in expenses. Which is what happens in all government supported organizations.

It's an arms race.  They plow money into facilities so they are nicer than their peers...and coaches so they aren't hired away by their peers... 

I am certain that Marquette's athletic department doesn't make much of a profit either these days.

[Benny B]

Furthermore, the idea that a 16 team playoff would save the conferences is false because it doesn't address the underlying revenue issue...conference-based television contracts.  No matter the post season model, the Big Ten is going to make more money than the Big 12 and the BE. 

If I were the Big East or Big Twelve, my issue wouldn't be how much I'm making compared to the Big Ten, it's how much more I could have made under a playoff system without regard to the Big Ten.  Which also begs the question as to whether anyone in Delany's camp perhaps fudged a revenue forecast or two in order to get the BE and B12 to side with him.

Right or wrong... the Big Ten is the new king of the hill and is looking to fortify its position.  Even if they ascended to the summit fair and square, let's not forget the simple objective of that schoolyard game.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I disagree Sultan.  Wetzel knows his stuff and he's on to some very good insights in this article.

[GGGG]

If I were the Big East or Big Twelve, my issue wouldn't be how much I'm making compared to the Big Ten, it's how much more I could have made under a playoff system without regard to the Big Ten. 

I don't think so.  If your athletic program is making $10 million per year, and you could raise it to $15 million, would you be happy if your competitor was still making $20 million.

If it is an arms race, you have to be concerned with what your competitors are making.

[GGGG]

I disagree Sultan.  Wetzel knows his stuff and he's on to some very good insights in this article.

He does make some good points, such as the reallignment being about power.  But by and large I think the idea that somehow Delany was scheming this all along, and that he hoodwinked the poor SEC, to be almost laughable.

Not to mention, he completely glosses over the point that is likely driving Nebraska out of the conference anyway...revenue distribution.  Tom Osborne has been talking about this since his return to UNL, the Big 12 is becoming too Texas-centered.  It controls the way revenue is distributed, and the conference's championship game is going to be located permanently in Dallas.  Every issue that the northern schools have raised have been completely ignored by the conference office, which is also located in Dallas.

That issue will not change under Wentzel's pie-in-the-sky scenarios.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I, too, doubt Delaney was scheming but Delaney as described in the article is fairly dead on.  He's a smart guy, he's pushing the pieces around to benefit him \ his conference, which he is paid to do.  Unfortunately, what's about (or could) happen in the next few weeks is really sad on a number of levels.   There will be a number of impacts, many of which these people haven't even thought about, that not only help some but will bury others.

On that end, sad to see some notable institutions with tremendous histories (Football championships, Heisman Winners, NFL alums, plus the basketball impact) that will be relegated to a 3rd class status.

[GGGG]

I, too, doubt Delaney was scheming but Delaney as described in the article is fairly dead on.  He's a smart guy, he's pushing the pieces around to benefit him \ his conference, which he is paid to do.  Unfortunately, what's about (or could) happen in the next few weeks is really sad on a number of levels.   There will be a number of impacts, many of which these people haven't even thought about, that not only help some but will bury others.

Oh I agree.

When the BTN started and initially had trouble picking up distribution, he was roundly criticized.  Now he's heading the most lucrative conference in the country.

[Litehouse]

I've seen it hinted at here by Chicos, and also some other places, that the status of the BTN as a standard channel by many cable subscribers could change when the current contracts are up.  That the carriers have an option to drop the BTN to a sports tier if viewership numbers don't meet a certain threshhold.  Does Chicos or anyone else have any real info on that?  The Big Ten is currently boasting about all this BTN money, but can they realistically expect to keep that revenue if the BTN is dropped from the basic cable channels to a more expensive package?

If that is the case, I could see the Big Ten having a huge motivation to expand quickly to expand their coverage before some of these contracts with the cable companies are modified.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've seen it hinted at here by Chicos, and also some other places, that the status of the BTN as a standard channel by many cable subscribers could change when the current contracts are up.  That the carriers have an option to drop the BTN to a sports tier if viewership numbers don't meet a certain threshhold.  Does Chicos or anyone else have any real info on that?  The Big Ten is currently boasting about all this BTN money, but can they realistically expect to keep that revenue if the BTN is dropped from the basic cable channels to a more expensive package?

If that is the case, I could see the Big Ten having a huge motivation to expand quickly to expand their coverage before some of these contracts with the cable companies are modified.

There's always going to be a conflict of distributor vs content provider.  If the BTN demands more money (which they will), then the MSO's will push back.  One way to do that is to say "we're still offering BTN" but we don't think our non-sports fans should have to pay.  That plays well to customers who could give a rip about sports.  Of course the BTN (and other sports properties) scream bloody murder at that because it affects their number of eyeballs (which affects dollars they can charge for advertising).  On the flip side, the BTN could be "must have" tv and they threaten to pull it off a distributor which would mean some customers would leave that provider.

We'll see what happens.  Both sides have significant cards to play and they will be played most likely.  It's the nature of the beast.

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

I, too, doubt Delaney was scheming but Delaney as described in the article is fairly dead on.  He's a smart guy, he's pushing the pieces around to benefit him \ his conference, which he is paid to do.  Unfortunately, what's about (or could) happen in the next few weeks is really sad on a number of levels.   There will be a number of impacts, many of which these people haven't even thought about, that not only help some but will bury others.

On that end, sad to see some notable institutions with tremendous histories (Football championships, Heisman Winners, NFL alums, plus the basketball impact) that will be relegated to a 3rd class status.

Chicos, any thoughts about possible political impacts on this process beyond the Texas influence on a possible Baylor invite to a Pac 16?  I've read places that KU and K-State are almost bound by Kansas state law to be in the same conference.  Iowa State is going to probably take this almost worse than Kansas might (given they have neither a prominent football or basketball program), while Iowa will probably vote to invite Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10.  I'm starting to think we may be seeing the pols start jumping into this very soon to protect the interests of their alma-maters.

[TJ]

I, too, doubt Delaney was scheming but Delaney as described in the article is fairly dead on.  He's a smart guy, he's pushing the pieces around to benefit him \ his conference, which he is paid to do.  Unfortunately, what's about (or could) happen in the next few weeks is really sad on a number of levels.   There will be a number of impacts, many of which these people haven't even thought about, that not only help some but will bury others.

On that end, sad to see some notable institutions with tremendous histories (Football championships, Heisman Winners, NFL alums, plus the basketball impact) that will be relegated to a 3rd class status.

I agree.  This whole thing is disgusting me - so much greed and the me-only attitude that these conferences are showing (it would be better if it were at least a me-first attitude).

I understand that you have to look out for #1 and you have to maximize revenue if you're in their position, but do you have to do it without even the slightest regard for what you're doing to everyone else and the future of college sports in general?

Furthermore, do they really think the added revenue will solve all their problems?  The same people are still going to be in charge.  These schools that claim to be operating in the red will be "saved" for a few years while they continue to have to spend more and more to keep up with each other... facilities, skyrocketing coaching salaries, etc.  They're going to be right back in the red in 5-10 years looking for ways to screw everybody else some more so they can make more money to "save" themselves and start the cycle again.

[Litehouse]

I keep thinking that if the big football conferences continue down this path of consolidating power, that they're going to start alienating a lot of the casual fans that didn't actually attend one of these schools.  As more schools are left behind, those fans aren't going to transfer their interest to the other teams that just screwed them over.  As fewer people are interested in college athletics, they are going to shrink the big pot of money they think they can get.  I could see the only winner being pro sports, as the more casual fans start following the NFL and NBA more closely while college sports become glorified minor leagues.

[Benny B]

I keep thinking that if the big football conferences continue down this path of consolidating power, that they're going to start alienating a lot of the casual fans that didn't actually attend one of these schools.  As more schools are left behind, those fans aren't going to transfer their interest to the other teams that just screwed them over.  As fewer people are interested in college athletics, they are going to shrink the big pot of money they think they can get.  I could see the only winner being pro sports, as the more casual fans start following the NFL and NBA more closely while college sports become glorified minor leagues.

Take MU as a case study:  Sure, a few of us cheer for a particular college football team, some are diehard fans of a college football team back home, but many don't give a rip about college football at all for obvious reasons.

Now, analogize these feelings of apathy to an alum of an "BCS" institution with a football team who is "left behind":  Apathy is to MU football (that never existed during most of our lifetimes) as ___________ is to [insert college] football whose tradition and identity was taken away.

Think Warriors...  If MU was never adopted the Warrior nickname to begin with, none of us would care today.  But the fact is that we had it, we identified with it, and it was taken away.  While some of us have moved on, there remains a contingent who still harbor angst and resentment .  The Big Ten and Pac-10 are definitely not going to see a windfall of fans of teams that are excluded from the super-conferences, and once (insert college) fans are clued into why their team was left behind, you better believe that they are going to be calling their cable companies asking for the BTN to be removed or placed on a sports tier.

So expanding the Big Ten conference does not necessarily assure increased revenues... if their efforts alienate the wrong people, they lose all of their leverage in cable negotiations.  Delaney may be a "smart" man, but even the smartest person can be blinded by and fall victim to greed.

[HoopsMalone]

Take MU as a case study:  Sure, a few of us cheer for a particular college football team, some are diehard fans of a college football team back home, but many don't give a rip about college football at all for obvious reasons.

Now, analogize these feelings of apathy to an alum of an "BCS" institution with a football team who is "left behind":  Apathy is to MU football (that never existed during most of our lifetimes) as ___________ is to [insert college] football whose tradition and identity was taken away.

Think Warriors...  If MU was never adopted the Warrior nickname to begin with, none of us would care today.  But the fact is that we had it, we identified with it, and it was taken away.  While some of us have moved on, there remains a contingent who still harbor angst and resentment .  The Big Ten and Pac-10 are definitely not going to see a windfall of fans of teams that are excluded from the super-conferences, and once (insert college) fans are clued into why their team was left behind, you better believe that they are going to be calling their cable companies asking for the BTN to be removed or placed on a sports tier.

So expanding the Big Ten conference does not necessarily assure increased revenues... if their efforts alienate the wrong people, they lose all of their leverage in cable negotiations.  Delaney may be a "smart" man, but even the smartest person can be blinded by and fall victim to greed.

I agree that the conferences could be looking at short term profit gains from entering new markets over longer term success.  It has been talked about a little on the board before, but the middle of the conference becomes very much less meaningful and the bottom might as well not exist.

For example, if Notre Dame, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan are all in the same football conference, what does that do to the hopes of even our instate friends who cheer for the Badgers?  I mean, with the tradition and money at those five schools, what are the odds than any school but one of those five win the Big Ten?  At least now the hurdle is there with Ohio State and Penn State, but add a big money school like Notre Dame who gets top recruits and the middle teams are toast in the Big Ten.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wetzel was on with Dan Patrick this morning.  I thought his points were well stated.  He may ultimately be wrong, but his logic and arguments support his thesis.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, any thoughts about possible political impacts on this process beyond the Texas influence on a possible Baylor invite to a Pac 16?  I've read places that KU and K-State are almost bound by Kansas state law to be in the same conference.  Iowa State is going to probably take this almost worse than Kansas might (given they have neither a prominent football or basketball program), while Iowa will probably vote to invite Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10.  I'm starting to think we may be seeing the pols start jumping into this very soon to protect the interests of their alma-maters.

Oh, I'm sure the pols are working it hard already in the background.  My time at KU I don't recall both of those schools having to be paired together, but you could be right. 

What a mess.  Shows how little power the NCAA has because they cannot stop any of this (nor does their charter allow them too)

Former President Theodore Roosevelt is likely cringing at all of this.  (Teddy was responsible for getting the parties together to start the NCAA in 1906)

[GGGG]

I keep thinking that if the big football conferences continue down this path of consolidating power, that they're going to start alienating a lot of the casual fans that didn't actually attend one of these schools.  As more schools are left behind, those fans aren't going to transfer their interest to the other teams that just screwed them over.  As fewer people are interested in college athletics, they are going to shrink the big pot of money they think they can get.  I could see the only winner being pro sports, as the more casual fans start following the NFL and NBA more closely while college sports become glorified minor leagues.

The marketplace seems to disagree with you.  Over the course of the last 20 years, the interest in college football has grown tremendously..and has done so at the highest of levels....the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, etc.  Yeah, you can catch a South Florida game on a Thursday night, but the ratings are the highest for the marqee games that are played on a Saturday afternoon and evening.

Honestly, if you have four, 16 team superconferences, you are covering 98% of the teams fans really care about...especially the casual fan.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, any thoughts about possible political impacts on this process beyond the Texas influence on a possible Baylor invite to a Pac 16?  I've read places that KU and K-State are almost bound by Kansas state law to be in the same conference.  Iowa State is going to probably take this almost worse than Kansas might (given they have neither a prominent football or basketball program), while Iowa will probably vote to invite Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10.  I'm starting to think we may be seeing the pols start jumping into this very soon to protect the interests of their alma-maters.

TCTB, here's your answer from an article that came out today:

"but the Jayhawks face a mobility issue. They aren't legally bound to stick with Kansas State -- a Kansas board of regents member said as much this week -- but they're "unofficially" bound with the Wildcats due to political pressure. (Martin said that it would be "a crying shame" to separate the two schools, because he feels they co-represent the state.)"