What happens if the PAC, B1G & ACC form an alliance and the SEC decides to cut a deal with the ACC to form one , undercutting the deal the AC had with PAC & B1G.
B1G, Pac12, ACC in Discussions about Forming Alliance
- Thread starter gregkoko
- Start date
That’s the point of why this is a bad idea.
This alliance stops everything at a point when the B1G has power and the SEC needs to concentrate on getting Texas and OU incorporated as soon as possible, and just kicks the can down the road to a time when the SEC is ready to raid the PAC12 and the B1G has less power because they are locked into TV deals instead of heading to the open market.
The B1G right now is the Confederate Army on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg, and the PAC12 is Little Round Top.
The end game will be that the SEC takes who they want from the AAC and we take who we want from the PAC. It's not a matter of if, but when. Folks might try to call it a merger, but the schools left on the outside looking in won't call it an alliance or a merger. Just ask the Big12.
That is a big one since the TV contract is where most of their money comes from. Also they literally were being guided by ESPN when they lasted added schools.
I am sure there have been plenty of conversations happening via back channel outreaches from all sides. Publicly, it can only really be discussed as the school reaching out to the conference, but be assured, it is happening from all sides. It is just a matter of who acts next and what that looks like. But there will be more movement. And I hope the B1G is involved in that and we are not watching the SEC have its pick again of what's left out there.
ESPN yields a lot of power here. They have the ACC's rights long term at under market value. And they also control the most valuable property in the SEC. That is why people are so pissed the SEC and ESPN essentially colluded to hand deliver the new CFB playoffs to ESPN by not being transparent while yielding influence while decisions were made. Really dick move at best. If ESPN freezes out Fox, Fox may lose interest in the B1G deals, among others, and then ESPN has completed its monopoly. I do see value in an alliance as a voting block against ESPN and the CFB. But beyond that, alliances are too little and won't accomplish much. Need to take the best of the Pac 12 in the near future.
Their TV contract is something they want to get out of. If they put it out to bid right now they would make a lot more than ESPN is paying now. And the time when ESPN was guiding them in raiding was a long time ago. That's ancient history. Now ESPN is screwing them over, and there is nothing I have seen that indicates ESPN has any special influence over ACC decision making at this point. In fact the ACC is probably pissed at ESPN.
The best way for the B1G to knock ESPN down a peg, in addition to taking PAC 12 teams and ruining their single superconference idea, is to bring a streaming company like Amazon in for part of the B1G content.
I'm taking UW. Don't care about the others they don't make enough money or have the academic cred to run with the Big Ten. SEC doesn't want anyone that's not going to increase their TV contracts either. It's not about cable territories anymore it's about actual fans who will pay for streaming. UCLA, Arizona, Colorado, and Cal don't make the cut for money. ASU not AAU goodbye. And do you really think Stanford and Cal want to play in the SEC? Not a chance.
Stanford, Cal and Colorado have brought in way more money than Rutgers overall, Yes, Rutgers has the NYC region, but as far as the money connections these schools have quite a bit more than Rutgers when it comes to supporting their programs. Plus all are in markets with deep pockets. Also, for streaming - these programs have more eyeballs for those too. As for cable v. cord cutters, that battle is far from over. The cable companies know what they are doing vs the streaming services. Even the streaming services are putting regional restrictions in place. Bottom line, only a fool would not lock up all the PAC 12 schools in CA and AZ and leave Colorado as available. If the SEC is smart, they walk into those markets too (Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas all recruit Northern Cal well and would be smart to secure presense for that talent.
Nice article by Andy Staples on why those conferences might try for an alliance and how the hunt for premium television product will drive this round of realignment. Spoke to an industry source who has dealt with tv contracts and the cutline that the networks see as meter moving at it was drawing an audience of about 4 million. He did some research of ratings that hit that mark from 2015-2019 didn't include last year cause of pandemic. 58 games interconference/independent games drew that (including all 5 Army/Navy games), 55 SEC only games, 49 B10 only games, 13 ACC only games, 12 B12 only games and 45 PAC12 only games, 1 AAC only game. You can see the big drop off after the SEC/B10.
So Texas, which actually only had 8 (4M club games) in that period quite a bit behind others (including A&M at 11), and OU will help SEC with more 4M club games so for the B10 to try to keep up with that partnering up with the ACC/PAC12 can bring more 4M club games into the fold. Having interconference matchups could also be seen as being as less stale. It would help all 3 conferences garner more 4M club games also.
Good test can be seen this year with Washington visiting Michigan and Oregon visiting OSU in week 2. NDs 4 games with USC/Stanford outdrew the 5 4M club games with only PAC12 schools so can see why they need the added juice badly. Anything that adds to a conference's 4M club inventory can provide extra financial boost.
So Texas, which actually only had 8 (4M club games) in that period quite a bit behind others (including A&M at 11), and OU will help SEC with more 4M club games so for the B10 to try to keep up with that partnering up with the ACC/PAC12 can bring more 4M club games into the fold. Having interconference matchups could also be seen as being as less stale. It would help all 3 conferences garner more 4M club games also.
Good test can be seen this year with Washington visiting Michigan and Oregon visiting OSU in week 2. NDs 4 games with USC/Stanford outdrew the 5 4M club games with only PAC12 schools so can see why they need the added juice badly. Anything that adds to a conference's 4M club inventory can provide extra financial boost.
Last edited:
Andy Staples podcast with reference to the article he wrote regarding ratings for premium games by conference, realignment etc...Mentioned how it's kind of the B10 helping out the other 2 more than they need it themselves but would help them keep up with the SEC for number of premium 4M club games. Also mentioned how the B10 is in line for a big contract this next go around regardless (which is something I've always mentioned) and that not only Fox, ESPN but CBS, NBC are also looking to get involved with B10 rights. (good to hear if true). Negotiations would probably take place in the coming months as the contract runs out after next year. Also mention how we're probably heading towards better quality of games overall in the sense that over time you're likely to see more power conference power conference games cause that's what people want to see. He mentioned as many as 11. I guess that would kind of suck for the smaller schools that make their budgets on from taking a beating though.
I was thinking if it's seen as the B10 helping out the ACC and especially the PAC12, the way to get some equity back in the other direction would be to maybe have 2 for 1 with the B10 schools rather than 1 for 1. Now that doesn't necessarily mean 2 for 1 school to school but more on the conference level. Like for example say USC visited OSU and PSU and then in return Michigan visits USC....so 2 for 1 on the conference level. So everyone is increasing their quality of games and opportunity for 4M club games but the B10 a little more so for being the one helping to lift the other 2 up.
Talk about this stuff starts around 4:30 ends at 41:24
Couple of Articles on PAC-12 perspective on expansion.
PAC-12 Needs to Keep USC Happy
Paths to How PAC-12 Could Break
They are behind paywalls, but some have access via Apple News and other ways.
PAC-12 Needs to Keep USC Happy
Paths to How PAC-12 Could Break
They are behind paywalls, but some have access via Apple News and other ways.
Did Rutgers appear on the list of games in the 4m club?
Our last several seasons have been our worst for ratings based on our team being lousy under Ash, so probably not, but when we’re competitive we get good ratings.
Our last several seasons have been our worst for ratings based on our team being lousy under Ash, so probably not, but when we’re competitive we get good ratings.
Why partner and water down our product. If we’re looking for a dance, why not ask the prettiest girl in the room (SEC), thereby making our games that much more attractive.
Then you take the cream of the crop PAC and ACC teams and Notre Dame when their contracts are up and control access to the product. We should be aiming to create a league consisting of the most popular teams and largest audiences. Then you can maximize your revenue through streaming, tv contracts and/or regional networks.
Then you take the cream of the crop PAC and ACC teams and Notre Dame when their contracts are up and control access to the product. We should be aiming to create a league consisting of the most popular teams and largest audiences. Then you can maximize your revenue through streaming, tv contracts and/or regional networks.
Didn’t get mentioned so don’t think so but funny enough Oregon State did but not because of them…it was against Michigan and Harbaugh’s home debut.
You know thinking about it there's actually another useful purpose in the alliance for the B10. Say okay don't expand now before this next upcoming contract it's going to be big numbers regardless as I've said.
But if you have all these interconference games with B10 schools then over the course of this next contract you've suddenly got real practical info on which teams give you the best ratings and also 4M club games when playing big ten schools. Right now you can assume which ones might but you really can't say for sure especially if you go a little bit down the food chain. So with that practical ratings info in hand for the contract after this one, you'd know exactly which teams would bring the most value to the B10 if a decision for expansion came at that time. There would be no guessing.
But if you have all these interconference games with B10 schools then over the course of this next contract you've suddenly got real practical info on which teams give you the best ratings and also 4M club games when playing big ten schools. Right now you can assume which ones might but you really can't say for sure especially if you go a little bit down the food chain. So with that practical ratings info in hand for the contract after this one, you'd know exactly which teams would bring the most value to the B10 if a decision for expansion came at that time. There would be no guessing.
Different game today. Rutgers got in for three reasons, AAU, top 100 school, and ability to get Big Ten network on NY cable. Now with cable cutting, that's no longer the path. Rutgers would not get in today. You need more than geographic location. You need demonstrable numbers of fans who will pay for streaming to make a big difference on a TV contract. Stanford, Cal and Colorado simply don't have it. They do not make the group of schools who can pay for themselves by increasing a TV contract. If they could the PAC 12 wouldn't have such a lousy TV contract. USC, Washington, and Oregon are the only ones. Anyone else merely results in smaller pieces of pie for everyone. SEC can have them, they won't make money on them, and they probably wouldn't agree to play in the SEC anyway.
We all love dear Rutgers, but once you take off the Scarlet glasses you realize that as a whole, Rutgers does not have a strong numerical fan base. Our fans are rabid, but attendance tells you all you need to know about the numbers. If streaming is all that mattered and you want to maximize B1G revenue? Dump Rutgers from the B1G and add USC, Oregon and Washington.
As for depth of fans, Stanford / Cal fans are as big, and likely bigger than Rutgers on numbers. Not sure where you get your data on Stanford and Cal or on Colorado for that matter relative to Rutgers. You may be seeing old or made up data. Plus, Stanford / Cal is a bigger fan draw than Rutgers / almost anyone else on a regular basis. Same for USC/UCLA, Stanford/USC, and UCLA/Cal.
I linked articles from PAC-12 country above. No question USC is cream of crop. Washington, Oregon may be next. However, UCLA, Stanford, Cal and the Arizona schools have strong followings too. PAC-12 has some strong assets, markets, and talent areas. Scott, the PAC-12 prior commish, miscalculated badly on their media and GOR strategy. On the plus side that deal is coming to an end. Also, their new commish in much more in tune with things and is politically savvy. He knows the keys are USC followed by Oregon/Washington. Delaney knew the same about Ohio St. / Michigan. Get the key assets on board and all else falls in place. New commish is more like Delaney where Scott was more like new B1G commish Warren. That should be of concern to the B1G.
Last edited:
Yes, now that conference cable networks are mature the main reason for adding Rutgers (wanting to get higher carriage fees for your otherwise successful conference cable network in the hugely populous area Rutgers is in) no longer applies.
However, people acting like Rutgers is no longer incredibly lucrative for the B1G are mistaken and overstating cord cutting. Even with all of the publicity the people cutting the cord and moving to streaming get, the big money is still in cable carriage fees until a lot more people move. For example, the number of households that have ESPN on cable is still almost 80% of the all time high. If the B1G didn’t already have Rutgers it would still be worth it to them to add Rutgers today.
However, now that the conferences have their cable networks out there, I agree that future adds will be more about the brand of the school than anything else.
The B1G shouldn't be focused on helping out the other conferences, but rather on doing what it best for the B1G itself. Read Sankey's comments on the SEC's recent moves. He basically said they did what they had to do, no different than what other conferences have done over the past 10+ years, and they have no remorse. He is spot on, and I hope Warren and the B1G have a similar set of balls. This alliance talk doesn't really accomplish very much.
Agree with the idea that you still have to do what’s in the best interest of your conference and that was actually mentioned in the podcast too.
All depends on the numbers from the networks. The money is there for the 14 teams of the B10 in the next contract. I don’t assume that the money is there for 18-20 teams of an expanded B10 at present. It may or may not be. I’ve advocated for expansion west and then east in the future right from the release of this news but I don’t assume everything is all lined up for that currently. There’s no way to know.
Like I said above though a scheduling alliance can serve a purpose in regards to expansion anyway for the tv contract after the next one. In the meantime you can try to create more desirable games especially 4M club ones. Then after if expanding is deemed appropriate you’ve got a whole bunch of real practical data of which teams gave the best ratings when playing B10 schools and provide the most value to the conference. That’s especially useful for vetting schools not named USC. The networks will have seen it too. The data will also include ACC teams and you’ll be that much closer to the their GOR ending as well.
Your last sentence is the whole point why this alliance idea is bad and another strike against Warren if it happens.
The B1G has the power right now. The only contracts coming to market are the B1G, PAC12 (who has no power for several reasons), and what’s left of the B12.
Forming an alliance until the ACC contract ends is just kicking the can down the road and wasting the B1G’s power. They should be looking west for expansion teams now, and deal with the ACC later. Theidea that they are playing nice while the SEC is being cutthroat is just dumb,
Indeed it is!
I wonder how everyone would react if USC and Notre Dame announce they are moving to the SEC in 2025 as well?
Didn’t see Texass and Oklahoma making the move did you? What makes any of us think that USC and ND couldn’t do the same thing?
Then what?
What's going to change at that time. They will still have the power really. PAC12, ACC still won't be in that much better a position comparatively to the B10. It's inherent in the make up and profile of the schools in the conferences. That won't change at that time.
ND joining the ACC is the only thing that might stabilize them. B10 acting now or not won't change that fact. I've always said something will happen at the time of the ACCs GOR expiration, possibly ND joining, but B10 acting now or not has no bearing on that. The B10 will probably have another contract renewal, maybe even 2 lol, before the ACC gets out of this one. So IF and I say IF ACC teams really want to leave the opportunity will still be there are that time and you might be a handful of years out just like Texas/OU now. From the B10's point of view, you'll also have real world ratings data of all the teams from both the PAC12/ACC and how they did when playing B10 schools which will be very informative in figuring which teams provide most value, especially down the food chain. Regardless, the power dynamic doesn't change really. The SEC and B10 will still be the top 2 conferences.
Last edited:
That's not happening for either of them. If ND joins anyone it'll be the ACC or B10. For USC it'll be stay put or the B10. Texas/OU actually fit the SEC profile as far as football is concerned and geography too for that matter. People think the B10 missed a shot but I'm not so sure the B10 would have been their first choice over the SEC anyway
Exactly. Which is why all the 'Pac 12 are our friends' talk is dumb. Texas and Oklahoma were great friends with the other members of the Big 12. And how did that work out for them? On the list of important factors in realignment, friendship comes in somewhere between 'doesn't matter' and 'no longer relevant'. The B1G is in a position of power now. Who knows if that will still be the case in 10-15 years. Why allow everyone else a window to mobilize and strengthen their own positions? We need to act in the near future, and act decisively and in the best interests of the conference, and nothing else. The SEC gets this. Not sure anyone else does yet, and they might not, until it is too late.
Last edited:
Exactly. And then it is too late and the B1G is left scrambling. But wait, we had such an exciting alliance planned.....
I think that is where you have it completely wrong. Schools know there would be a limited amount of spots in the single superconference ESPN is trying to build. At a certain point the pressure to make sure you don’t end up on the outside looking in will become too much for some schools and they will entertain joining the SEC.
The time to kill the idea is NOW, before the SEC can make another move to increase that pressure.
I don't think anything changes if a big conference of say 32 schools happened. If you're a brand name like USC, OSU, Michigan, you'll always be included and if you're the SEC that 32 school conference isn't going to include the likes of Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky etc..either. They would have to be jettisoned.
People make the mistake that IF and I say IF one big conference happened that everyone is joining the SEC, that's not what would happen. Everyone, including the SEC would bet jettisoning the dead weight. So it affects no one who is a big brand as they will always have a seat at the table (there is no outside looking in for big brands) and would affect anyone who is dead weight and B10 making a move now or not makes no difference to that.
Secondly, I'm not so sure one big conference will ever happen and certainly not any time soon. There's an academic snobbery that's there among admin/presidents of many of these universities and many of them don't want associate with others in the SEC. It's not as if the B10 is in the poverty line either for them to even think about it and it will never be the case where they are 25-35M behind like the ACC, PAC12 are now or soon to be.
I've advocated big moves (cream of both coasts) by the B10 and still do but it all depends on the numbers. Some have too much anxiety over these things to the point of thinking OSU/Michigan would leave to the SEC and on their own no less lol, I mean come on.
It reminds me of when everyone was leaving the BE/AAC and each defection brought deafening levels of panic/fear here. That was actually understandable at least. I said then too, without inside info, our market will likely see us through and timing sometime before the next tv deal but who knows exactly when and in the end it did. That to me was a more worrying situation. The B10 should look at actions to take including expansion but any level of anxiety shouldn't even exist really.
The B10 is going to be fine regardless. The only question is will they be out front and super premium. That is the reason I advocate for expansion, to create a super premium national property overall in sports rights, not that I think the B10 will be left way behind in the dust. Scheduling alliance takes away nothing from that for the time being and can actually bolster it by providing real world hard info on which schools bring the most value.
Like I said if this scheduling alliance comes to fruition make it a 2 for 1 on the conference level (not school to school) in the B10's favor. That way while the ACC/PAC12 are getting a boost, we're getting a bigger boost of quality games and hopefully more 4M club games as well.
Last edited:
I don't dispute that Stanford and Cal have bigger followings than Rutgers. The point is their followings are not large enough to add value to a TV contract. That's what you're looking for, a school that will increase the pie for everyone. A strong following is not enough. None of these schools are top 30 in football revenue. That's what it's probably going to take. Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, Oregon, Washington no-brainers. Most everybody else? Nope.
Here's my source from June 2021. Seems legit to me.
I just dropped my cable and went with streaming with YouTubeTV. I get all the major D1 football sports networks like ACC, BTN and the others. So what's the difference in getting carriage fees from a cable company vs streaming service. Both are sending money to the conferences. Right?
I’ve mentioned that as well before and I would think it would be the same. The question is how many people are doing the same when they “cut the cord” are they sticking exclusively to Netflix, Prime, Disney etc or do they pick up a live streaming service like YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Sling etc…if you’re younger I could see not getting a live streaming service but if you’re older (in my 40s) wonder how many switch over from cable to live steaming service.
You are ignoring the playoff. ESPN is trying to orchestrate an expanded playoff that is dominated by the SEC superconference and turns the other conferences into second class citizens.
The whole increases the value of their SEC control and allows them to continue lessening the number of schools they are paying top dollar for.
That has been their strategy over the last several years even when it comes to their talking head “talent”. Pay big money to people they deem worth it like Greenberg and Stephen A, while cutting the positions of a lot of people that in their eyes don’t have a big enough brand (even if they are good at their job).
i use the firestick and dowload apps to get everything so I get it all free however, I pay sling to get sports but finding sling is not very good so will look for another service. If I could only pay for BTN I would but I need that and YES
Yea but that's never a worry for the B10 because they have enough big brands and followings, that's a worry of the ACC and PAC12. Like I said the power dynamic doesn't change with regards to these 3 because it's just inherent in the individual conferences' make up.
As far the playoff, I've read this from a couple reporters, didn't verify though, but with proposed rules that came out a couple months ago and expansion to 12 the B10 not the SEC would have had the most teams qualify over these last whatever many years. So even when people say limit the number teams per conference that can get in, they do it with the intention of limiting the SEC, but if what those reporters said is true, it could actually hurt the B10 too.
IMO expansion isn't about survival of the B10 which is what I feel some of you think, it's about being out front and creating a super premium sports property. A scheduling alliance actually isn't antithetical to that idea for the near term and can actually help it come to fruition when you have the hard data to decide which teams add the most value when playing B10 schools. It can be like trial period or audition for some of them so to speak on the way to expansion. Since it's seen as the B10 lending a hand to weaker conferences then make it 2 for 1 on the conference level and everyone is benefitting to the proportion they should and if expansion is deemed appropriate in the future you know exactly the schools to add.
Same boat as you. But I use AT&T Now as my streaming service to get YES. Pretty sure it's the only one that carries yes. Plus it has all the other sports channels I need.
Cutting the cord still make sense. When I add up my costs for AT&T Now, Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc plus internet it's still ~$100 less monthly than what I used to pay Comcast.
I switched from FIOS tv to YouTube TV. It's fine for the most part. User friendliness compared to a cable box is a little lacking (last channel navigation or going directly to a channel etc..) but it's not a deal breaker. No more cable box rentals which is the main reason for the switch. On one tv I have the ethernet cable hardwired to an Apple TV and channel changing is instantaneous no different than a cable box. On the other tvs it's wireless through firesticks or cube. There you have a minimal buffering with changing channels but not a big deal. If you have a cube don't hardwire it, it limits the speed coming through (100 mbps which is still plenty mind you) which I didn't realize at first. Wireless was actually faster than hardwire as far as a fire cube is concerned...go figure lol.
I think that you have to consider what Rutgers could and hopefully will become - the first Big 10 football powerhouse in the New York media market. No one has ever seen what the result of that would be. Smart business people don’t look at how things are right now - they can envision what the future will look like. Insert Wayne Gretzky quote here.
Scarlet Jerry