We see certain people say that KU isn't worth the 55million payout for the big ten and they wouldn't increase the TV deal. I don't necessarily agree because I see a bigger picture in play with this entire realignment issue. Part of it includes basketball becoming more relevant, lucrative and enough to move the needle (long-term) but still not near level of football. I also buy that B1G is confident in its football but values basketball more than the SEC and values adding a blue-blood and the marquee matchups Kansas would bring and increase revenue during winter sports. ESPN knows the value of KU Basketball during a slower money making time. Which brings me to the point of this thread. KU basketball will make the individuals school more money during the season where money is harder to come-by.
The networks are driving this.
I think we can all unanimously agree football has been the driver and that the networks are behind this entire realignment situation. We can disagree on how much but I would say the networks are behind this enough that they essentially have the ultimate sway. Boston College AD was quoted "ESPN told us who to add" when referencing Syracuse and Pitt. We have evidence. Nobody in their right mind believes the SEC, ESPN, UT and OU did NOT collaborate. They obviously did but will never admit it.
I think people when talking about adding schools like Kansas are over looking what they networks will pay these conferences in the future. Ill play along. Say Kansas isnt worth the 55 million. Couldnt it be that the networks are pushing realignment themselves and are saying if you want more money then "Hey Big Ten, you add Kansas and team B. If you do we will increase your yearly payout that doesnt lessen any schools payout by adding KU and team B." Now why would the networks or ESPN do this? This is where I need peoples help. Would it be in ESPN's best interest to pay the Big Ten more and include Kansas than it would to pay the big ten more during the next negotiations (Which is upcoming) AND continue to pay the Big 12 through 2025 AND eventually continue to pay the big 12 beyond 2025 that includes the remaining 8 schools and say Cinnci, Houston, UCF and Memphis. Isnt it in the best interest of ESPN to have the big 12 dissolve sooner than later but most definetly by 2025 in order to not have to pay that entire league which will ultimately not bring back the value of what they pay?
I know ESPN isnt the only network in play. FOX is as well. My point is; isnt it in ESPN/FOX best interest to pay more money to the big ten and not pay the big 12 at all. Pay more money to the PAC by adding TTU, OSU and some combination of two of UH, KSU, ISU, BAY or TCU and not pay the big 12. You then are only paying 4 major leagues and have the 4 biggest conferences monopolized. It separates the haves and have nots even further.
Long story short: 4 bigger conferences probably brings back more value than 5 conference in which 3/5 dont bring back the value (PAC, BIG 12 and ACC). Beef up the leagues slightly and not pay 1 entirely worthless league (big 12) as far as TV money is concerned.
Football is the driver but if that is the case then why were Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri and Colorado moved. Yes some of the markets are huge but just because the market is huge doesnt mean people watch the game. Is there really that many people watching Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt and Maryland? This where I believe KU and KU basketball in particular have more value. No doubt OU and UT are more valuable but is those average football and basketball programs really worth more than KU. ESPN knowns the value of KU basketball.
What if the networks end game is to have 4 major conferences? What makes the most money? Big time matchups and playoffs. How do you do that? Consolidate leagues to have bigger matchups but not too much to where you have to many big time programs (hence why FSU/CLEM or USC leaving makes no sense) who will ultimately fail because someone has to lose.
4 leagues for football makes the playoffs so much easier. You have a 12 team playoff where the 2 best teams from each conference make it (EVERYONE IS HAPPY). Then the remaining 4 spots comes from G-5 and at large P4 bids. That will have everyone around the country watching the playoff and it will have all 4 conferences happy because they have a minimum of 2 teams in the playoff. More playoff games equals more money and interest.
This part is pure speculation but I have to think this is being considered. Basketball has more value overtime if you get rid of the NCAA or reduce the NCAA's payout on the NCAA tourney. The NCAA makes hundreds of millions on the tourney and a lot of it never is seen by the schools. Create a new governing body that doesnt require the payment the NCAA does and then the universities profit more from the tourney. You could still have lesser conferences compete because you are reducing the payout. ESPN has enough networks to run the basketball tourney or they partner with someone like FOX to do it.
A lot of this is speculation but to summarize my point: It may be in the networks best interest to tell the big ten to add Kansas and we will pay you more money than you are already getting because we save money by not paying the worthless big 12 hundreds of millions when the return on investment wont be there.
The networks are driving this.
I think we can all unanimously agree football has been the driver and that the networks are behind this entire realignment situation. We can disagree on how much but I would say the networks are behind this enough that they essentially have the ultimate sway. Boston College AD was quoted "ESPN told us who to add" when referencing Syracuse and Pitt. We have evidence. Nobody in their right mind believes the SEC, ESPN, UT and OU did NOT collaborate. They obviously did but will never admit it.
I think people when talking about adding schools like Kansas are over looking what they networks will pay these conferences in the future. Ill play along. Say Kansas isnt worth the 55 million. Couldnt it be that the networks are pushing realignment themselves and are saying if you want more money then "Hey Big Ten, you add Kansas and team B. If you do we will increase your yearly payout that doesnt lessen any schools payout by adding KU and team B." Now why would the networks or ESPN do this? This is where I need peoples help. Would it be in ESPN's best interest to pay the Big Ten more and include Kansas than it would to pay the big ten more during the next negotiations (Which is upcoming) AND continue to pay the Big 12 through 2025 AND eventually continue to pay the big 12 beyond 2025 that includes the remaining 8 schools and say Cinnci, Houston, UCF and Memphis. Isnt it in the best interest of ESPN to have the big 12 dissolve sooner than later but most definetly by 2025 in order to not have to pay that entire league which will ultimately not bring back the value of what they pay?
I know ESPN isnt the only network in play. FOX is as well. My point is; isnt it in ESPN/FOX best interest to pay more money to the big ten and not pay the big 12 at all. Pay more money to the PAC by adding TTU, OSU and some combination of two of UH, KSU, ISU, BAY or TCU and not pay the big 12. You then are only paying 4 major leagues and have the 4 biggest conferences monopolized. It separates the haves and have nots even further.
Long story short: 4 bigger conferences probably brings back more value than 5 conference in which 3/5 dont bring back the value (PAC, BIG 12 and ACC). Beef up the leagues slightly and not pay 1 entirely worthless league (big 12) as far as TV money is concerned.
Football is the driver but if that is the case then why were Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri and Colorado moved. Yes some of the markets are huge but just because the market is huge doesnt mean people watch the game. Is there really that many people watching Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt and Maryland? This where I believe KU and KU basketball in particular have more value. No doubt OU and UT are more valuable but is those average football and basketball programs really worth more than KU. ESPN knowns the value of KU basketball.
What if the networks end game is to have 4 major conferences? What makes the most money? Big time matchups and playoffs. How do you do that? Consolidate leagues to have bigger matchups but not too much to where you have to many big time programs (hence why FSU/CLEM or USC leaving makes no sense) who will ultimately fail because someone has to lose.
4 leagues for football makes the playoffs so much easier. You have a 12 team playoff where the 2 best teams from each conference make it (EVERYONE IS HAPPY). Then the remaining 4 spots comes from G-5 and at large P4 bids. That will have everyone around the country watching the playoff and it will have all 4 conferences happy because they have a minimum of 2 teams in the playoff. More playoff games equals more money and interest.
This part is pure speculation but I have to think this is being considered. Basketball has more value overtime if you get rid of the NCAA or reduce the NCAA's payout on the NCAA tourney. The NCAA makes hundreds of millions on the tourney and a lot of it never is seen by the schools. Create a new governing body that doesnt require the payment the NCAA does and then the universities profit more from the tourney. You could still have lesser conferences compete because you are reducing the payout. ESPN has enough networks to run the basketball tourney or they partner with someone like FOX to do it.
A lot of this is speculation but to summarize my point: It may be in the networks best interest to tell the big ten to add Kansas and we will pay you more money than you are already getting because we save money by not paying the worthless big 12 hundreds of millions when the return on investment wont be there.
