Does The Big 12 Expand In The Next Two Years ?

[MiamiBuffs]

I think you'll have a mix.

I'd probably build my own channel lineup to include sports stations.

A lot of folks won't, though. And that means that just like the big boxing matches on PPV that make ridiculous amounts of money, we'll start seeing PPV revenue for a lot of big games and elite programs being something that moves the needle.

As a benefit to fans, this new dynamic of media being king will drive better matchups because individual stream will be so valuable. We won't be seeing 3 or 4 cupcakes on the non-conference schedules as this develops. That's going to kill the low end of the D1 conferences.

Revenue model of:

1. How many subscribers at what rate can you get for PACN?
2. How valuable are Pac-12 feature games to ESPN/FOX to drive their subscriptions?
3. What programs and matchups will drive the PPV streaming of Pac-12 games?

PPV destroys the free marketing a school or a sport gets. Since boxing went PPV when I was a kid I stopped watching it. Other sports, the ones that remain free on live TV, will eventually take the place of football amongst youths. I dont at all like the PPV concept.

I think some conferences will simply continue to negotiate TV deals with the three major (free over the air) networks.
I think ESPN will lose some clout because they will not have the eyeballs and subsequent TV ad revenue so they will scale back their contracts.
I think conference specific PPV will work as a tier 2 offering like the P12Net does. I see other schools perhaps following that direct model.
I think you'll see conference networks reach rebroadcast agreements with each other.
Its possible that ESPN and others will simply make everything free on the www in order to keep eyes on their channel and maintain their ad rates (which is much bigger than that $5 per subscriber they get).
In essence, content direct delivery is probably the future over the WWW where middle men like DTV, Dish, and Comcast lose out.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Every demo subsidizes the other. It's why the system has worked. Will the rate card of ESPN and the like end up killing the golden goose? Maybe. The more people who cut the chord, the faster we'll see another model where providers still get their money. Interesting times

From phone

I'll have 1Gbps fiber in my neighborhood before tax day next year. $50 a month. How long before Im inundated with streaming options from other than DTV, Dish, Comcast? Will the city (isp) add a bundle? Will a company come along and partner with them to add a bundle? The sands are shifting...

 

[MtnBuff]

There is definitely a law of diminshing returns. However, there is also a contraction of sorts taking place in college football as we speak. In another 10 years, there will be 65 teams that get televised, maybe 66 if you throw BYU into the mix. Nobody is going to cover a game between Tulsa and Memphis.

They will still cover that game between Tulsa and Memphis, the difference will be that there will be many fewer persons with the ability to turn it on who don't. It will be a part of a package that is purchased by that smaller subset of viewers who are willing to pay for a sports package that includes the second and third level games, the rest won't be paying for the unused ability to see it.

The result of this will be that while the pro sports and upper level college sports that drive viewership to a point that people are willing to pay for them will continue to see high revenues those schools that don't move that needle much will see even lower revenues than they currently do.

What will keep them on TV is the fact that technology continues to make increased bandwidth cheaper and production cost lower.

 

[hokiehead]

They will still cover that game between Tulsa and Memphis, the difference will be that there will be many fewer persons with the ability to turn it on who don't. It will be a part of a package that is purchased by that smaller subset of viewers who are willing to pay for a sports package that includes the second and third level games, the rest won't be paying for the unused ability to see it.

The result of this will be that while the pro sports and upper level college sports that drive viewership to a point that people are willing to pay for them will continue to see high revenues those schools that don't move that needle much will see even lower revenues than they currently do.

What will keep them on TV is the fact that technology continues to make increased bandwidth cheaper and production cost lower.

you could be right, but I'm not sure, for two reasons:
- I don't follow sports media the way I did 10 years ago, but I recall a teams/sports paying networks to show their games (LPGA is the only example I could find with a single google search). I could envision scenarios where the mid-major conferences end up paying to have their FB and BB games on some network.
- local TV content generally sucks. If nobody else wants the rights, I suspect that Tulsa/Memphis matchup may be a more attractive viewing option in their respective markets than re-runs of Full House. why wouldn't the local channels broadcast it?

 

[MtnBuff]

you could be right, but I'm not sure, for two reasons:
- I don't follow sports media the way I did 10 years ago, but I recall a teams/sports paying networks to show their games (LPGA is the only example I could find with a single google search). I could envision scenarios where the mid-major conferences end up paying to have their FB and BB games on some network.
- local TV content generally sucks. If nobody else wants the rights, I suspect that Tulsa/Memphis matchup may be a more attractive viewing option in their respective markets than re-runs of Full House. why wouldn't the local channels broadcast it?

I understand what you are saying. My viewing habits have changed over time as well, as I would bet many people here would say.

What we have to look at though is that individual viewers mature and change but new generations of viewers move into the marketplace. As us "older" guys get wrapped up in our families or other activities new generations of young males come into it.

I don't think the mid-majors will "pay" to have their games covered but I can see where they get marginalized onto regional networks or even onto conference owned streaming channels.

The production quality will suffer, you will have remote controlled cameras and local announcers and maybe even off-site production of the program. Advertisers will be either local or niche advertisers instead of national or regional. A limited number of national viewers would still pay for packages that include these games but those numbers would be much smaller than currently have availability.

Most importantly the money generated will be a fraction of what it is now. I could see the conference media shares dropping by 50% or more for the conferences that don't have national appeal.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

My viewing habits have changed as well. Ive watched maybe 5-7 football games this season INCLUDING the Buffs. And thats it. Ive only seen half of two NFL games. No game day. And no sports center. And I happily dont give a **** about it too. There are other things that are far more interesting to do.

 

[Idot Buff]

My viewing habits have changed as well. Ive watched maybe 5-7 football games this season INCLUDING the Buffs. And thats it. Ive only seen half of two NFL games. No game day. And no sports center. And I happily dont give a **** about it too. There are other things that are far more interesting to do.

Such as....? Jack off around here?

 

[Duff Man]

My viewing habits have changed as well. Ive watched maybe 5-7 football games this season INCLUDING the Buffs. And thats it. Ive only seen half of two NFL games. No game day. And no sports center. And I happily dont give a **** about it too. There are other things that are far more interesting to do.

So glad you feel compelled to give your opinion on something you do not care about.

 

[skibum]

A common mistake people make when bitching about the current tv model and thinking a la carte is the way of the future is thinking that people right now "pay for channels they don't want."

Which isn't really true. The cable and satellite operators have figured out how much you're willing to pay for the channels you do want; the others are being thrown in for free. As an example, there's about 20-30 channels that are watched in my house. When I shop providers, I find the company/package that offers those channels at the lowest price possible. Which means that I am willing to pay the amount I'm paying right now for those channels. There's no reason at all to presume that I would have to pay any less for those channels in an a la carte model.

In fact, the providers' interest is in charging me (and everyone else) as much as we're willing to pay for their service. They're essentially already doing that. I'm willing to pay $85, or whatever it is, a month for the 25 or so channels my wife and I watch. If you think the content providers and delivery providers won't end up charging me about the same for those same channels (remember I've already proven I'm willing to pay that much for them), you're not really understanding how a modern free market works.

What the current bundling method does is lower the expense of delivering the content (programming, customer service, etc) and generating the content (more stable revenue streams, cross subsidies between network families when one screws up, less risk for new endeavors, etc); so it does increase industry profits. But it doesn't change how much you're willing to pay to receive the handful of channels you actually watch, and that's what you're likely to end up paying in the long run, regardless of whether channels are bundled or offered a la carte.

The end result of a la carte won't be lower monthly bills for the majority of consumers. It will simply be that fewer channels are available to them at the price they're willing to pay. No more catching a battlestar galactica rerun on sci-fi, because it's not being thrown in for free with the channels I am willing to pay $85/month for.

 

[BlackNGold]

A common mistake people make when bitching about the current tv model and thinking a la carte is the way of the future is thinking that people right now "pay for channels they don't want."

Which isn't really true. The cable and satellite operators have figured out how much you're willing to pay for the channels you do want; the others are being thrown in for free. As an example, there's about 20-30 channels that are watched in my house. When I shop providers, I find the company/package that offers those channels at the lowest price possible. Which means that I am willing to pay the amount I'm paying right now for those channels. There's no reason at all to presume that I would have to pay any less for those channels in an a la carte model.

In fact, the providers' interest is in charging me (and everyone else) as much as we're willing to pay for their service. They're essentially already doing that. I'm willing to pay $85, or whatever it is, a month for the 25 or so channels my wife and I watch. If you think the content providers and delivery providers won't end up charging me about the same for those same channels (remember I've already proven I'm willing to pay that much for them), you're not really understanding how a modern free market works.

What the current bundling method does is lower the expense of delivering the content (programming, customer service, etc) and generating the content (more stable revenue streams, cross subsidies between network families when one screws up, less risk for new endeavors, etc); so it does increase industry profits. But it doesn't change how much you're willing to pay to receive the handful of channels you actually watch, and that's what you're likely to end up paying in the long run, regardless of whether channels are bundled or offered a la carte.

The end result of a la carte won't be lower monthly bills for the majority of consumers. It will simply be that fewer channels are available to them at the price they're willing to pay. No more catching a battlestar galactica rerun on sci-fi, because it's not being thrown in for free with the channels I am willing to pay $85/month for.

Every demo subsidizes the other. It's why the system has worked. Will the rate card of ESPN and the like end up killing the golden goose? Maybe. The more people who cut the chord, the faster we'll see another model where providers still get their money. Interesting times

From phone

The model of consumption is changing. It use to be that you went out and paid for entire album - things were bundled. With itunes and MP3s people now just download one or two songs off an album that they like. Or customize your listening with a service like Pandora - it is on the consumption end that will drive things not on the supply end. Look at newspapers - not much add revenue anymore -ditto for magazines. The consumption has changed which drives things. Price to the consumer will go down. My first cell phone was $1 a minute.

 

[SD Buff]

True. But the reason we have bundling is for diversity in programming where fringe channels can survive. Does the FCC need to revisit it? Maybe. Personally just don't believe we'll see that sort of a la carte options. The delivery of our media will most definitely change though

From phone

 

[Buffnik]

We'll see a lot of changes. One of the big ones will be self-producing, like we've seen to a limited extent on youtube. Think of the way Kindle has changed the book industry and how we now have self-published sensations. Consumers find the content they're looking for and then digital word-of-mouth drives big success without the need for advertising. We'll never hear of a television show failing to be "green lighted" by studio execs. If a pilot is made, people will get to watch it and we'll decide what continues to be made. People will produce their own pilots at low cost and then hope that consumer popularity will cause a network to buy the project and bring in its production/editing/distribution capabilities to it.

That's the recorded programming side.

On the other side, you have "events". People want to watch events live. Academy Awards and other awards shows, reality shows like American Idol with live performances & voting, and sports programming from the Superbowl on down. People want to watch these in real-time. These remain the bread & butter of the big networks because they draw big audiences that are highly engaged (good for advertisers). This calls for a slightly different model, too.

I don't know how it shakes out. I believe that it will end up being a hybrid between bundling and a la carte selections. The 2 networks I'm most curious about in the changing environment are QVC and HSN. Hugely popular, but people won't pay for a shopping channel.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Media habits of consumers are changing. A graduate coming out of college today is less likely to prioritize a cable TV or Satellite TV bill over a cell phone and broadband internet connection. When getting started, it's not likely getting a cable package with HBO, Showtime and all the bells and whistles will be in reach.

Instead, on the top IP media like NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, or even free YouTube video is a more economically viable alternative. The newest generation of media consumers are used to binge watching and a more iTunes-like model of buying/renting on a program by program basis. As this newest generation ages, they are not going to be satisfied by linear broadcast models that are predominantly sold today.

The Cable and Satellite companies have gone all in on locking down live sports as the best way to remain viable. Pretty much everything that is not live sports can be acquired on a buy-as-you-go model. Once AppleTV or HBO OnTheGo captures a contract to broadcast live sports, the damn will break on the linear model.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

So glad you feel compelled to give your opinion on something you do not care about.

I want to care. I need CU to turn the corner. It all radiates from that.

 

[Highlander]

If I lived within walking distance of a bar that showed the sports I like, I would drop the cable bill in a heartbeat.

The biggest threat to the networks in the next sports renewal contracts will be Google more so than HBO or Apple.

 

[Deleted member 807]

If I lived within walking distance of a bar that showed the sports I like, I would drop the cable bill in a heartbeat.

The biggest threat to the networks in the next sports renewal contracts will be Google more so than HBO or Apple.

One thing for sure is that the OTT barbarians are at the gate. Whether it's Google or someone else, this current sports distribution model is going to be busted open.

I certainly hope Commish Larry Scott ends up on the right side of history with his P12 networks business model.

 

[skibum]

The 2 networks I'm most curious about in the changing environment are QVC and HSN. Hugely popular, but people won't pay for a shopping channel.

In some markets these channels are already free ota...

 

[InTheBuff]

many new articles this afternoon re: Big 12 expansion - wonder why ? opcorn:
Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Sunday that several changes could be in store for the conference.
“It’s clear we were penalized for not having a championship game..That will cause us to go back to the drawing board a little bit,” Bowlsby said.
“I think this will be a catalyst for discussion (of expansion),” he added. “We have to weigh whether this is substantial enough to add institutions… It’s certainly a major consideration.”
Though Bowlsby says expanding is a consideration, that does not mean it will happen automatically.
“I am not calling for us to expand or even consider expansion. It may just get bantered around a little bit,” Bowlsby said via ESPN’s Joe Schad.
Expansion would make sense. As it is, the Big 12 moniker does not even fit for the conference; they only have 10 schools. When all the other power conferences have a championship game, you don’t want to be the odd man out. It only makes sense to do it.

http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/big-12-expansion-championship-game/249485

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/spo...2/07/uc-big-12-speculation-heats-up/20054963/

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf...the-future-of-college-football-190748069.html

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...lor-college-football-playoff-big-12-expansion


our friends in Ft Collins think they are a shoe-in ... :wtf:
Cincy, Cent FL, BYU, BSU all IMHO are better choices than csu

 

[dio]

This is CSU's chance.... but they are a Tier 2 option.

Cincy seems like a sure thing. UCF and BYU seem like the next obvious option.

Nik posted that the rumor is that Cinncy and Memphis are the ones being targeted.

 

[dio]

I will also say, CSU is in such a rough spot... who is stumping for them to big Big12 integrated? Frank? Dude is hiring a coach, and AD, building a stadium, and trying to get CSU into the Big12.

Firing Graham was a mistake for them

 

[sackman]

I will also say, CSU is in such a rough spot... who is stumping for them to big Big12 integrated? Frank? Dude is hiring a coach, and AD, building a stadium, and trying to get CSU into the Big12.

Firing Graham was a mistake for them

It sure looks that way. He was hired to build a stadium and raise the profile of the athletic department. Now, just when they need somebody to be doing that, they're screwed.

 

[Dark Bohner]

It sure looks that way. He was hired to build a stadium and raise the profile of the athletic department. Now, just when they need somebody to be doing that, they're screwed.

Especially when you consider that Graham essentiall brought them here. Of course Frank will hire a Yes Man administrator after his clashes with Graham.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Especially when you consider that Graham essentiall brought them here. Of course Frank will hire a Yes Man administrator after his clashes with Graham.

I dont know about that. Frank recognized several years ago that athletics was important when he noted the highest volume clicks day ever fro CSU's homepage was when they were playing in the NCAA tournament. Everything he's done since then, hiring Graham, shepherding the Stadium, has been about raising the profile of CSU. Probably to attract more out state paying students. He might hire a yes man. But Id think he'd go after someone thats built a stadium project somewhere recently. It'll be telling to watch how the FB coach and AD hire go...

 

[ahoelsken]

This is CSU's chance.... but they are a Tier 2 option.

Cincy seems like a sure thing. UCF and BYU seem like the next obvious option.

Nik posted that the rumor is that Cinncy and Memphis are the ones being targeted.

If they have to expand, its expansion for the sake of expansion. That said, I don't get the fascination with Central or South Florida-Sure, they're in Florida, but the impact in terms of TV sets is negligible. You have three NFL teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NHL teams, 2 NBA teams, and 3 universities who are all bigger draws down there than anything UCF or USF can put out there. Cincy and Memphis both make sense, but I would try for BYU over Memphis. As far as CSU, I think they could probably go for 16 and find six schools who would be a bigger impact than the goats-They should be prepared to stay where they are.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

If they have to expand, its expansion for the sake of expansion. That said, I don't get the fascination with Central or South Florida-Sure, they're in Florida, but the impact in terms of TV sets is negligible. You have three NFL teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NHL teams, 2 NBA teams, and 3 universities who are all bigger draws down there than anything UCF or USF can put out there. Cincy and Memphis both make sense, but I would try for BYU over Memphis. As far as CSU, I think they could probably go for 16 and find six schools who would be a bigger impact than the goats-They should be prepared to stay where they are.

There is no real college football competition in Orlando (UCF) or Tampa (USF) for people to sit in the seats. Miami is 4-5 hours away. Gainesville about 2 hours. Tallahassee about 4 hours. Orlando and Tampa are both separate top 20 TV markets which says a lot about the growth in both those population centers. There are today a lot of high schools churning out a lot of football talent down there. Thats why both these schools have grown so wildly in the last 20 years. You think attendance would be pretty good for them when Texas comes to town? I bet it would.

Id think UT, Baylor, and Co., would like take some of those Fla kids back home with them too. I also think they'd like to keep some pressure on the ACC and SEC by at least trying to play in their sand box now that the SEC is in Texas. The problem is the Iowa States of the conference are going to be pressed in non revenue sports to travel down there.

So, thats the value proposition. Big TV markets, no really nearby competition for fans willing to pay (UF and FSU to a lesser degree are tough to get into for instate students) to sit in seats. In the end I dont think the BigXII goes there. But some day somebody will probably add at least one of them.

 

[MtnBuff]

If they have to expand, its expansion for the sake of expansion. That said, I don't get the fascination with Central or South Florida-Sure, they're in Florida, but the impact in terms of TV sets is negligible. You have three NFL teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NHL teams, 2 NBA teams, and 3 universities who are all bigger draws down there than anything UCF or USF can put out there. Cincy and Memphis both make sense, but I would try for BYU over Memphis. As far as CSU, I think they could probably go for 16 and find six schools who would be a bigger impact than the goats-They should be prepared to stay where they are.

The first and most important factor in expansion is eyeball on TV screens. You are right that UCF and USF are not the kind of names that draw a national audience to watch a game on TV.

There is a lot of competition down there for sports attention and they don't have the kind of loyal audience that puts them ahead of some of that competition. On the other hand a lot of that competition doesn't have establish long term fan bases either and some of it isn't very good. This all happens in an area that is college football friendly.

CSU is in a much smaller market with stronger competition and a history of not moving the needle in viewership.

BYU has a strong fan base that draws solid TV ratings, travels well, and has some name recognition. At the same time nobody wants them because they won't play Sundays, won't compromise on some belief issues that aren't a good fit in some conferences and would be a long distance outlier in all conferences except the PAC. Nobody wants to fly non-revenue athletes across the country to Provo without having a "partner" school to lessen the cost per competition of the trip.

Memphis is college football country with limited pro competition and is a good geographical fit. Cincy has never looked ready to jump into the upper levels but again is a good geographical fit and brings a solid market with it.

 

[Gramburglar]

This is CSU's chance.... but they are a Tier 2 option.

Cincy seems like a sure thing. UCF and BYU seem like the next obvious option.

Nik posted that the rumor is that Cinncy and Memphis are the ones being targeted.

Just an argument for Memphis making a jump. First there is a major airport 10min away from campus and downtown.

The infrastructure is certainly there. The Liberty Bowl is ~60k, the FedEx Forum is downtown by the hotels and is really nice for BB (shared with the Grizz though), Womens VB and BB have their own on campus arena, and there is a Sports campus just south of the main camupus (new Baseball field, Softball field, track stadium, soccer stadium, lots of tennis courts and two golf holes.

University spirit is pretty strong throughout the city, more so than UNLV was when I was lived in Vegas and more so than Denver and CU. Basketball is top sport in Memphis, so the university will draw well there. FB this season seem a poor draw, although the games I went to were in pretty bad weather.

In all though Memphis is in the crossroads of the SEC. Everyone like UoM but allegiances are tied to Ole Miss, Miss St and Tenn. Since Oxford is 90min away, groups of the opposing SEC school bring their special brand of boat shoed, pastel colored shorts, with an untucked checkerboard shirt and tie beneath a fleece sweater vest and backwards hat or visor wearing asshats and their one loud fat slightly dumb drunk shirtless buddy.

 

[Gramburglar]

Here is the perspective from DFW news on expansion. They seem very against expansion. Cincy has especially buttered itself up to the Big12 with Mike Bohn and Tommy Tubberville as the AD figureheads.

The Big 12 could pursue an NCAA appeal to deregulate conference title games, but what about simply adding two more teams?


Bowlsby said Monday: "Adding two schools for the purpose of getting to 12 would be among the poorest reasons to do it."


One of the main reasons not to expand is the lucrative television contract the Big 12 schools currently share ($250 million split between 10 schools), which would be cut by almost 20 percent apiece if two schools were added.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/co...s-of-schools-floated-for-big-12-expansion.ece

 

[hokiehead]

I posted over here that it doesn't make sense financially for the XII to expand. Unless they could poach a big time school from another P5 conference (doubtful), or unless I"m missing something else (less doubtful), this doesn't look like a winning proposition for the XII. They should look to improve their SoS without expanding, IMO -- fixes the playoff snub issue without diluting revenue.

 

[sackman]

They'll appeal to the NCAA for an exemption and won't get it. I'd be really pissed off if the NCAA caved on that. Typical B12 behavior, though. You don't like playing by the same rules everybody else plays by, so you want an exemption from the rules.