Arkstfan

ESPN who isn't in the favor business, says a BYU football game is worth $800,000 to them. BYU has 60,000 fans per game and has fans across the country. Geography, religion, and academic politics are the only reason the Big XII and Pac-12 haven't invited them. They are the most BCS of the non-AQ. ESPN is looking to pay $4 million year for their TV rights. That gives ESPN up to 7 games to choose from and they are expected to take 5 games a year. Now let's consider the nBE First assume they end up with 14 teams and play an 8 game league schedule. That gives you 56 league games to telecast. Assuming each Big East school plays one non-conference road game that is another 42 games covered by the TV rights. To reach the 6.3 million figure quoted by Boise and San Diego State when they joined and assuming a value of $0 for basketball rights. A TV package covering every single Big East football game would have to have a value of $900,000 per game or be worth 12.5% more than the best five BYU games. If the value were equal to BYU then that would produce $5.6 million per school, still pretty darn good. But even ESPN liking BYU's large national fan base is only interested in four or five of the 7 games. So let's say that over the course of a 14 week season a large network wants three games per week, presumably one game on either Thursday or Friday and two Saturday games. A grand total of 42 games. Those games have the same value as BYU. That package is worth $2.4 million. Still better than the MWC and CUSA numbers but not by a very big margin. The question is are 42 nBE games worth as much apiece as a BYU game given the smaller fan bases?

Everyone is committed until they aren't. Right now everyone is sketching ideas and eventually one will catch the eye of at least 8 schools. They might go ahead and form the nBE just because its easier to continue that momentum but it won't likely last long.

UConn was I-AA and his predecessor won 11 games his last 2 years. Skip won 12 in the same span. Then 11 the next two years and then finally won 10 his final season going out in the second round of the playoffs. Went back to work for his dad after that. Did much better at ECU with one losing season, then 7, 8, 9, and 9 win seasons. Didn't crack the polls and went 1-3 in bowls. At USF had as many losing seasons in three years as Leavitt had in 13 years. He strikes me is the guy you hire when you fired your last coach, not the guy who you hire to keep your program a 9 game winner. Clearly a very good coach, just not a GREAT one. Tech had to be a hard sell though. Attendance hasn't been good in Ruston, their AD handed everyone a recruiting advantage against them by dodging ULM, and thinking long-term many coaches will wonder if the change in schedule will allow the success level to continue. Given the circumstances, Skip is a good hire but absent that anyone would question why a school that is coming off an 8 and 9 win season would hire him

I think it demonstrates how badly La.Tech has damaged their brand. Look at the peer group job openings at USM, WKU, ASU and how their hires are perceived.

The basketball schools understood what the football schools failed to understand. The league's financial base was basketball. They made more in NCAA units than bowl money despite being an AQ. Their TV deal assigned 2/3rds of their TV value to basketball. The league tournament in NYC is a huge highly profitable event matched in the hoops world only by the ACC Tournament and exceeded only by the NCAA Tournament. Expanding to drive football in an environment where football no longer had a guaranteed seat at the table was foolishness. Assigning 70% of TV revenue to football basically meant the 7 were subsidizing a football league that had no higher status as far as access than the MAC and Sun Belt. When the Big East had special status in football that had cachet that rubbed off on the hoop schools and it mattered, it no longer does.

The fascinating thing is that the basketball schools had to have voted for Tulane, then took a breath and said, Man that's a bad idea. UNT I think is in good shape, I'm not so sure everyone CUSA has added can say that.

The process for Temple is that they were admitted as an associate member and the league had membership standards that had to be met for associates. Each year the commissioner had to certify that associate members either met the standards or had a viable plan to meet said standards, the members then (by majority vote) had to agree to continue their membership. One year they meet and the Temple president says "Didn't meet and never will and nothing we do will change that." So the commissioner said pull the plug and the league voted to not continue their membership. When the Sun Belt formed, ULM was admitted for football on a two-year rolling basis. If no one did anything the deal automatically rolled over each year, but a majority vote would have stopped the renewal. Very different from being a full member.

Everyone is assuming the conference as economic engine is the model that works best. It is a 20 year old model dating back to the SEC title game in 1992 and the final death of the CFA TV deal after the 1995 season with each league cutting its own deal. The death of the SWC happened as the CFA deal died. The WAC grew from 10 to 16 to try to preserve viability as they cut their own TV deal without the CFA. The WAC16 failed to deliver and it spawned the MWC. The Big XII and formation of CUSA were direct responses to the CFA TV deal dying as the SEC pulled out. Everything that has happened since is reactionary to the conference becoming the economic engine. But what if the model changes? The dollars don't have to decrease for catastrophic effects, just how the dollars are collected. In a subscriber based world, does it make sense for Texas who would represent probably 1/3rd of all Big XII TV subscribers to take 1/10th? Does it make sense for Kansas to get 1/10th when Kansas might provide 1/15th of the subscribers? If a subscriber system emerges in a strong way, what reason is there for the conference to be an economic unit? The conference can go back to what it was first designed to be. A framework for scheduling, someone to handle assignment of officials, someone to keep stats and announce awards.

The most recent new episode Big Bang Theory drew as many viewers as the most watched college football game this year.

The history of college athletics says no one is playing the prodigal and coming home. No one is moving down the perception ladder voluntarily. Things move flux and shift. Inefficiencies get cleared out. The SWC no longer made sense when it went away because the marketplace changed. Back in 1962 BYU, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico didn't think the Mountain States Conference (Skyline) made sense for them and left behind Denver, Colorado State, Utah State, and Montana behind. Joining those defectors were Arizona and Arizona State from the Border States. They left behind New Mexico State, UTEP, Hardin-Simmons, and West Texas A&M. Likely this was related to disappointment and dissatisfcation that Colorado had previously bailed for the Big 7 from the Mountain States, and Texas Tech leaving the Border for the SWC as well as New Mexico leaving the Border for the Mountain States. All be done before. The MWC spawning out of the WAC. The SEC emerging out of the Southern followed by the ACC emerging out of the Southern. The Valley basically spawned the old Big 8 but was also a pass through for the Metro and later CUSA. This all cycles. The Utah's eventually rise to the top, the Hardin-Simmons slide out, the rest jiggle around in pretty much the same spot they always were with a new conference name attached to what they are doing.

But the number of viewers is essentially static. Remember the most watched "regular season" game this year was the SEC title game drawing a 9.8 rating or 16.8 million viewers. The all-time record was a 21.7 rating for USC-Texas for the BCS championship. On a typical Saturday 80% of the nation isn't watching college football.

Temple was under a contract arrangement. They had to achieve certain standards or not be renewed.

Let's say you are the president of Southern Miss. You have two offers. Offer 1.Conference America: UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, USF, UCF, ECU, Memphis, Tulane, SMU, Houston Offer 2.Conference USA: Marshall, UAB, Rice, UTEP, Tulsa, ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, MTSU, La.Tech, UTSA, UNT Which one you taking?Which one will the fans demand you take?

Let's say they change two things. This is purely a hypo. First what it takes to be an auto bid league. One way to do it. Any conference is entitled to an automatic bid if it has 12 members who have been classified Division I for 10 years. Second way to do it. Leave the rules exactly as they are and add a new subparagraph. ) The continuity of membership provisions shall not apply to any conference sponsoring 14 sports when at least least 8 members of the conference are members of FBS. Second deal with reclassification. A bona fide invite may only be extended by a conference where at least 6 members that have competed together for the prior 5 years vote to extend such an invitation. That plugs the WAC hole.

I believe you are wrong about there not being a new league. Very unlikely that everyone goes walking back with their tail between their legs to a league that is worse than the one they left to go join the Big East. They will either form their own trans-national league without the hoop schools or they will form a new eastern and new western league. The NCAA in the span of the collapse of the old Sun Belt to the formation of MWC took an expansive view toward autobids waiving requirements and changing requirements. There is no reason for them to not bend the rule book again because it furthers the interests of the big money leagues because it moves the inefficiencies in membership further down the food chain into the WAC, Atlantic Sun level.

Lose four starters on offense and about that on defense.

Disbanding avoids a fee because they didn't leave the conference. The conference by the required vote elected to cease operations. My predictions. 1. They leave. 2. They don't join an existing league. 3. NCAA rules quickly they meet continuity and get an autobid. 4. As dominos fall the NCAA "acting in the best interest of the membership" changes the autobid criteria in such a way that it clears the path for the formation of new leagues.

Well duh, if ACC comes available that's a no brainer. But it hasn't so far.

And FIU/FAU and maybe UTSA as well.

I'd never rule out Temple or UConn making that choice IF they can get a football only invite. You have to look at where their money comes from.

Actually thinking more about UTSA, ODU, Charlotte, FIU.

Right now, if it comes down to being a knife fight in the five non-contract conferences, my money is on Craig Thompson. He has kept the lines of communication open with BYU, SDSU, and Boise. He has twice worked well to keep AFA in the fold despite the fact that they were generally regarded as one of the least happy members. He expanded effectively to negate Benson's BYU plan while not over-expanding in such a way that it would be an intolerable solution should one or more defector want to come back. The league has mostly stayed true to its desire to add quality football schools that sell tickets (SJSU failing the ticket side hugely but numbers for survival demanded it). Idaho hasn't been added because they are dealbreaker for Boise. NMSU hasn't been added because doing so would damage the chances of adding UTEP. Meanwhile... Mike Aresco appears less and less likely to be able to deliver the $6 million plus promised to Boise and SDSU, the league appears ready to fracture losing seven valuable propertities. Brit Bankowsky, has expanded in such a way that if Houston, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, UCF are in a lurch, coming home isn't an option. 20 teams won't cut it. Plus the new league has added schools that are deal breakers for the schools that they would want to add to make it a better league. Benson lost his ability to keep the doors open with the way the GaSt add was handled. His potential to better his situation doesn't exist because the schools needed to do that find the SBC brand objectionable or find one or two specific schools objectionable. Steinbrecher has made one false move, adding UMass football only to balance out Temple but he is an inherently stable position since his most attractive teams in performance and attendance are either in lousy markets or to geographically remote from where the realignment action is or both. Thompson may not get those schools back but he is the only one of the five who has the possibility that he can make an announcement in the next 7 months that clearly makes his league stronger than it is today.

Exactly its a double hit. They got screwed on the TV deal and it hasn't even been negotiated yet and lose the hoop strength that makes them an NCAA unit earning beast.

The NCAA Bylaws and the United States Courts say there won't be a cap on autobids unless that cap is based on some criteria such as performance. That may be bad news for the new WAC but it won't be for new Big East. Sports are different but let's be realistic here. Until Board of Regents vs. NCAA if you wanted college football you had to contract with the NCAA who had 180 then around 130 schools under their umbrella. After that you had to contract with the CFA, Big 10, Pac-10, and Notre Dame, that was all conferences except Big West and MAC and all but the smallest independents. By the time the BCS formed you could reach essentially the same audience with 7 contracts (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10, SEC, Notre Dame). Today you can reach that audience with six contracts (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Notre Dame) and now up to 1/3rd of the Notre Dame games are in the ACC package. During much of that time there were differences but the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC deals were all pretty close. Then trailing far behind was the Big East. The gap between the big 5 and Big East was as large as the gap between the Big East and CUSA/MWC there was then another less dramatic gap down to WAC/MAC/SBC. The Big East "projections" of $14 million per full member as a percentage would have meant the Big East at 82% of the ACC contract per team would actually be closer in revenue than at any other time. A Big East lacking Miami, Va.Tech, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Rutgers, and Louisville would have grown more than the ACC contract after adding Pitt/Syracuse and before losing Maryland. If the $80 million figure pans out that would mean the Big East has lost value vs. the ACC moving from around 50% of the ACC to 31% of the ACC's value. There doesn't have to be a bubble. The fact that every school that was part of the BCS when it formed (minus Temple plus Utah, TCU, and Louisville) are now contained in five conferences with partial inclusion of Notre Dame vs six conferences and ND means the schools delivering the greatest value are concentrated giving them greater negotiating leverage. 10 years ago if you missed on one contract there were five other high value deals. With three tier contracting there were 18 value deals available. Today that value is in five contracts or 15 deals in the three tier system, except Big 10 and Pac-12 own their own third tier deals, leaving only 13 available for bid. If you don't believe there is a bubble you have to concede that moving from 18 deals to 13 deals has created a premium on those deals. You can look at the ratings numbers and there isn't a great deal of value out there outside of those 13 deals to demand a premium. Maybe there isn't a bubble but the constriction of supply of the highly valued contracts is what is causing part of the run-up.

I think there are three significant things that make it quite possible that we are in a bubble. #1. The bubble created because advertisers needed a way to defeat DVR commercial skipping. A college football game drawing a 4.0 rating is basically worth the same as the same amount of scripted programming delivering a 7.5 or an 8.0. Think Detroit circa 1950-1972. The world competition had been bombed out and lacked the technology to compete but found a way to get there. There is such a premium out there that other advertising mediums now have a huge incentive to tackle the 30 second commercial as primary delivery method. With the younger highly desired audience more likely to consume more and more content via mobile devices and game consoles they will be even harder to reach. The 30 second spot regular viewer is growing older. #2. Ala carte programming for cable and satellite is the idea Congress won't allow to die. If it ever hits critical mass, the low estimate is an ESPN package costs you at least $20 a month and estimates go as high as $35. Now imagine the license paid by bars goes up 7X to 12X. Fewer places default to showing ESPN and the audience sizes shrink. Ala carte can dramatically slice the number of viewers. #3. Alternate delivery. Right now internet delivery and on-demand and IPTV stuff is mostly bleeding edge (with a semi-exception for UVverse and FIOS neither of which is fully fleshed to potential). The audience using these bleeding edge options is mostly young but growing. The hold up is the right device with the right UI. The Pac-12 is tenatively stepping this direction with their on-demand product. Some one cracks this nut and the likely outcome is conferences selling their own rights (Big 10/Pac-12 style) or schools doing it (LHN). If it becomes about subscriber bases, we may see the conference TV deal fade away.