Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Young Drachma]

How Does Notre Dame Do Financially? - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

First, here’s some context. A report from the NCAA indicates that only 14 Division 1 schools broke even or made money in their athletic department last year without institutional support, and only 6 schools did it in each of the years from 2004-2009. Which means that most of the schools you’ve seen turning a profit in my series have been doing so with the aid of monies from outside the athletic department. For example, University of Virginia and Georgia Tech indicated to me they received upwards of $12 million and $4 million a year, respectively, from student activity fees. That is considered direct institutional support. In fact, the average amount of institutional support received by athletic departments went up from $8m in 2007-2008 to $10.2m in 2008-2009.

Although the NCAA did not list the 14 schools turning a net profit, Notre Dame is one of them. Athletic Director, Jack Swarbrick, has revealed that Notre Dame actually pours money back into the college’s coffers, to the tune of about $10 million in 2009.

Other schools that have been confirmed to be part of the 14: Alabama, University of Missouri, University of Texas, University of Florida, University of Tennessee and Ohio State University.

Unlike the other 13 schools on the list, Notre Dame is able to turn a profit without being part of a conference. They have their own lucrative television contract, rumored to garner them about $15m a year. However, Notre Dame finance professor Richard Sheehan, who was involved with the NBC negotiations, has said the rumored value is low. “The NBC contract is more lucrative than pretty much anyone knows,” he says.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

OK, I'll amend my statement - I'd bet that at most (if not all) BCS conference schools, football turns a profit. Just a quick check of that list, and all the Pac-10 schools turn a profit, ranging from ~$2M for WSU to ~$13 for Washington.

It's a valid point though - a school looking to move up from FCS into a non-BCS conference is probably going to lose money. The money disparity between the BCS conferences and the others is likely growing exponentially with the recent TV deals we're seeing.

		Football Profit
1 	Univ. of Georgia 	$52,529,885.00
2 	Univ. of Florida 	$44,258,193.00
3 	Louisiana State Univ. 	$43,253,286.00
4 	Univ. of Alabama 	$40,766,391.00
5 	Univ. of Tennessee 	$39,236,601.00
6 	Auburn Univ. 	$38,251,007.00
7 	Univ. of South Carolina 	$35,471,948.00
8 	Univ. of Arkansas 	$26,519,140.00
9 	Univ. of Kentucky 	$17,984,848.00
10 	Univ. of Mississippi 	$16,489,264
11 	Mississippi State Univ. 	$4,600,178.00
12 	Vanderbilt Univ. 	$0.00

Pac-10 Financials Show Little Athletics Profit - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

Football Profit
Univ of Washington 	$14,712,079.00
Arizona State 	$11,609,249.00
Univ of Oregon 	$11,434,894.00
Univ of Arizona 	$10,712,322.00
Univ of Southern California 	$8,259,649.00
Oregon State 	$7,075,211.00
Univ of California, Los Angeles 	$7,037,175.00
Univ of California, Berkeley 	$5,901,914.00
Stanford Univ 	$4,073,004.00
Washington State 	$3,573,046.00

Money Not As Big In Big East Football - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

Football Profit
West Virginia University 	$15,137,376.00
University of Pittsburgh 	$5,072,304.00
University of South Florida 	$4,385,209.00
Syracuse University 	$3,851,951.00
University of Louisville 	$3,314,969.00
University of Cincinnati 	$1,725,524.00
UCONN 	$0.00
Rutgers University 	-$2.00

Football Profit
University of Texas 	$68,830,484.00
University of Oklahoma 	$38,145,119.00
University of Nebraska 	$32,084,379.00
Texas A&M 	$25,315,630.00
Oklahoma State 	$17,308,088.00
University of Colorado 	$13,675,426.00
University of Missouri 	$11,618,417.00
Texas Tech 	$11,512,627.00
Iowa State 	$6,606,483.00
Kansas State 	$6,412,835.00
Baylor University 	$1,893,081.00
University of Kansas 	$1,614,926.00

Football Profit
Virginia Tech 	$14,853,103.00
Clemson Univ. 	$14,688,975.00
North Carolina State 	$11,609,800.00
Georgia Tech 	$9,350,858.00
Univ. of North Carolina 	$7,289,263.00
Univ. of Miami 	$6,767,811.00
Univ. of Virginia 	$3,076,978.00
Florida State Univ. 	$2,613,485.00
Duke Univ. 	$1,796,461.00
Univ. of Maryland 	$1,676,620.00
Boston College 	$1,211,197.00
Wake Forest University 	-$2,289,583.00

	Football Profit
Penn State Univ. 	$50,427,645.00
Univ. of Michigan 	$44,861,184.00
Ohio State Univ. 	$31,986,964.00
Univ. of Iowa 	$27,386,032.00
Michigan State Univ. 	$26,994,201.00
Univ. of Wisconsin 	$16,621,480.00
Univ. of Minnesota 	$14,888,989.00
Univ. of Illinois 	$14,209,661.00
Indiana Univ. 	$8,960,406.00
Northwestern Univ. 	$6,971,411.00
Purdue Univ. 	$6,297,633.00

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

UMass set to join MAC - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

Welp. That settles that. Football-only.

Yup, apparently my message board sources are worse than MBBF's ... but I'm glad to be wrong. There will possibly be a basketball scheduling agreement like Temple has to schedule 4-6 non conference games vs. MAC teams. Obviously it wouldn't make much sense to move non-revenue sports there for cost-related (distance) reasons.

Originally Posted by wade moore

There are some that are talking doom and gloom for the CAA, but I'm not buying it - even if Villanova goes Big East (which I don't think they are).

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, in the case of UMass, I think it came down to timing and realizing that the gains of spending the requisite amount of cash as a flagship outweighed playing at the lower level. UConn's football ascent probably hasn't hurt in terms of a roadmap for a fellow New England flagship sans the wildly successful basketball part.

The CAA is fine - but it does quite possibly mean the death toll for UNH and Maine in the CAA. And that was the other thing forcing UMass' hand now - the dropping of CAA football by Northeastern, Hofstra, and URI. Thank god they chose the correct option (moving up and acting like a flagship) over turtling and going to non-scholarship football.

Originally Posted by wade moore

There are some fans that want the CAA to try and move up as a conference, but that's a huge obstacle if anyone were to ever seriously consider it.

I know what they're saying - every other part of the country has a 2nd tier FBS conference, but I think the current NCAA rules bar that from happening (quickly and easily) since they require a current FBS conference to offer a team a spot before that 1-AA team is allowed to move up.

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I still think UMass has got to be on the Big East's radar to see how they do for a few years, and if they can move up, for so many reasons. I think UMass fits a lot better than Memphis, East Carolina, Marshall, UCF, etc

So do I We'll see - I don't want it to seem like UMass and its fans are big-timing the MAC, but we're clearly a geographic outlier that has little history with any MAC program other than football-only Temple. If we had made this step 30 years ago when Penn State wanted to create an Eastern 8 we'd be in a BCS-level conference, and if we'd gone up in the late 90's when we were riding the Calipari and Whipple high we'd have been invited to the Big East instead of/in addition to UConn after the ACC raid, so at least we're set up for if/when the Big East splits.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I know what they're saying - every other part of the country has a 2nd tier FBS conference, but I think the current NCAA rules bar that from happening (quickly and easily) since they require a current FBS conference to offer a team a spot before that 1-AA team is allowed to move up.

Well, there's a portion of delusional fans on the caa board that think the CAA should sue the NCAA over this rule.

Anyway, it won't happen.

[sterlingice]

And keep in mind with those football profits, that you have to turn around and plow money into roughly 100 women's scholarships and the couple of programs that they would play in- say, crew, soccer, volleyball- whatever. So that profit would get eaten up really quickly.

It's really simple- the programs that make a lot of money in football, churn it back into football to try and make even more money. For instance, Texas's coaching staff makes almost $10M ($5M for Brown, $3.6M for the rest of the staff). That's dwarfs what Kansas's football program brings in. Need a new training facility? Paid for. Private jets for recruiting? Done.

SI

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And keep in mind with those football profits, that you have to turn around and plow money into roughly 100 women's scholarships and the couple of programs that they would play in- say, crew, soccer, volleyball- whatever. So that profit would get eaten up really quickly.

It's really simple- the programs that make a lot of money in football, churn it back into football to try and make even more money. For instance, Texas's coaching staff makes almost $10M ($5M for Brown, $3.6M for the rest of the staff). That's dwarfs what Kansas's football program brings in. Need a new training facility? Paid for. Private jets for recruiting? Done.

SI

This even filters down to High School sports. We have a school in AZ that has a million dollar Football facility and one that doesn't even have their own field on campus. Same thing with revenue, our Football program pretty much paid for all the other sports with the exception of Basketball, which also turned a profit.

Matter of fact there are 5 high schools in our district and the top three revenue generators of all the sports at all the schools for 2009 were
1-Our varsity football program by a wide margin
2-Our main rivals varsity football program
3-Our freshman football program

[Swaggs]

Accounting is a funny thing.

When you consider donations (I remember one year, WVU had a huge financial year and it was largely because they received a $15-million donation), what they are writing off (facility upgrades, loans, buyouts, etc.), and other factors, it is hard to distinguish between who is struggling and who is thriving (other than seeing that the typical juggernauts are rolling in cash).

[bhlloy]

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Rutgers reported a loss of exactly two dollars? If they just hadn't tipped the valet at the end of season awards dinner they could have turned a profit.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Rutgers reported a loss of exactly two dollars? If they just hadn't tipped the valet at the end of season awards dinner they could have turned a profit.

That one caught my eye as funny, too

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And keep in mind with those football profits, that you have to turn around and plow money into roughly 100 women's scholarships and the couple of programs that they would play in- say, crew, soccer, volleyball- whatever. So that profit would get eaten up really quickly.

In UMass terms though, we were already paying for 63 scholarships at the FCS-level, so it's only an increase of 44 total instead of creating 170 out of nowhere. You could argue that we'd be better off dropping football/going non-scholarship, but the increase in money from payday games alone makes it a financial win to go from FCS to FBS. (We're also going to more fully fund present women's programs instead of creating new ones, which eliminates another cost.) The one other thing worth pointing out is that all of our scholarship's count against us at full out-of-state cost, even if the player is from Massachusetts/New England (there is a tuition break) and 80% of our students are.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Rutgers reported a loss of exactly two dollars? If they just hadn't tipped the valet at the end of season awards dinner they could have turned a profit.

I'm assuming it's either a typo or rounding. The team breaks even because of institutional support making up the difference between revenues and expenses.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Matter of fact there are 5 high schools in our district and the top three revenue generators of all the sports at all the schools for 2009 were
1-Our varsity football program by a wide margin
2-Our main rivals varsity football program
3-Our freshman football program

Nothing against your freshman football program, IIRC from posts here it's exemplary, but ... if you're frosh are outdrawing three varsity programs in the same school district, there's some folks who need to step up their damned game. And I'll give you a hint: it's not you

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And keep in mind with those football profits, that you have to turn around and plow money into roughly 100 women's scholarships and the couple of programs that they would play in- say, crew, soccer, volleyball- whatever. So that profit would get eaten up really quickly.

Sure, which is why even though there are a good deal of programs that turn a profit in football (basically all BCS conference schools with a few exceptions), there are very few athletic departments that turn a profit without state subsidy. Even Washington, which for decades now has claimed to be fully self-sufficient, actually takes ~$2M per year in state tuition waivers for women's sports, and they often make less than $2M in profit per year.

It's really simple- the programs that make a lot of money in football, churn it back into football to try and make even more money. For instance, Texas's coaching staff makes almost $10M ($5M for Brown, $3.6M for the rest of the staff). That's dwarfs what Kansas's football program brings in. Need a new training facility? Paid for. Private jets for recruiting? Done.

Yep. It's one reason why Oregon should thank their lucky stars for eternity for Phil Knight, otherwise they'd still be a mediocre (at best) program. They hit the jackpot with a wealthy alum who finally decided to take an interest in the sport that had the ability to pay for the rest of the athletic department.

[I. J. Reilly]

Looks like it’s just about done for the Pac-12 deal. I’m really glad that ESPN is involved, their hype machine is pretty annoying but it would have been a major blow to the conference to be frozen out. Still hope the conference network happens at some point.

Pac-10 Set To Announce Whopping Media Deal Valued At $2.7B - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

[MrBug708]

Larry Scott crushed this

[MrBug708]

Pac-10 Secures Own Network and Rich Deals With Fox and ESPN - NYTimes.com

3 billion over 12 years

[MrBug708]

This deal is also the deathblow for the Big 12/10 conference. When Washington State/Utah/Oregon State are making more TV revenues than Texas A&M/Kansas/Oklahoma it is only a matter of time before shit hits the fan and the other teams become fed-up with Texas' money-grubbing.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

This deal is also the deathblow for the Big 12/10 conference. When Washington State/Utah/Oregon State are making more TV revenues than Texas A&M/Kansas/Oklahoma it is only a matter of time before shit hits the fan and the other teams become fed-up with Texas' money-grubbing.

Word. I'm sure MBBF will have a rebuttal, but it's become pretty clear that the Big-12 is a house of cards, and this TV deal confirms it.

[Arles]

Kudos to Scott for being out in front on this. Great work on the TV deal and I think we are headed towards major conferences in the next 3-4 years.

[I. J. Reilly]

Except that the biggest impetus for a super conference was removed with this new deal. There is no reason for Scott to pursue the Pac-16 idea now; he already got more money than he ever thought he would, plus his own network and as a bonus he doesn’t have to deal with Texas.

We will probably get to super conferences eventually, but I would guess it’s more in the 10 to 12 year range. The Pac-12, Big-10 and SEC are in great shape at this point, and they will work pretty hard to maintain the status quo. Those three, along with their network partners will have more than enough juice to keep things the way they are for a while.

[dawgfan]

As long as there is the possibility that Texas might come into play, the surrounding conferences have to be prepared to make a pitch for them. And it will ultimately come down to whether Texas is prepared to share a bit of their revenue, or if they can continue to operate as they have without jumping to another conference and still make the same money and gain access to the same bowls and garner the same respect in the polls.

The SEC and Big Ten regions are more passionate per capita about football, but population trends favor the Pac-12 region (especially in comparison to Big Ten country). Scott/the Pac-12 would be idiots to not continue to monitor the Texas situation and pursue them should they become available, headaches and all.

[sooner333]

Just as I was starting to get over the fact that the Pac 16 blew up in our faces and we let Utah benefit at the expense of us...this happens. Really pretty annoying. I hate Dan Beebe.

Of course, that being said, when the Big 12 gets to sign its major TV deal (the Fox deal recently was just second-tier rights) and the Sooner Sports Network gets off the ground, maybe I'll change my tune. But, for me it wasn't about money in the first place, it was the opportunity to expand the base and play against some other powers in what would be the most powerful conference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Word. I'm sure MBBF will have a rebuttal, but it's become pretty clear that the Big-12 is a house of cards, and this TV deal confirms it.

It's an easy rebuttal based in obvious fact. This deal is for both national and regional rights. The Big 12 has only renegotiated regional rights at this point. The B12 conference has a national renegotiation in a couple years that will have a national contract that will likely exceed this deal even with less schools.

It's a constant game of leapfrog with these contracts. You're pretty much guaranteed that you'll be the top contract for a year or two until the next BCS conference negotiation comes along.

[Arles]

The question that interests me is how much the markets involved matter to a major conference TV contract. If you look at the big 12, there markets are pretty slim outside of Texas (and maybe Kansas City). Plus, Texas also shares a rooting interest in the SEC and other conferences. Compare that with the Pac-10 who has LA, northern California, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix and now Denver as well. Again, I'm not sure of how much this impacts things, but the markets in the Big 12 seem pretty lean when compared to the other major conferences.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

The question that interests me is how much the markets involved matter to a major conference TV contract. If you look at the big 12, there markets are pretty slim outside of Texas (and maybe Kansas City). Plus, Texas also shares a rooting interest in the SEC and other conferences. Compare that with the Pac-10 who has LA, northern California, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix and now Denver as well. Again, I'm not sure of how much this impacts things, but the markets in the Big 12 seem pretty lean when compared to the other major conferences.

Just for comparison's sake.......

Big 12

Dallas-Ft. Worth (5th)
Houston (10th)
St. Louis (21st)
Kansas City (31st)
San Antonio (37th)

Pac 10

Los Angeles (2nd)
San Francisco (6th)
Phoenix (12th)
Seattle (13th)
Denver (16th)
Portland (22nd)
San Diego (28th)

The move of Colorado as a media market shifted the number of major markets to the Pac-10. There were 6 top 40 markets in each conference before that move. With that said, I think Pac-10 fans will quickly find that the support of CU fans is pretty lean even when their programs are playing well.

As mentioned, the only major TV markets in the Big 12 are in Missouri and Texas. Kansas City does fare better when using sports-only TV rankings as they regularly draw big market numbers even when sports are shown that don't have local interest. Austin is just out of the top 40.

[tarcone]

I think Texas will go independent befor giving up a piece of the pie. They have their own network and would probably be able to score a contract like Notre Dame did with NBC. I cant see them giving up money to join a super conference.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's a constant game of leapfrog with these contracts. You're pretty much guaranteed that you'll be the top contract for a year or two until the next BCS conference negotiation comes along.

The ACC and Big East say "hi".

I would agree that, if the Big Ten or SEC were in the position of signing new TV deals right now, they'd eclipse what the Pac-12 got. And it's probably true that in a couple years, the Big 12 will be able to surpass what the Pac-12 got due to inflation.

It will be very interesting to see how much additional revenue the Pac-12 will be able to generate with their own network; they are absorbing all of the startup costs, but they will also reap all of the profits, and they get to use the experience of the Big Ten as a roadmap.

[Young Drachma]

A.A.U. Votes to Remove Nebraska-Lincoln - NYTimes.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

A.A.U. Votes to Remove Nebraska-Lincoln - NYTimes.com

A pretty amusing development to say the least. Mizzou and Nebraska were both being considered for that spot because of their AAU credentials since all Big Ten members are AAU members. NU gets invited and gets their AAU badge yanked before they even officially join the Big Ten.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The ACC and Big East say "hi".

I would agree that, if the Big Ten or SEC were in the position of signing new TV deals right now, they'd eclipse what the Pac-12 got. And it's probably true that in a couple years, the Big 12 will be able to surpass what the Pac-12 got due to inflation.

Forget inflation. The Big 12 contract will be bigger overall and also MUCH bigger per team. But as I noted, it will only last until the next conference signs a new deal.

[MrBug708]

I would be stunned if the Big-12 teams can get the same money

[Arles]

You would think market size plays a part. And with the Pac 10 adding 1 top 20 (Den) and 1 top 40 (SLC) market, that had to help some. If market size didn't matter, then St. Louis would be able to get the same TV love as New York in baseball - and that just doesn't happen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I would be stunned if the Big-12 teams can get the same money

The Big 12 regional contract alone is worth around $1.1B. It also includes national telecasts, something that the Pac 10 finally got in this latest Fox deal after being out of the rotation for some time. I would be stunned if the B12 didn't get at least double that for their ABC/ESPN contract 1 1/2 years from now when it's renegotiated, which would put the dollar figure at the same point as the Pac 10 while dividing it amongst two less schools.

With that said, this isn't a cock-measuring contest. It's clear that all BCS conferences/teams are going to get paid ridiculous money in the upcoming round of negotiations. There's plenty of money to go around and no one should feel sorry for anyone.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

You would think market size plays a part. And with the Pac 10 adding 1 top 20 (Den) and 1 top 40 (SLC) market, that had to help some. If market size didn't matter, then St. Louis would be able to get the same TV love as New York in baseball - and that just doesn't happen.

St. Louis has an issue with the sports market. KC pulls big numbers for baseball, pro football, college football and college basketball, even when it's not local teams. St. Louis pulls well for Cards games, but doesn't pull nearly as well for their other local sports telecasts or out of market games. It's a bigger overall TV market, but not as good in regards to sports market.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The Big 12 regional contract alone is worth around $1.1B. It also includes national telecasts, something that the Pac 10 finally got in this latest Fox deal after being out of the rotation for some time. I would be stunned if the B12 didn't get at least double that for their ABC/ESPN contract 1 1/2 years from now when it's renegotiated, which would put the dollar figure at the same point as the Pac 10 while dividing it amongst two less schools.

With that said, this isn't a cock-measuring contest. It's clear that all BCS conferences/teams are going to get paid ridiculous money in the upcoming round of negotiations. There's plenty of money to go around and no one should feel sorry for anyone.

I wouldnt really take into consideration anything that happened during Tom Hansen's reign as commish of the PAC-10

[cartman]

I'll have to dig it up again, but I remember back from the previous discussions about the TV markets for the PAC-10/12 that USC was the #1 ratings draw, and #2 wasn't a PAC-10/12 team, instead it was Texas.

[MrBug708]

I doubt have any doubt that Texas would be the #2 draw

[molson]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think Texas will go independent befor giving up a piece of the pie. They have their own network and would probably be able to score a contract like Notre Dame did with NBC. I cant see them giving up money to join a super conference.

I do think its possible the future will be more about independent teams than super conferences. There's a long way to go, with TV contracts and other commitments....but it does seem like the major revenue powers might do well to make their own deals. I mean, doesn't the BCS conference setup benefit the smaller revenue BCS schools the most?

[TroyF]

Dallas-Ft. Worth (5th)
Houston (10th)
St. Louis (21st)
Kansas City (31st)
San Antonio (37th)

Pac 10

Los Angeles (2nd)
San Francisco (6th)
Phoenix (12th)
Seattle (13th)
Denver (16th)
Portland (22nd)
San Diego (28th)

Sorry, but this comparison doesn't fly. 1/3 of the PAC 12 are in two of the top 6 markets in the country (LA, SF)

The Big 12 has Texas and OU as it's calling cards. The problem is where the next tier comes from. I'm partial to Oklahoma State for obvious reasons, but I don't see how the midwest guys are going to compete against the western side on a matchup basis each week.

I'd be shocked if the Big 12 gets what the PAC 10 got. I'd be shocked if the Big 12 doesn't blow up within 5 years. I've already stated that before and I still believe it.

[BishopMVP]

What % of people in SF care about Stanford or Cal? Or in LA about UCLA, or USC if they revert to their down years? JiMGA might know better, but there's something to be said for owning a smaller media market... for example, OKC (45th) and Austin (51st) might very well have as many TV's tuned in to the regional CFB broadcast as Denver (16th) or San Diego (28th) do.

[MrBug708]

ABC/ESPN = full national network games on ABC, some in primetime. Football across all ESPN broadcast platforms (ESPN/ESPN2 mostly).

Fox Sports= Fox broadcast network significant games in east coast primetime. Football games on FX.

Also Football on Pac-12 Network

80 football games, 44 in ESPN/Fox, 36 on P12 network.

We must have already have distributor for p12
1* p12 network
2* p12 digital/mobile network (350 live games, all football games not in espn/fox will be on p12 network. 68 basketball games on eSPN/fox, rest will be on network)

Use P12 network for educational pieces.

P12 media labs: innovate/develop ideas for sports broadcasting going foward

Every game will be on TV for both men's basketball and football

[MrBug708]

The Pac-12 Conference today announced it is teaming up with ESPN and FOX Sports Media Group on a landmark agreement for a broadcast and national cable television package that extends and expands long-time partnerships with both media companies.

At the same time, Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott announced the creation of a new media company, Pac-12 Media Enterprises, which will own the Pac-12 Network, the Pac-12 Digital Network, and Pac-12 Properties. This new company will control and distribute on its platforms and on all devices, the Pac-12 games not licensed to ESPN and FOX Sports, and will hold other media and event rights. This entity will be wholly owned and controlled by the Pac-12 Conference and will exist side-by-side with the newly announced ESPN and FOX Sports arrangements.

Although terms of the ESPN and Fox Sports agreements were not disclosed, Scott called it a “landmark deal” on several fronts. He pointed out that the Pac-12’s member institutions would, for the first time ever, share equally in the revenue from the new arrangement, and that the equal revenue distribution would start immediately when the deal goes into effect in 2012.

Expressing his satisfaction with the agreement, Commissioner Scott said, “We are especially delighted to be strengthening and expanding our relationship with ESPN and FOX Sports to deliver an unprecedented level of innovative sports programming to large national audiences across the country. With this agreement, we will deliver our events over two broadcast networks and at least five premiere national cable platforms. In addition, we will have our own Pac-12 National Cable TV platform and Pac-12 Digital Network platform.”

Pac-12 Network Will Expand Reach

Scott also further explained the decision to move forward with Pac-12 Media Enterprises: “We are equally excited by the creation of Pac-12 Media Enterprises, which will enable us to launch our own Pac-12 television and digital networks, providing significantly more exposure for women’s sports and Olympic sports in which the Pac-12 excels, in addition to academic and other campus programming of interest to our fan base. These new platforms will also provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to control the distribution of our intellectual property rights in sports, education and other Conference and membership initiatives.”

Scott clarified that Pac-12 Media Enterprises will independently manage and sell all of the sponsorship and licensing rights controlled by the Conference, as well as the Pac-12 Football Championship Game and the Men’s and Women’s Championship Basketball tournaments. FOX Sports previously managed the activities. The partnership with ESPN and FOX Sports will be a natural compliment to our future plans, which we look forward to sharing soon.” ESPN and FOX Sports will have the rights to sell a presenting sponsorship to the Pac-12 football championship game as well as the Pac-12 Men’s Basketball Tournament. Pac-12 Properties will retain all other conference controlled sponsorship rights.

Also expressing his enthusiasm for the agreement was Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University, who is Chairman of the Pac-12 CEO Group: “At a time when universities, and especially state universities, find themselves greatly challenged to meet budget commitments, an arrangement that will secure an important revenue and exposure stream over a 12-year period is especially helpful, not only for athletics but for our academic programs as well. While we recognize that contributions from donors and other sources remain critical, this agreement is welcome. We are especially proud of the commitment it reflects to equal revenue sharing across all our member universities, reflecting the core values of our Conference. This is truly a great day for our students, alumni, and fans everywhere.”

Extended National Exposure

The new 12-year deal goes into effect in 2012, and includes “TV Everywhere” platform rights for the broadcast, national cable and Pac-12 Network and Pac-12 Digital Network packages (the ability to distribute games on any and all available platforms, including the computer, mobile and tablets). Its content highlights include:

- 44 regular-season football games televised annually on select ESPN and FOX broadcast or national cable networks, including ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FOX broadcast network and FX.
- 10 regular-season football games per year will be on a combination of the ABC and FOX broadcast networks with full national clearance with a substantial commitment for primetime coverage.
- 34 regular-season games on national cable networks, FX, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU.
- The remaining regular-season football games, an average of approximately three games per week, will be featured exclusively on the Pac-12 Network.
- The Pac-12 Football Championship Game, starting with FOX Sports in 2012 (FOX already has rights to the inaugural 2011 game) and then rotating between FOX Sports and ESPN each year. The game will take place on a Friday night primetime.
- 68 regular-season men’s basketball games, appearing on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and Fox Sports Net.
- The balance of regular-season men’s basketball games, over 120 each year, will be featured exclusively on either the Pac-12 Network or Pac 12 Digital Network.
- The Conference’s men’s basketball tournament (quarterfinals, semi-finals and the championship game) will be shown on ESPN/ESPN2 or FOX Sports/FX. ESPN will broadcast the first basketball championships and then rotate with FOX/FX each year thereafter. The balance of the tournament will be featured exclusively on the Pac 12 Network. Fox Sports Net continues to hold all rights to the 2012 tournament.
- Five women's basketball games, including the Championship game of the Pac-12 women’s basketball tournament, plus 10 more Olympic sports events, on the ESPN family of networks.
- The Pac-12 Network will exclusively feature approximately another 200 live Olympic sports telecasts across 30 men’s and women’s sports annually.
- The Pac-12 Digital Networks will feature several hundred other live Pac-12 athletic events on an annual basis, not covered by ESPN, FOX Sports or the Pac-12 Network.

To ensure a fair distribution of games, ESPN, FOX Sports and the Pac-12 Network (which in July adds the University of Utah and the University of Colorado) will share pre-determined football and men’s basketball selection rights.

The Pac-12 Conference retained Evolution Media Capital (EMC), an affiliate of Creative Artists Agency (CAA), as its media and financial adviser and Proskauer Rose as legal counsel.

"Significantly enhancing premier content from a conference with the tradition, passion and excellence of the Pac-12 strengthens our networks," said John Skipper, ESPN executive vice president, content. "As we grow our longstanding relationship with the Conference, fans will be able to watch ESPN's Pac-12 coverage on any screen they choose."

“Today’s announcement with the Pac-12 reaffirms FOX Sports Media Group’s long-term commitment to college sports programming,” said Randy Freer, president of FOX Sports Networks. “We believe that this rights package provides tremendous value across a variety of platforms, including FOX Sports, which will offer its first-ever slate of over-the-air, regular season college football games.”

About the Pac-12 Conference

The Conference has a tradition as the “Conference of Champions,” earning more than 175 NCAA team titles over the past 20 years, and has led the nation in NCAA Championships in 44 of the last 50 years. The Conference comprises 10 leading U.S. universities: The University of Arizona, Arizona State University, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, Stanford University, the University of Southern California, the University of Washington, and Washington State University. In July, the Conference officially becomes the Pac-12 Conference with the addition of the University of Utah (2011) and the University of Colorado (2012). Conference offices are located 25 miles east of San Francisco in Walnut Creek, CA. For more information on the Conference’s programs, member institutions, and Commissioner Larry Scott, go to www.pac-10.org.

About ESPN

ESPN, Inc., is the world’s leading multinational, multimedia sports entertainment company featuring a portfolio of more than 50 multimedia sports assets. The company comprises seven 24-hour domestic television networks (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes and ESPN 3D). ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPNEWS HD are simulcast services. Other businesses include ESPN Regional Television, ESPN International (46 networks, syndication, radio, websites), ESPN Radio, ESPN.com, ESPN3.com (broadband sports network) ESPN Mobile,ESPN The Magazine, ESPN Enterprises, ESPN PPV and other growing new businesses, including ESPN on Demand and ESPN Interactive. Based in Bristol, Conn., ESPN is 80 percent owned by ABC, Inc., which is an indirect subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. The Hearst Corporation holds a 20 percent interest in ESPN.

About FOX Sports Media Group

FOX Sports Media Group (FSMG) is the umbrella entity representing News Corporation’s wide array of multi-platform US-based sports assets. Built with brands that are capable of reaching more than 100 million viewers in a single weekend, FSMG includes ownership and interests in linear television networks, digital and mobile programming, broadband platforms, multiple web sites, joint-venture businesses and several licensing partnerships. FSMG now includes FOX Sports, the sports television arm of the FOX Broadcasting Company; FSN, which reaches over 85 million homes through more than two dozen owned and affiliated regional sports networks; FSN’s affiliated regional web sites and FSN national programming; SPEED and SPEED2; FOX Soccer Channel and FOX Soccer Plus; FUEL TV; and FOX College Sports. In addition, FSMG also includes FOX Sports Interactive Media, which comprises FOXSports.com on MSN, whatifsports.com and scout.com, reaching over 27 million unique visitors monthly. Also included are FOX’s interests in joint-venture businesses FOX Deportes, Big Ten Network and STATS, LLC, as well as licensing agreements that establish the FOX Sports Radio Network, FOX Sports Skybox restaurants and FOX Sports Grills

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

What % of people in SF care about Stanford or Cal? Or in LA about UCLA, or USC if they revert to their down years? JiMGA might know better, but there's something to be said for owning a smaller media market...

You beat me to a point I was preparing to make ... but it's a point that has some limitations too, with Los Angeles providing the biggest asterisk and a good benchmark for the limits of how far that line of thinking can really go.

Based on the 2010-11 Nielsen markets by number of HH

A 1.0 rtg in LA is more viewers than
a 10.0 rtg in all but the top 56 mkts
a 5.0 rtg in all but the top 30 mkts
a 3.0 rtg in all but the top 10 mkts

It's LA that's the really big deal for this kind of thing, even though SF is the #6 market, the gap narrows for it (and becomes easier for smaller markets to overcome) because of the big gap between NY & LA and every other market even in the top handful. To wit:

A 1.0 rtg in SF is more viewers than
a 10.0 in all but the top 115 mkts
a 5.0 rtg in all but the top 64 mkts
a 3.0 rtg in all but the top 38 mkts

When you get down to Denver, for example, the differences narrow when you get into the lower more realistic possibilities.

A 1.0 rtg in DEN is more viewers than
a 10.0 in all but the top 144 mkts
a 5.0 rtg in but the top 97 mkts
a 3.0 rtg in only the top 62 mkts

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

What % of people in SF care about Stanford or Cal? Or in LA about UCLA, or USC if they revert to their down years? JiMGA might know better, but there's something to be said for owning a smaller media market... for example, OKC (45th) and Austin (51st) might very well have as many TV's tuned in to the regional CFB broadcast as Denver (16th) or San Diego (28th) do.

The problem is with 4 teams all with decent traditions the odds that all of them fail over a long stretch is pretty slim. If USC declines, there is good odds UCLA would rise. In fact, I'd be willing to bet 3 of the 4 teams in the SF/LA group would be more likely to have solid years than none of the four.

[MrBug708]

Scott isn't likely to stand pat over the life of the 12-year deal either. He boldly tried to add Texas, Oklahoma and a few other Big 12 schools to form the first superconference just a summer ago and he insisted on putting provisions into the new deal to ensure a revenue bump if he's able to pull off the maneuver over the next few years.

"Both ESPN and Fox know my views," Scott said. "They both know that if we were to expand, there would be appropriate adjustments to our fees and we certainly have the ability to expand under these contracts. I don't foresee it happening in the near future but it's my view that there will be further expansion down the road."

1)He expects there to be expansion

2)You don't expand unless you are either at 21 million if not more.

3)To get that, if you are adding four schools, you would need to add 100 million additional per year, for that to happen you need to add Power schools and TV sets.

4)Power Schools and TV sets = Texas and one other big fish (not Oklahoma)

He didn't spell it out, but he doesn't have to.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

1)He expects there to be expansion

2)You don't expand unless you are either at 21 million if not more.

3)To get that, if you are adding four schools, you would need to add 100 million additional per year, for that to happen you need to add Power schools and TV sets.

4)Power Schools and TV sets = Texas and one other big fish (not Oklahoma)

He didn't spell it out, but he doesn't have to.

When/if the Pac-10 lands those teams, then we'll talk. So far, all that's been done is to add a mid-major team and a bottom feeder program from the Big 12. That's a far cry from what you're laying out there.

However, it should be noted that the Boulder campus mentality concerning weed should fit in quite well with other Pac-10 schools.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

4)Power Schools and TV sets = Texas and one other big fish (not Oklahoma)

He didn't spell it out, but he doesn't have to.

BYU? Texas A&M instead of Oklahoma? Steal Nebraska from the Big Ten? You/the Pac-12 can't seriously be expecting to land Notre Dame, and I don't see what schools west of them bring in more eyes than Oklahoma.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

BYU? Texas A&M instead of Oklahoma? Steal Nebraska from the Big Ten? You/the Pac-12 can't seriously be expecting to land Notre Dame, and I don't see what schools west of them bring in more eyes than Oklahoma.

BYU will never happen. It's Texas, and whatever has to come along with Texas to make it happen, i.e. A&M, probably Oklahoma (which probably means Oklahoma State too).

Nobody in the Pac-12 has any expectations of landing Notre Dame - the big fish we are after is Texas.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

BYU will never happen. It's Texas, and whatever has to come along with Texas to make it happen, i.e. A&M, probably Oklahoma (which probably means Oklahoma State too).

Nobody in the Pac-12 has any expectations of landing Notre Dame - the big fish we are after is Texas.

That was my thinking, and while I think Texas will hold out for now, it's at least a realistic goal. Bug's line "Texas and one other big fish (not Oklahoma)" confused me, because I assumed the Pac-10's goal was Texas and whatever minnows it demands be brought along (and I include OU and aTm as minnows compared to UT). The only schools that can be called a big fish near the level of Texas are already in the B10/P10/SEC (Michigan, OSU, USC, Florida, Tennessee, LSU?) or the great white whale that is Notre Dame (who will be joining the Big Ten if they ever get off their high horse and join a conference.)

[Swaggs]

The Pac 10 now has a monopoly on two timezones (something no other conference can come close to saying). That is largely a good thing for them.

I think they would probably be better off letting go of the Texas dream. If they pull in Texas and things don't work out, some of the tagalongs that are really fortunate to be getting paid in this deal (WSU, OSU, Utah, etc) might get screwed down the line if things break up.

[MrBug708]

I was referring to Notre Dame, but I certainly dont expect them to come. I was just speaking on what Larry Scott probably has a contingency plan in case