Started By
Message

Dr. Sankey or: why I learned to stop worrying and love the Texas addition
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:37 pm
The SEC outplayed the B1G in the expansion game. That's going to become more apparent in another 5-10 years. Feel free to bookmark this thread and remind me if I am wrong. I know many of you traditionalists hate expansion, but if you haven't already come to terms with it, this a zero-sum, expand-or-die game of musical chairs. And the SEC has always been at the tip of the spear in the conference expansion game.
I think it's fairly obvious that from a competitive standpoint, the SEC's expansion targets have been vastly superior to the B1G's [insert Mizzou sucks comments here]. Since the SEC added Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Mizzou, the B1G added one historic blue blood, its crosstown little brother, and two completely irrelevant programs in Rutgers and Maryland.
But despite this, the B1G pays each of its schools more from its media deals than the SEC presently does, and this is projected to remain the case for several years to come. The B1G has gobbled up the biggest Nielsen designated market areas with its Rutgers and LA expansions, and that was very clearly a motivating factor for those schools' inclusion. And it's been a financial home run in the short term for the B1G. But will it last?
We're rapidly approaching the death of the linear network and the rise of the streaming platform. Look no further than the present PAC media negotiations, which have been nothing short of a colossal shite show. But there is one important fact to glean: the traditional, linear networks aren't paying. The current reports indicate that Apple is likely to fill that void, if a deal can be consummated at all. And yes, we can all laugh at the PAC because the underlying truth is that the conference just isn't worth very much without the LA market and the marquee USC brand. But this streaming reality is coming for every conference in some form - it will just pay better for the SEC and the B1G. And I think that is where we will see a break from a conference power struggle to the SEC being crowned not only king on the field, but financially as well.
Just as cord cutting came for shows and movies, it is coming for sports as well. We're already seeing the transition. NFL games exclusively on Amazon Prime, English Premier League gated behind an NBC streaming app, NBA LeaguePass, and the MLB is the worst offender of all. Want to watch a Royals game in KC? Gotta pay for Bally Sports as a standalone streaming platform. Even in the college game, you can already pay for ESPN+ for $10/month and see most SEC games. But sooner than later, at an inflated price point, this will be your sole option to view most SEC games. Book it.
And it's at that juncture that the SEC leapfrogs ahead of the B1G in terms of media dollars. While there is not an exact science to why I firmly believe this to be true, there are a number of factors: (1) viewership, (2) regional/cultural identity, and (3) competitiveness.
Start with viewership. Take Rutgers. A team that is in the B1G because it is located in the largest designated market area in the country, has a big enrollment, and has good academic chops. That means right now, despite having a miserable football team that nobody cares about, Rutgers increased the amount of money that Ohio State received from the B1G's media deals each season. But what happens when linear networks bow out or evolve?
Last year, Rutgers faced Maryland on the Big Ten Network for rivalry week. Guess how many people tuned in? You're wrong, far fewer. It was 97k. I did not omit a digit. Rutgers had awful viewership for the entire season. But to expound on that rivalry week and why it matters, Michigan-Ohio State blew everyone else away in terms of viewers: 17.14mm tuned in. Granted, it was basically the B1G Conference Championship Game with a Playoff bid on the line. But after that, the next most-viewed rivalry week game featuring a B1G school came in at 17th place (Michigan State-Penn State at 1.99mm). Just in the SEC, it was beaten by Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Georgia. So this begs the question, which conference will have more active paying subscribers? The conference with the media market expansion targets and afterthought programs, or the conference that is full of football-crazed fans?
And that leads to the next point, identity. The B1G has not paid any heed to the geographic/cultural ties with its expansion targets. For now, that's working for them. They sit in big media markets that add money to the conference. But what happens when the B1G is relying on individual paying subscribers to compete with the SEC? Sure, the conference will still hold classic match-ups like Ohio State-Michigan or Minnesota-Wisconsin, and you can bet your arse that those schools will have plenty of fans happily paying for Leaders and Legends Streaming Pass. But then they'll also have annual match-ups featuring anchors-around-their-necks in Rutgers and Maryland. Not only do those schools suck at football, they have nothing in common with most of the B1G and no history with the schools at all. USC and UCLA will develop a similar, very foreseeable problem. USC might be a big enough brand to endure some of this, but how many of their fans will really pay for annual games against Indiana or Northwestern? And even fewer will travel two-thirds of the way across the country to fill stands. There is no history between those schools, no proximity, and no commonality at all.
By contrast, the SEC has added heavyweight programs and maintained a contiguous conference boundary. You can see budding rivalries like LSU-A&M and Mizzou-Arkansas. And you can bet that fans of all SEC schools will tune in to see a game like Oklahoma-Alabama or Texas-LSU.
And again, that plays to my third point. The competitiveness of the SEC will draw more subscribers than the B1G. The SEC will soon feature eight elite/blue blood programs. Half the damn conference. The contrast is stark when you (subjectively) stack the programs up against each other:
Elite (elite history and/or could realistically compete for a championship in a given season):
SEC (8): Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida
B1G (5): Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State.
Strong (good history, competitive most seasons, has access to resources that could theoretically bump them up this ladder):
SEC: (1) Texas A&M
B1G: (2) Wisconsin, UCLA
Middling (generally competitive):
SEC: (6) Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, South Carolina
B1G: (6) Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Maryland
Cellar-dwellers:
SEC: (1) Vanderbilt
B1G: (3) Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers
So in time, I think the SEC is going to stand even taller relative to the B1G as linear television dies and paying subscribers dictate the financial success of the conference. Assuming Texas doesn't destroy the conference first.
I think it's fairly obvious that from a competitive standpoint, the SEC's expansion targets have been vastly superior to the B1G's [insert Mizzou sucks comments here]. Since the SEC added Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Mizzou, the B1G added one historic blue blood, its crosstown little brother, and two completely irrelevant programs in Rutgers and Maryland.
But despite this, the B1G pays each of its schools more from its media deals than the SEC presently does, and this is projected to remain the case for several years to come. The B1G has gobbled up the biggest Nielsen designated market areas with its Rutgers and LA expansions, and that was very clearly a motivating factor for those schools' inclusion. And it's been a financial home run in the short term for the B1G. But will it last?
We're rapidly approaching the death of the linear network and the rise of the streaming platform. Look no further than the present PAC media negotiations, which have been nothing short of a colossal shite show. But there is one important fact to glean: the traditional, linear networks aren't paying. The current reports indicate that Apple is likely to fill that void, if a deal can be consummated at all. And yes, we can all laugh at the PAC because the underlying truth is that the conference just isn't worth very much without the LA market and the marquee USC brand. But this streaming reality is coming for every conference in some form - it will just pay better for the SEC and the B1G. And I think that is where we will see a break from a conference power struggle to the SEC being crowned not only king on the field, but financially as well.
Just as cord cutting came for shows and movies, it is coming for sports as well. We're already seeing the transition. NFL games exclusively on Amazon Prime, English Premier League gated behind an NBC streaming app, NBA LeaguePass, and the MLB is the worst offender of all. Want to watch a Royals game in KC? Gotta pay for Bally Sports as a standalone streaming platform. Even in the college game, you can already pay for ESPN+ for $10/month and see most SEC games. But sooner than later, at an inflated price point, this will be your sole option to view most SEC games. Book it.
And it's at that juncture that the SEC leapfrogs ahead of the B1G in terms of media dollars. While there is not an exact science to why I firmly believe this to be true, there are a number of factors: (1) viewership, (2) regional/cultural identity, and (3) competitiveness.
Start with viewership. Take Rutgers. A team that is in the B1G because it is located in the largest designated market area in the country, has a big enrollment, and has good academic chops. That means right now, despite having a miserable football team that nobody cares about, Rutgers increased the amount of money that Ohio State received from the B1G's media deals each season. But what happens when linear networks bow out or evolve?
Last year, Rutgers faced Maryland on the Big Ten Network for rivalry week. Guess how many people tuned in? You're wrong, far fewer. It was 97k. I did not omit a digit. Rutgers had awful viewership for the entire season. But to expound on that rivalry week and why it matters, Michigan-Ohio State blew everyone else away in terms of viewers: 17.14mm tuned in. Granted, it was basically the B1G Conference Championship Game with a Playoff bid on the line. But after that, the next most-viewed rivalry week game featuring a B1G school came in at 17th place (Michigan State-Penn State at 1.99mm). Just in the SEC, it was beaten by Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Georgia. So this begs the question, which conference will have more active paying subscribers? The conference with the media market expansion targets and afterthought programs, or the conference that is full of football-crazed fans?
And that leads to the next point, identity. The B1G has not paid any heed to the geographic/cultural ties with its expansion targets. For now, that's working for them. They sit in big media markets that add money to the conference. But what happens when the B1G is relying on individual paying subscribers to compete with the SEC? Sure, the conference will still hold classic match-ups like Ohio State-Michigan or Minnesota-Wisconsin, and you can bet your arse that those schools will have plenty of fans happily paying for Leaders and Legends Streaming Pass. But then they'll also have annual match-ups featuring anchors-around-their-necks in Rutgers and Maryland. Not only do those schools suck at football, they have nothing in common with most of the B1G and no history with the schools at all. USC and UCLA will develop a similar, very foreseeable problem. USC might be a big enough brand to endure some of this, but how many of their fans will really pay for annual games against Indiana or Northwestern? And even fewer will travel two-thirds of the way across the country to fill stands. There is no history between those schools, no proximity, and no commonality at all.
By contrast, the SEC has added heavyweight programs and maintained a contiguous conference boundary. You can see budding rivalries like LSU-A&M and Mizzou-Arkansas. And you can bet that fans of all SEC schools will tune in to see a game like Oklahoma-Alabama or Texas-LSU.
And again, that plays to my third point. The competitiveness of the SEC will draw more subscribers than the B1G. The SEC will soon feature eight elite/blue blood programs. Half the damn conference. The contrast is stark when you (subjectively) stack the programs up against each other:
Elite (elite history and/or could realistically compete for a championship in a given season):
SEC (8): Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida
B1G (5): Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State.
Strong (good history, competitive most seasons, has access to resources that could theoretically bump them up this ladder):
SEC: (1) Texas A&M
B1G: (2) Wisconsin, UCLA
Middling (generally competitive):
SEC: (6) Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, South Carolina
B1G: (6) Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Maryland
Cellar-dwellers:
SEC: (1) Vanderbilt
B1G: (3) Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers
So in time, I think the SEC is going to stand even taller relative to the B1G as linear television dies and paying subscribers dictate the financial success of the conference. Assuming Texas doesn't destroy the conference first.
This post was edited on 4/24/23 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:38 pm to BreakawayZou83
Holy wall of words Batman!
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:41 pm to Hback
quote:
Holy wall of words Batman!
I’m going to wait for the movie…..
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:41 pm to BreakawayZou83
Anyone got a TL;DR?
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:55 pm to BreakawayZou83
I read the entire post. I mostly agree with the OP. The number of folks viewing the big time match ups will be the key and driving force with media payouts when games are viewed via live streaming, which will be a much bigger factor than most of us realize as the technology evolves to allow for this type of viewing.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:56 pm to BreakawayZou83
I've been saying for a while that in the current environment, what matters is creating top matchups rather than new markets. It's why the SEC will consider FSU and Miami when they expand again dispite already having the Florida TV market.
With streaming, you'll need competitive matchups that fans are willing to pay $9.99 a month for.
With streaming, you'll need competitive matchups that fans are willing to pay $9.99 a month for.
This post was edited on 4/24/23 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 4/24/23 at 12:56 pm to BreakawayZou83
Did not read, but upvoted for the clever subject line.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:04 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:
I think it's fairly obvious that from a competitive standpoint, the SEC's expansion targets have been vastly superior to the B1G's [insert Mizzou sucks comments here]. Since the SEC added Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Mizzou, the B1G added one historic blue blood, its crosstown little brother, and two completely irrelevant programs in Rutgers and Maryland.
The B1G targets also include Independent Penn State and getting Nebraska was also a keeper. These 2 football pedigrees at the time rang a lot louder than Arkansas and South Carolina.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:16 pm to BreakawayZou83
The day I quit watching college football is coming. It's a shame, but fall in the southeast is glorious and made for getting outside on weekends.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:17 pm to bamameister
quote:
The B1G targets also include Independent Penn State and getting Nebraska was also a keeper.
Agree on Penn State, but so far Nebraska has been a bust, expect this to get worse as the 90s are now 30 years ago. That means if you're younger than 38, you probably don't remember when Nebraska was an elite football team.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:19 pm to bamameister
quote:
The B1G targets also include Independent Penn State and getting Nebraska was also a keeper. These 2 football pedigrees at the time rang a lot louder than Arkansas and South Carolina.
Nebraska will turn out to be a fantastic addition once this media market/cable tv era finally dies. They are a great example of the point I am getting at. I bet they'll have 10 times the number of subscribers that Rutgers generates despite sitting in a market with less than 1/20th of the population. Nebraska also has natural rivalries to build with Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, which will generate subscriptions and viewers from other fans as well. By contrast, only the most diehard of fans will pay to watch Maryland-Rutgers. And there aren't many diehard college football fans in that part of the country to begin.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:20 pm to rebelrouser
quote:
The day I quit watching college football is coming. It's a shame, but fall in the southeast is glorious and made for getting outside on weekends.
You're allowed to do both.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:23 pm to Beachbum87
quote:
Anyone got a TL;DR?
SEC >>> Big 10
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:24 pm to BreakawayZou83

TL;DR: Fan of a team with no business in the SEC wants is super cereal about hot takes on other teams that have no business in the SEC.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:33 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
VoxDawg
You are always a prick. Not funny enough to be a troll and yet you add absolutely nothing of substance to any conversation.
But I'd be the first to recognize that Mizzou is very lucky to have gotten a seat at the SEC table. We're a much milder version of Rutgers, media markets definitely helped us back in 2011. I'm not sure we would have gotten an invite to the B1G or SEC today. But at least we fit the conference's footprint and have some natural rivalries to build with a number of SEC schools, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky in particular.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:37 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:
Agree on Penn State, but so far Nebraska has been a bust, expect this to get worse as the 90s are now 30 years ago. That means if you're younger than 38, you probably don't remember when Nebraska was an elite football team.
They are missing that coach. If, in fact, they have that guy, they will be back faster than you can say Tennessee.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:44 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:
Middling (generally competitive):
SEC: (6) Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, South Car
Mississippi State is below .500 all-time.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 1:50 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:
You are always a prick.
Just to carpetbagging invaders to our conference. While you were a non-factor before joining, I've had nothing but contempt for your program since 2012. You'll never catch me saying anything complementary about that program, for there is nothing to complement.
Rick Neuheisel had the best possible solution.
He proposed a three-way trade. MiZZZou back to the Big 12, West Virginia to the ACC & Louisville to the SEC. Everyone would be better off that way.
This post was edited on 4/24/23 at 1:56 pm
Popular
Back to top
