The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

When the networks want realignment they will let us know

And they're going to.

Next time you refute, have a refute.

And everything else we say here matters?

Don't be wishing standard transmissions away, Gigem!  

The nice thing for the broadcast networks is that sports still fit their broadcast model.  Since people want to watch sports live-action, and the broadcast model is based on advertising revenue scaled by how many eyeballs are watching that particular event, sports are one of the few entertainment options that still fit the eyeball model well.

How many of you know (and are sick of) the Dr. Pepper Fansville commercials?  Most of us have seen those over and over.  On the flipside, I have no idea what commercials run in my family's favorite scripted broadcast shows.  We always FF right through them.

So the broadcast model is going to stick around for a while.  The cable subscriber model-- or what I also refer to as the forced subsidy model-- on the other hand, is already dying off.  Cable networks are already dropping the BTN in some of the B1G footprint.  And cord cutters are skipping out on cable/DirectTV/Dish in ever-increasing numbers.  The value in that model is diminishing rapidly.  So the revenue from conference networks that rely on that model-- specifically the BTN and SECN--can only follow suit and diminish accordingly.

I see the college football revenue model sliding back to where we were 10-15 years ago with Tier1 and Tier2 contracts dominating.  Since the Tier1 and Tier2 broadcast models won't have room for every single football game that's currently being broadcast via the cable subscriber (forced subsidy) model, as Gigem points out, there will be a lot of other streaming options available to the conferences, and/or individual schools, depending on how the contracts are written up.

Those revenue models aren't going to drive realignment.  Something else might, like a split from the NCAA due to pay-for-play or other macro issues.  But in that case, I believe the idea of conferences as we currently know them will change dramatically.  I think it's likely some football-only and/or basketball-only alliances are formed, while the non-revenue sports remain regional, or BECOME more regional than they currently are in cases where schools are playing WAY out of their regions (WVU, Rutgers, etc.).

Just my thoughts.  Could be wrong of course.

Well sure, but none of the recent expansion-mania was caused by the broadcast network partners.  It was  driven by the conferences themselves, the B1G and the SEC wanting to expand their cable subscriber footprints for the sake of their conference networks and the forced subsidy revenue model.  If anything, those moves put the broadcast network partners in a position of LESS power, because the B1G and the SEC were able to gain incremental revenue by selling those Tier3 rights in a way that the networks had no control over, and their T1/T2 deals decreased as a % proportion of total conference revenue, further decreasing their power over the conferences.  

The expansion moves have been conference driven, not network driven. 

utee its not so much what has happened in the past that of note instead its what is not happening now


If the networks wont adjust the payout calculation to fit expansion then it wont happen


I strongly suspect thats why the Big12 still only has 10 teams

Definitely.  The B12 has been flat-out told not to expand.  The payouts won't increase.  There's not one realistic add that could possibly add value to the conference's inventory, and so the conference hasn't expanded.  The only additions that could bring value to the conference are unrealistic and won't happen.

But inventory and intellectual property aren't the only things that might drive conference realignment.  In fact, compared to what college football is potentially facing with respect to pay-for-play, injury liability, anti-trust, collusion litigation, etc.-- incremental revenue from Tier3 forced subsidy networks is starting to look like small potatoes in the grand scheme of economic drivers.

Yup.