Interesting Read
Story by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY
Arizona State President Michael Crow recently tried to explain why there has been so much sudden instability and change at the highest levels of college football.
After 45 years in the Pac-12 Conference, his school announced last week it was joining the Big 12 in 2024, along with three other Pac-12 schools in another unsettling wave of realignment.
"There are a lot of forces at work, including the overlords of the media empire that are out there that were driving a lot of this," he said.
But who exactly and why? USA TODAY Sports came up with a short list of power brokers whose leadership and decisions facilitated this, for better or for worse, and then reached out to them to see whether they wanted to discuss it publicly.
On the other hand, the Big Ten Conference now is adding Oregon, Washington, Southern California and UCLA to expand to 18 teams for 2024, part of a strategy to deliver more big games and growth for some of the game’s biggest brands.
Here is who deserves credit (or blame) for it.
In a 7-2 decision, Stevens affirmed that this centralized system violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, opening the door for schools and conferences to pursue TV deals on their own in a free competitive market. That’s what is happening in realignment today as a result – schools and conferences changing affiliations to get more money from TV or other media companies to show their games.
OPINION Failed leaders, pathetic backstabbers are ruining college sports
In retrospect, this might have seemed inevitable and correct under the law. But not everybody agreed back then, and fellow Justice Byron White warned about the professionalization of college football in his dissent. Incidentally, White starred in football at Colorado, which left the Big 12 for the Pac-12 in 2011, only to recently decide to return to the Big 12 in 2024.
"An agreement to share football revenues to a certain extent is an essential aspect of maintaining some balance of strength among competing colleges, and of minimizing the tendency to professionalism in the dominant schools," White’s dissent stated.
UCLA would have been less likely to leave the Pac-12 without USC, and media companies such as Fox, ESPN or Apple would have been more likely to make attractive bids for the rights to Pac-12 games with the huge Los Angeles market still anchoring their investment in them.
Folt instead decided it was better for USC’s future to take the money and run for a sports league based in the Midwest, where fan passion translates into more eyeballs and money. The money difference might have made it seem like a no-brainer for USC and UCLA: around $70 million in the Big Ten, which is about double of what they could have gotten in the Pac-12.
On the other hand, she is in charge of a nonprofit institution whose stated central mission is the “development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit.”
Does abandoning USC’s longtime peer institutions in the Pac-12 for more money support that? What about long plane trips to games in the Midwest and New Jersey for USC’s non-football athletes and their families?
"It’s difficult to rationalize that move in any way other than it’s just a money grab without regard for the athletes," said Joel Lulla, a lecturer at the University of Texas and sports media expert who previously worked on legal and business matters for ABC Sports and IMG.
In 2021, Folt also “shut down” a chance for the Pac-12 to add members from the Big 12 when it could have to improve its standing for the future, according to the Los Angeles Times.
It’s a good business move for Fox in the sense that it’s better to “buy” only the four biggest brands of the Pac-12 for $50 million-$70 million each per year instead of “buying” all 12 teams in the league for $30 million-$40 million each. In return, Fox Sports gets more marquee cross-country matchups to offer viewers and advertisers without having to pay to show less-popular regional Pac-12 matchups, such as between Washington State and Oregon State.
"Fox brought new money to the table for Oregon and for Washington," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said Wednesday about the Big Ten’s newest members.
In February, Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks discussed Fox’s role with the league’s prior decision to add USC and UCLA.
"We feel good about our long-term strategic relationship with the Big Ten through the Big Ten Network, and then also Fox and being able to at least help in our own way with the addition of USC and UCLA," Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks said then on The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast.
It’s not clear how involved Shanks was with any consultations to add schools in the Big Ten. Current and former television executives have stressed that schools and conferences make such decisions in the end, not TV executives. But without the funding from Fox, there is no western expansion of the Big Ten.
Shanks noted in the same podcast in February that the college football landscape had shifted in 2021, when Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving the Big 12 for greener pastures in the Southeastern Conference, which already had a $3 billion, 10-year deal with rival ESPN and ABC starting in 2024.
USC and UCLA announced their move to the Big Ten a year later and “are the right, great pieces of value add for the Big Ten,” Shanks said in the podcast. “It keeps the Big Ten and SEC … on par at least with each other.”
It also keeps Fox on par with ESPN in their lucrative chase for live viewership.
Story by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY
Arizona State President Michael Crow recently tried to explain why there has been so much sudden instability and change at the highest levels of college football.
After 45 years in the Pac-12 Conference, his school announced last week it was joining the Big 12 in 2024, along with three other Pac-12 schools in another unsettling wave of realignment.
"There are a lot of forces at work, including the overlords of the media empire that are out there that were driving a lot of this," he said.
But who exactly and why? USA TODAY Sports came up with a short list of power brokers whose leadership and decisions facilitated this, for better or for worse, and then reached out to them to see whether they wanted to discuss it publicly.
What did they do?
As a result of their actions − directly or indirectly – the once-glorious Pac-12 has nearly disintegrated, leaving huge fan bases on the West Coast abandoned by longtime peers in favor of more money from television companies, along with more cross-country trips for athletes in other sports across three time zones.On the other hand, the Big Ten Conference now is adding Oregon, Washington, Southern California and UCLA to expand to 18 teams for 2024, part of a strategy to deliver more big games and growth for some of the game’s biggest brands.
Here is who deserves credit (or blame) for it.
The opinion delivered by John Paul Stevens
The former Supreme Court justice died in 2019, but his fingerprints have always been all over any realignment chaos in college football. That’s because he delivered the majority opinion in a 1984 case that broke the NCAA’s monopoly over college football television rights. Back then, the NCAA controlled television for college football with the goal of protecting ticket sales and preserving “competitive balance” nationally by spreading TV exposure and revenue to a wide swath of teams, not just the biggest brands.In a 7-2 decision, Stevens affirmed that this centralized system violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, opening the door for schools and conferences to pursue TV deals on their own in a free competitive market. That’s what is happening in realignment today as a result – schools and conferences changing affiliations to get more money from TV or other media companies to show their games.
OPINION Failed leaders, pathetic backstabbers are ruining college sports
In retrospect, this might have seemed inevitable and correct under the law. But not everybody agreed back then, and fellow Justice Byron White warned about the professionalization of college football in his dissent. Incidentally, White starred in football at Colorado, which left the Big 12 for the Pac-12 in 2011, only to recently decide to return to the Big 12 in 2024.
"An agreement to share football revenues to a certain extent is an essential aspect of maintaining some balance of strength among competing colleges, and of minimizing the tendency to professionalism in the dominant schools," White’s dissent stated.
Carol Folt’s choices
The USC president was the biggest domino to fall in the downfall of the Pac-12. If she didn’t decide last year to join the Big Ten in 2024, the Pac-12 would not have become nearly as vulnerable to poaching from other leagues as it’s been in recent weeks, when six more teams decided to leave, including Oregon and Washington.UCLA would have been less likely to leave the Pac-12 without USC, and media companies such as Fox, ESPN or Apple would have been more likely to make attractive bids for the rights to Pac-12 games with the huge Los Angeles market still anchoring their investment in them.
Folt instead decided it was better for USC’s future to take the money and run for a sports league based in the Midwest, where fan passion translates into more eyeballs and money. The money difference might have made it seem like a no-brainer for USC and UCLA: around $70 million in the Big Ten, which is about double of what they could have gotten in the Pac-12.
On the other hand, she is in charge of a nonprofit institution whose stated central mission is the “development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit.”
Does abandoning USC’s longtime peer institutions in the Pac-12 for more money support that? What about long plane trips to games in the Midwest and New Jersey for USC’s non-football athletes and their families?
"It’s difficult to rationalize that move in any way other than it’s just a money grab without regard for the athletes," said Joel Lulla, a lecturer at the University of Texas and sports media expert who previously worked on legal and business matters for ABC Sports and IMG.
In 2021, Folt also “shut down” a chance for the Pac-12 to add members from the Big 12 when it could have to improve its standing for the future, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Fuel from Fox Sports
If it was a money grab for USC, much of that money is coming from Fox Sports, the primary media rights partner of the Big Ten and a 61 percent owner of the Big Ten Network. That means Fox Sports is in effect funding the expansion of the Big Ten as it takes in four schools from the Pac-12.It’s a good business move for Fox in the sense that it’s better to “buy” only the four biggest brands of the Pac-12 for $50 million-$70 million each per year instead of “buying” all 12 teams in the league for $30 million-$40 million each. In return, Fox Sports gets more marquee cross-country matchups to offer viewers and advertisers without having to pay to show less-popular regional Pac-12 matchups, such as between Washington State and Oregon State.
"Fox brought new money to the table for Oregon and for Washington," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said Wednesday about the Big Ten’s newest members.
In February, Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks discussed Fox’s role with the league’s prior decision to add USC and UCLA.
"We feel good about our long-term strategic relationship with the Big Ten through the Big Ten Network, and then also Fox and being able to at least help in our own way with the addition of USC and UCLA," Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks said then on The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast.
It’s not clear how involved Shanks was with any consultations to add schools in the Big Ten. Current and former television executives have stressed that schools and conferences make such decisions in the end, not TV executives. But without the funding from Fox, there is no western expansion of the Big Ten.
Shanks noted in the same podcast in February that the college football landscape had shifted in 2021, when Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving the Big 12 for greener pastures in the Southeastern Conference, which already had a $3 billion, 10-year deal with rival ESPN and ABC starting in 2024.
USC and UCLA announced their move to the Big Ten a year later and “are the right, great pieces of value add for the Big Ten,” Shanks said in the podcast. “It keeps the Big Ten and SEC … on par at least with each other.”
It also keeps Fox on par with ESPN in their lucrative chase for live viewership.
