There are reports that ESPN
wants NFL back in the fold, and that Sankey wants to move up contract negotiations. With the B12 contract negotiations set to occur around 2029, ESPN could be strapped for cash. On the face, it appears the B12 is screwed.
The Redbird investment into the B12 may be different than originally thought. With Paramount about to acquire TNT, TBS, and truTV, there might be something else brewing.
Yormark may jump ahead of the line once again. Paramount may want the B12 content, and ESPN may want the money they are now paying for the B12 content. They have the SEC and you guys of course, and it appears the SEC is wanting more money based on the BIG payouts recently revealed. ESPN just might allow CBS (paramount) to bid on the rights they now hold.
32 Replies
2mo
No one is being disconnected.. but NFL will ALWAYS push for more rights, increased revenue. That's business... same for the conferences.. Some are better than others.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
its media deal.
Even with 5 percent or less of a chance getting an invite, they would wait until the very end.
Heck even KU may want to wait.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
SMU Pony
2mo
EVERYONE wants the NFL. It's the premier media rights product by a country mile.
Paramount still has to pass regulatory hurdles to finalize its merger with WBD. And then, if that's successful, it's going to need to re-up the CBS NFL deal (which it will have to fork over a fortune for), the CBS Big Ten deal, the TBS MLB deal, and the TNT NHL deal before the Big 12 gets to eat. What will be left? Probably not much.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
they do pass the regulatory hurdles, there would be e new sheriff in town. keep in mind as well, that Yormark has stood on the roof tops saying he wants to separate basketball, also not exactly breaking news.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2mo
And I think it's pretty clear it won't be a needle mover. The Big Ten used to separate its basketball rights and then moved them all under the same umbrella in their last media deal.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
you that it probably won't move the needle, but I'm certainly not betting the farm on that. Nothing in college athletics will surprise me anymore.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2mo
Then they will turn up the volume of positive coverage for their properties and also turn up their criticism of B12 teams. You see how poorly they treat the ACC now, and they own us. You need a connection to the talking head shows and wide spread media in order to help stay relevant with the casual fans (which then helps with viewership).
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
it's not like they get any respect from ESPN or FOX anyway.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Paramount? I ask because I could see Paramount decide to stick 75%+ of its Big XII coverage on Paramount+ just to (try) to bump up its streaming numbers. If that happens, then I could see the Big XII feel like a "second class conference" just like the ACC may be treated in its current relationship with ESPN.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
to lose. it's not like ESPN+ is any good - the productions are terrible. What intrigues me is the TBS, TNT, and truTV platforms. The money is the most important factor, but exposure is paramount for the casual fan looking for a decent game. Streaming is more of a destination, and does not get the foot traffic.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
Fall. I don't know if Paramount plans to expand the sports broadcasting coverage of those channels vs. potentially use the Big XII during basketball season to try to get people hyped up to tune into their channels during March Madness. Basically use TBS and TNT to broadcast a few college basketball games in conjunction with its NBA coverage. Then save any of the truTV broadcast for when the season gets closer to March Madness . Hence why I thought Paramount might go the Paramount+ route and not really utilize those 3 channels to its full potential. If those 3 channels have a "core lineup" during the week and the weekends, then Paramount may not want to disrupt that too much by adding more sports coverage to mix.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
TNT airs a minimum of 15 games; CBS/Paramount+ 26 games. Yormark may want to open up the contract early. But I can't imagine ESPN would like to see that.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
Does Paramount have any interest to expand the coverage to include football? If Paramount only wants to stick with basketball, then ESPN may not really care because there is more than enough regular season coverage to be shared by the networks. If the expanded coverage includes both sports, then ESPN may object because it would give Paramount more time (think the seasons for both sports) to offer a better "product" than ESPN. ESPN can still control the narrative with 1 sport because most people don't really care about college basketball until it gets closer to March Madness.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2mo
recent contract. ESPN did not fight them on it.
As for CBS, they want everything (just my opinion). Why did they renew with MWC and sign-on in the new PAC12 deal? Because those are the only two contracts that opened since Skydance Paramount+ joined the fray. CBS had a golden goose with the old SEC game of the week. They were paying $55 mil. and when the renewal was due they took the bidding up to $300 mil. before dropping-out. Supposedly ESPN paid $307 mil. So CBS took one game per week from The B1G for $350 mil. and it has been disappointing, they say.
I could see CBS jumping into every negotiation that opens up for bids. They are bringing three linear cable channels into their stable soon.
** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 5/4/2026, 7:26:51 PM
** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 5/5/2026, 9:43:54 AM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
if CBS is allowed to bid against its parent company. It seems more likely that CBS could be apart of Paramount's bid. Particularly if the bid includes multiple sports.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2mo
and WBD owns TNT, TBS, & TRU.
So all of CBS, CBS Sports, Paramount+, TNT, TBS, TRU will be their battery.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
Both domestically and foreign (think soccer leagues and/or soccer club tournaments). I think Paramount+ already has the rights to Serie A (Italian) and the Argentinean pro leagues. So some of that content could shift to the more traditional channels.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
American cable. The rights they now hold are for streaming, which is actually more traditional for the foreign sports they have rights too. Which actually brings up a different angle. The foreign countries like American basketball more than American football. Maybe some high profile games (like the Duke agreement) on streaming is a way to penetrate the world market, not only the domestic one. The B12 has a few basketball brands, and if UConn comes into the fold, it could get interesting.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
channels and I forget which network currently broadcasts English Championship League games (the tier right below EPL), the Paramount family may want to try to achieve the same success.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
much viewership. Consider Argentino Abierto, The Argentine Open Polo Championship.
Sounds like a select small audience and very high-end advertisers.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
a lot of gambling activity.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2mo
know where they land, or how much they are paying for the rights to broadcast those games. At the end of the day, it comes down to profits. Is it more profitable to pay for BIG content at their prices, or more profitable to pay for B12 or ACC content at the prices we are being paid? Either they are paying the BIG too much, or they are paying the ACC too little. We have all seen the ratings graph's, but what we don't see is the bottom line.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
broadcasting the Scottish Premier League now on Saturday mornings. I don't disagree it comes down to profit. The issue isn't just Big Ten vs. Big XII or ACC, but also college content vs. pro content, and sports content (pro and college) vs. non-sport content (think of all the shows that comes on the various Paramount channels). If someone decides it is more profitable to broadcast reruns of Charmed on TNT instead of a live college sporting event for whatever reason, then it doesn't matter how many potential windows a collegiate conference has available to it. It may not even matter if the network is overpaying or underpaying the conference either because the network will still find a way to make out like a bandit in the end.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
to lock up the NFL and SEC. It's the only reason I think it may happen, or at least is possible.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)