Cable unbundling makes college power brokers uneasy

This is more than a snag.

If the unbundling of cable television packages comes to fruition, the business model for college athletics could unravel.

And we may not like what’s exposed.

“That’s a game-changer,” Larry Scott, commissioner of the Pac-12 Conference, told reporters last week. “If and when that happens, I’d like to be in control of my own network rather than someone else in control.”

For the past 30 years — ever since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1984 allowed schools and conferences to negotiate their own media rights — the collegiate power brokers have soaked up television money the way Jed Clampett lived off the oil swamp in his backyard.

In 2012, the Big 12 agreed to deals with ABC/ESPN and Fox that run through the 2024-25 school year, worth $2.6 billion.

As a result, Iowa State will receive $27 million this year.

Iowa is expected to receive more than $30 million from the Big Ten’s television contracts, which expire after the 2016-17 basketball season.

It’s a driving force in the unprecedented string of stadium and facility upgrades throughout the Power Five conferences.

It’s also enabled Duke to pay Mike Krzyzewski $9.7 million per season to be its basketball coach, while Alabama pays Nick Saban roughly $7 million a year to be its football coach.

Athletic budgets are woven around this windfall, but now we’re entering an age of cord-cutting and a la carte.

Internet-based alternatives are becoming more accessible and cheaper for consumers, who were never thrilled about paying for dozens of channels they rarely watched.

ESPN has reportedly lost 3.2 million cable subscribers in a little over a year. As a result, Disney (the parent company of ESPN) is demanding the “Worldwide Leader” cut its budget by $100 million in 2016 and $250 million in 2017.

Are more cuts coming? What does this mean for college sports?

Well, negotiations for future rights fees could be trickier. ESPN and other networks have been on a decade-long spending spree. They’ll have to be more cost-conscious moving forward.

Scott told reporters he was glad the Pac-12 has a long-term deal, and added that he’d be more worried if he was in the Big Ten’s position.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany put up a bold front.

“We’ve had a great period running up to this,” he told reporters last week. “I’m quite optimistic about our position in the marketplace even with the dynamic change which is occurring.

“We’ve prepared for it.”

Will this spark another round of conference realignment? Or will the Power Five conferences become even more powerful in regards to the mid-major programs?

“Premium properties will do well in that environment, the marginal ones will suffer,” Scott predicted. “It will expand the gap.”

Unbundling is an uneasy concept for a lot of folks who expect and need the money.

On the other hand, live sports programing is a highly sought-after commodity.

Passionate fans typically DVR less, meaning they’re less likely to skip through commercials.

But giving subscribers a chance to choose means the end of a shell game.

Remember when Rutgers and Maryland were invited to join the Big Ten three years ago?

A primary selling point was the additional 15 million television households those schools would bring to the league, despite serious doubts about how many people actually watch the Scarlet Knights’ football games.

In an unbundled world, it’ll be more difficult to hide behind iffy figures.

A survey conducted by Digitalsmiths showed that just 35.7 percent of customers would add ESPN to their cable a la carte menu.

And according to Digitalsmiths, ESPN was the only sports-oriented network to rank among the top 25 in their survey.

To get ESPN a la carte would likely cost more than $30 a month, or roughly $400 a year.

Others, such as the Big Ten Network, would also have to stand on its own merit.

Trimming down from an inflated value will make collegiate power brokers uncomfortable, but unbundling offers a better fit for the rest of us.