Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What if the ACC isn't off limits forever?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1
What if the ACC isn't off limits forever?
Now this would certainly change the SEC's expansion strategy. That much is obvious. I don't think there's much that would change the SEC's hunt for Oklahoma and Texas as those are the 2 biggest prizes available, but there are certainly others that would appeal to us.

I would like to explore though how likely or unlikely this prospect is. Below are a few points to consider in this discussion:


1) I was a little surprised when the ACC Network was made official. It seemed that ESPN had been dragging their feet on the project and perhaps looking for an out. Perhaps the main reason for that was the weakening market for new linear channels. That had to be part of the consideration and I still can't believe that ESPN is completely thrilled that they're having to start a new one in this climate.

If for no other reason, when streaming becomes mainstream then these designations between linear channels are going to fade. You can market product any way you like online, but you don't need new infrastructure for that. The same is especially true for the LHN.

2) The ACC was used by ESPN to house content that they didn't otherwise want to lose. The BC President(could have been the AD, can't remember) basically admitted as much. While this was expedient, it wasn't super profitable.

3) There are probably a handful of current ACC schools that would rather be in the SEC anyway.

4) While the old core of ACC schools are heartily committed to their league, the question is can these schools compete long term financially.

5) While it is reasonable to assume that the goal of the networks is to produce a Power 4 and something akin to a "champs only" playoff, one has to wonder if the networks wouldn't be better off with more leagues and a bigger CFP.

6) The question for conferences like the SEC and B1G though is whether or not they can gain additional access to the CFP if they expand further and perhaps if they also expand the size of the CFP itself.

7) Another question for the leagues is can they increase revenue over time by increasing the size of the leagues dramatically? Creating scarcity in the market should drive up the prices for rights fees even though the networks obviously wouldn't like this. Perhaps this is what Slive was referring to when he said the next move would be to "very, very large conferences." And perhaps that is why we haven't heard a great deal of specific information at this time...because the networks aren't driving the bus as much as they normally would be?

8) One way or the other, the Big 12 is going to die. The question is who reaps the reward?
09-26-2017 09:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: What if the ACC isn't off limits forever?
(09-26-2017 09:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now this would certainly change the SEC's expansion strategy. That much is obvious. I don't think there's much that would change the SEC's hunt for Oklahoma and Texas as those are the 2 biggest prizes available, but there are certainly others that would appeal to us.

I would like to explore though how likely or unlikely this prospect is. Below are a few points to consider in this discussion:


1) I was a little surprised when the ACC Network was made official. It seemed that ESPN had been dragging their feet on the project and perhaps looking for an out. Perhaps the main reason for that was the weakening market for new linear channels. That had to be part of the consideration and I still can't believe that ESPN is completely thrilled that they're having to start a new one in this climate.

If for no other reason, when streaming becomes mainstream then these designations between linear channels are going to fade. You can market product any way you like online, but you don't need new infrastructure for that. The same is especially true for the LHN.

2) The ACC was used by ESPN to house content that they didn't otherwise want to lose. The BC President(could have been the AD, can't remember) basically admitted as much. While this was expedient, it wasn't super profitable.

3) There are probably a handful of current ACC schools that would rather be in the SEC anyway.

4) While the old core of ACC schools are heartily committed to their league, the question is can these schools compete long term financially.

5) While it is reasonable to assume that the goal of the networks is to produce a Power 4 and something akin to a "champs only" playoff, one has to wonder if the networks wouldn't be better off with more leagues and a bigger CFP.

6) The question for conferences like the SEC and B1G though is whether or not they can gain additional access to the CFP if they expand further and perhaps if they also expand the size of the CFP itself.

7) Another question for the leagues is can they increase revenue over time by increasing the size of the leagues dramatically? Creating scarcity in the market should drive up the prices for rights fees even though the networks obviously wouldn't like this. Perhaps this is what Slive was referring to when he said the next move would be to "very, very large conferences." And perhaps that is why we haven't heard a great deal of specific information at this time...because the networks aren't driving the bus as much as they normally would be?

8) One way or the other, the Big 12 is going to die. The question is who reaps the reward?

1. They had to honor their contract so they are doing so in the most cost effective way.

2. Yes, they were assembled to deny product to the Big 10 and to keep the SEC from becoming too large and powerful. ESPN bought these schools cheaply and could leverage them for much more anytime they wished by gaining concessions from the Big 10 or SEC for encouraging their movement. Until then they are a cheap and profitable filler. They make the most money off of F.S.U. and Clemson and that is why they do not want to let them go, just yet.

3. Yes, any of the football first schools could make much more just off of gate if they were in the SEC, not to mention increased TV revenue.

4. They can't compete now in terms of finances. Just look at the WSJ rankings on valuations. By their accounting the SEC is worth 5 Billion more than the ACC which is the lowest by far having a Billion less in total economic value than even the PAC.

Let that sink in!
5. More leagues and a larger CFP only profits the networks. Fewer leagues and conference Semis profits the Conferences.

6. If the SEC and B1G expand we do get extra playoff spots. We get two more schools and one more game that produce profit only for us. If we expand with the PAC to become a P3 then somebody every year gains a second slot in the final four of football when the at large slot is filled. That a much larger upside in playoff access than expanding he CFP to 8 teams and letting the networks keep well over half of the proceeds and pick the sites of the games, probably outside of our conference area where the city kickbacks go to the network instead of the conference.

7. Size equals leverage. But we don't need to get larger just to create leverage. We need to get large enough to break into 4 divisions which are geographically and rivalry grouped. I think 24 is too large and 20 is the sweet spot. At 20 you can play 10 conference games and play everyone in 3 years and keep a rival annually that is not in your division. Then you play a Big 10 school and a PAC school and that's your 12 game schedule. A preseason game makes ticket #7 in the home book.
09-26-2017 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #3
RE: What if the ACC isn't off limits forever?
(09-26-2017 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-26-2017 09:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now this would certainly change the SEC's expansion strategy. That much is obvious. I don't think there's much that would change the SEC's hunt for Oklahoma and Texas as those are the 2 biggest prizes available, but there are certainly others that would appeal to us.

I would like to explore though how likely or unlikely this prospect is. Below are a few points to consider in this discussion:


1) I was a little surprised when the ACC Network was made official. It seemed that ESPN had been dragging their feet on the project and perhaps looking for an out. Perhaps the main reason for that was the weakening market for new linear channels. That had to be part of the consideration and I still can't believe that ESPN is completely thrilled that they're having to start a new one in this climate.

If for no other reason, when streaming becomes mainstream then these designations between linear channels are going to fade. You can market product any way you like online, but you don't need new infrastructure for that. The same is especially true for the LHN.

2) The ACC was used by ESPN to house content that they didn't otherwise want to lose. The BC President(could have been the AD, can't remember) basically admitted as much. While this was expedient, it wasn't super profitable.

3) There are probably a handful of current ACC schools that would rather be in the SEC anyway.

4) While the old core of ACC schools are heartily committed to their league, the question is can these schools compete long term financially.

5) While it is reasonable to assume that the goal of the networks is to produce a Power 4 and something akin to a "champs only" playoff, one has to wonder if the networks wouldn't be better off with more leagues and a bigger CFP.

6) The question for conferences like the SEC and B1G though is whether or not they can gain additional access to the CFP if they expand further and perhaps if they also expand the size of the CFP itself.

7) Another question for the leagues is can they increase revenue over time by increasing the size of the leagues dramatically? Creating scarcity in the market should drive up the prices for rights fees even though the networks obviously wouldn't like this. Perhaps this is what Slive was referring to when he said the next move would be to "very, very large conferences." And perhaps that is why we haven't heard a great deal of specific information at this time...because the networks aren't driving the bus as much as they normally would be?

8) One way or the other, the Big 12 is going to die. The question is who reaps the reward?

1. They had to honor their contract so they are doing so in the most cost effective way.

2. Yes, they were assembled to deny product to the Big 10 and to keep the SEC from becoming too large and powerful. ESPN bought these schools cheaply and could leverage them for much more anytime they wished by gaining concessions from the Big 10 or SEC for encouraging their movement. Until then they are a cheap and profitable filler. They make the most money off of F.S.U. and Clemson and that is why they do not want to let them go, just yet.

3. Yes, any of the football first schools could make much more just off of gate if they were in the SEC, not to mention increased TV revenue.

4. They can't compete now in terms of finances. Just look at the WSJ rankings on valuations. By their accounting the SEC is worth 5 Billion more than the ACC which is the lowest by far having a Billion less in total economic value than even the PAC.

Let that sink in!
5. More leagues and a larger CFP only profits the networks. Fewer leagues and conference Semis profits the Conferences.

6. If the SEC and B1G expand we do get extra playoff spots. We get two more schools and one more game that produce profit only for us. If we expand with the PAC to become a P3 then somebody every year gains a second slot in the final four of football when the at large slot is filled. That a much larger upside in playoff access than expanding he CFP to 8 teams and letting the networks keep well over half of the proceeds and pick the sites of the games, probably outside of our conference area where the city kickbacks go to the network instead of the conference.

7. Size equals leverage. But we don't need to get larger just to create leverage. We need to get large enough to break into 4 divisions which are geographically and rivalry grouped. I think 24 is too large and 20 is the sweet spot. At 20 you can play 10 conference games and play everyone in 3 years and keep a rival annually that is not in your division. Then you play a Big 10 school and a PAC school and that's your 12 game schedule. A preseason game makes ticket #7 in the home book.

The reason I've always liked 24 is because you can group everyone into regional divisions and maintain more rivalries.

I'm going to blend some threads here, but for example...

Let's say we take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and then we make the pitch to Texas. "Hey guys, we'd love you have you on board, but you're going to have to come by yourselves. We already have enough of TX without little brothers. Deal or no deal?"

Let's say they come aboard anyway and we take Kansas to round it out. Now we've got 18 that could split into some very regional divisions. The economic weight of this league would probably cause others to look our way over time. But if we have a chance to raid the ACC at a later date then we've only got 2 spots left if we're stopping at 20 and there's a lot more we could work with.

I would suggest then....Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson so that major rivalries can be played within a conference context. There's no need for creative scheduling at this stage. Then I would suggest UNC, Duke, and UVA so that region can be a part of the fold.

If need be then I would even be ok with Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and maybe Miami so we can completely dominate these regions of the country.
09-26-2017 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: What if the ACC isn't off limits forever?
(09-26-2017 12:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-26-2017 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-26-2017 09:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now this would certainly change the SEC's expansion strategy. That much is obvious. I don't think there's much that would change the SEC's hunt for Oklahoma and Texas as those are the 2 biggest prizes available, but there are certainly others that would appeal to us.

I would like to explore though how likely or unlikely this prospect is. Below are a few points to consider in this discussion:


1) I was a little surprised when the ACC Network was made official. It seemed that ESPN had been dragging their feet on the project and perhaps looking for an out. Perhaps the main reason for that was the weakening market for new linear channels. That had to be part of the consideration and I still can't believe that ESPN is completely thrilled that they're having to start a new one in this climate.

If for no other reason, when streaming becomes mainstream then these designations between linear channels are going to fade. You can market product any way you like online, but you don't need new infrastructure for that. The same is especially true for the LHN.

2) The ACC was used by ESPN to house content that they didn't otherwise want to lose. The BC President(could have been the AD, can't remember) basically admitted as much. While this was expedient, it wasn't super profitable.

3) There are probably a handful of current ACC schools that would rather be in the SEC anyway.

4) While the old core of ACC schools are heartily committed to their league, the question is can these schools compete long term financially.

5) While it is reasonable to assume that the goal of the networks is to produce a Power 4 and something akin to a "champs only" playoff, one has to wonder if the networks wouldn't be better off with more leagues and a bigger CFP.

6) The question for conferences like the SEC and B1G though is whether or not they can gain additional access to the CFP if they expand further and perhaps if they also expand the size of the CFP itself.

7) Another question for the leagues is can they increase revenue over time by increasing the size of the leagues dramatically? Creating scarcity in the market should drive up the prices for rights fees even though the networks obviously wouldn't like this. Perhaps this is what Slive was referring to when he said the next move would be to "very, very large conferences." And perhaps that is why we haven't heard a great deal of specific information at this time...because the networks aren't driving the bus as much as they normally would be?

8) One way or the other, the Big 12 is going to die. The question is who reaps the reward?

1. They had to honor their contract so they are doing so in the most cost effective way.

2. Yes, they were assembled to deny product to the Big 10 and to keep the SEC from becoming too large and powerful. ESPN bought these schools cheaply and could leverage them for much more anytime they wished by gaining concessions from the Big 10 or SEC for encouraging their movement. Until then they are a cheap and profitable filler. They make the most money off of F.S.U. and Clemson and that is why they do not want to let them go, just yet.

3. Yes, any of the football first schools could make much more just off of gate if they were in the SEC, not to mention increased TV revenue.

4. They can't compete now in terms of finances. Just look at the WSJ rankings on valuations. By their accounting the SEC is worth 5 Billion more than the ACC which is the lowest by far having a Billion less in total economic value than even the PAC.

Let that sink in!
5. More leagues and a larger CFP only profits the networks. Fewer leagues and conference Semis profits the Conferences.

6. If the SEC and B1G expand we do get extra playoff spots. We get two more schools and one more game that produce profit only for us. If we expand with the PAC to become a P3 then somebody every year gains a second slot in the final four of football when the at large slot is filled. That a much larger upside in playoff access than expanding he CFP to 8 teams and letting the networks keep well over half of the proceeds and pick the sites of the games, probably outside of our conference area where the city kickbacks go to the network instead of the conference.

7. Size equals leverage. But we don't need to get larger just to create leverage. We need to get large enough to break into 4 divisions which are geographically and rivalry grouped. I think 24 is too large and 20 is the sweet spot. At 20 you can play 10 conference games and play everyone in 3 years and keep a rival annually that is not in your division. Then you play a Big 10 school and a PAC school and that's your 12 game schedule. A preseason game makes ticket #7 in the home book.

The reason I've always liked 24 is because you can group everyone into regional divisions and maintain more rivalries.

I'm going to blend some threads here, but for example...

Let's say we take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and then we make the pitch to Texas. "Hey guys, we'd love you have you on board, but you're going to have to come by yourselves. We already have enough of TX without little brothers. Deal or no deal?"

Let's say they come aboard anyway and we take Kansas to round it out. Now we've got 18 that could split into some very regional divisions. The economic weight of this league would probably cause others to look our way over time. But if we have a chance to raid the ACC at a later date then we've only got 2 spots left if we're stopping at 20 and there's a lot more we could work with.

I would suggest then....Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson so that major rivalries can be played within a conference context. There's no need for creative scheduling at this stage. Then I would suggest UNC, Duke, and UVA so that region can be a part of the fold.

If need be then I would even be ok with Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and maybe Miami so we can completely dominate these regions of the country.

After 24 you are better off just being two separate conferences joined in a league. That's okay if we need to go that route for leverage, but I like trying to play everyone and past 24 it isn't possible in any meaningful time frame.
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2017 12:54 PM by JRsec.)
09-26-2017 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #5
RE: What if the ACC isn't off limits forever?
(09-26-2017 12:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  After 24 you are better off just being two separate conferences joined in a league. That's okay if we need to go that route for leverage, but I like trying to play everyone and past 24 it isn't possible in any meaningful time frame.

4 conferences of 18 would be the same number of schools as 3 conferences of 24 while maintaining regionalism and rivalries to a certain degree. The only way I see it working well and allowing the big dogs (B1G and SEC) to be happy is "allow" them to pick apart the ACC. Outside of that, 4x18 doesn't work because those conferences aren't going to be happy with AAC schools. I don't see Notre Dame joining a conference, especially if its either the B1G or a mangled ACC.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
East: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St

B1G
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St
East: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Florida St
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

ACC
East: Miami, Central Florida, South Florida, Wake Forest, East Carolina, West Virginia
West: Houston, Baylor, TCU, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati
North: Iowa St, Pittsburgh, Temple, Syracuse, Boston College, Connecticut
09-27-2017 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.