(07-05-2022 12:43 PM)E2THEX Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 12:39 PM)E2THEX Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 12:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 12:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Based on playing an optimized (all big brand) schedule, I picked 6 teams from your list.

I would be interested in seeing the 6 you chose and your thinking behind them. Maybe I need to change my reasoning.

NC and Virginia are very valuable to both the Big Ten and the SEC. New Tv markets/states and AAU status. I see them in the Big Ten with their AAU. Oregon with Nike behind them will likely join the BIG10 as part of the west pod. Washington would complete the west pod if not them then Stanford. And Norte Dame is well ND lol.

No offense to anybody but i don't think Fl St, Miami, or Clemson hold that much value to the SEC. They already have their tv markets and winning likely will decline in the SEC. What are they adding?

So if this was ten years ago, then I wouldn’t have a problem with this post, but unfortunately, the new paradigm is brand recognition. i.e. Which combination of teams will drive ratings which in turn will allow the media rights holder (ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc) to charge companies a higher advertisement rate. In this brave new world, VT gets left out in the cold and I’ve made my peace with that, because in the end, I grew to love the school and the school isn’t disappearing due to a change in conference affiliation. I raise my Gin & Tonic to all the survivors and cheers to those who will not get an invite to the new super leagues. ?

In the $70-75 million range, I suspect that five PAC schools (including already committed USC and UCLA) plus Notre Dame is pretty close to not being dilutive for the B1G. There may be a couple of ACC teams that wouldn't dilute the SEC's per school payout, but I don't think they would include FSU or Clemson. I think they would have to come from North Carolina and Virginia (the states, not the schools) to stretch the leagues footprint strategically.

Beyond that, the SEC may decide to expand a little further even if additional schools are slightly dilutive in order to bolster their hoops strength.

(07-06-2022 06:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  In the $70-75 million range, I suspect that five PAC schools (including already committed USC and UCLA) plus Notre Dame is pretty close to not being dilutive for the B1G. There may be a couple of ACC teams that wouldn't dilute the SEC's per school payout, but I don't think they would include FSU or Clemson. I think they would have to come from North Carolina and Virginia (the states, not the schools) to stretch the leagues footprint strategically.

Beyond that, the SEC may decide to expand a little further even if additional schools are slightly dilutive in order to bolster their hoops strength.

Therefore, I think the only motivation for further expansion would be for a 6 or 8 team B2G and SEC conference playoffs. That's 5 or 7 post season games for each conference that should be a huge TV success as far as ratings and ad revenue. Not sure how much such playoffs would add in terms of yearly contracts though.

(07-05-2022 12:43 PM)E2THEX Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 12:39 PM)E2THEX Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 12:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 12:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Based on playing an optimized (all big brand) schedule, I picked 6 teams from your list.

I would be interested in seeing the 6 you chose and your thinking behind them. Maybe I need to change my reasoning.

NC and Virginia are very valuable to both the Big Ten and the SEC. New Tv markets/states and AAU status. I see them in the Big Ten with their AAU. Oregon with Nike behind them will likely join the BIG10 as part of the west pod. Washington would complete the west pod if not them then Stanford. And Norte Dame is well ND lol.

No offense to anybody but i don't think Fl St, Miami, or Clemson hold that much value to the SEC. They already have their tv markets and winning likely will decline in the SEC. What are they adding?

I see a lot of winning declining in Most of the SEC and B1G . Just because not everyone is going to have winning season playing against other top tier schools every weekend. I doubt even Alabama , Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan will avoid 3-4 loss seasons in those super conferences. The bottom tier schools will be frustrated and beat down. Fan support for them will reduce over the years.

(07-05-2022 10:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:43 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I believe the numbers are coming from a former FOX Sports Executive. The base value from the Big Ten's pov is $71.5M since that is supposedly the payout for each member of the BIG projected for the next contract. That means a single addition has to bring that value while a pair has to bring that value doubled to $143M.

So what precisely is being valued hasn't been clearly defined but the assumption is that it encompasses not just tv ratings but market reach as well (and perhaps other criteria? -not sure on this part).

This former FOX Sports executive has said that the combined value of Oregon and Washington was only $60M. The assumption is that the previously accepted pair of USC and UCLA met the $143 or more for two and that ND would make the cut with a possible plus one as well.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Neil

If that's true it means that the pair of USC and UCLA combined were worth about $50mil since Oregon and Washington represented 26% of the Pac12 TV contract and USC and UCLA represented 21%.

The B1G took USC on the gamble that they could get ND to join too. That's the only way these acquisitions make sense.

Again, I am only going by what was stated in article referencing this former FOX Sports Media executive. According to him, the PAC was looking for an upcoming deal for $500M a year for 12 institutions. When USC and UCLA left for the B1G the guy said the PAC would now, at best, get $300M per year.

This would appear to indicate that the overall value of USC and UCLA was 40% not 21%. Of which I suspect USC was the major lifter. Just as though Oregon and Washington was deemed to bring $60M I would suspect Oregon was worth more of that 60M than Washington.

As for the B1G counting on ND joining since USC was now in the league and so they calculated that into the equation doesn't seem likely to me considering their past conservative ways in conference realignment. More likely they wanted USC and UCLA as a counter move to the SEC picking up Texas and OU. ND perhaps joining as a result of them getting USC may have been an ancillary bonus but likely not a required outcome.

Just my opinion. I have been known to be wrong before.

Cheers,
Neil

I don’t know how media executives value members, but my guesses on how the conferences are evaluating programs

1) ND - easily attractive to each of the P2

2a) FSU - allows SEC to dominate Florida; historically strong football with solid all-sports
2b) UNC - basketball blue blood in a prime geography (comparable to UCLA or Kentucky)…attractive to each of the P2
2c) Stanford - solid football, awesome Olympic sports, penetrates Bay Area/Northern California…above average add for the B1G
2d) Washington- strong football, in a really good market…attractive to the B1G

Next tier is likely Clemson, Duke, UVa, Oregon, Cal and Arizona State

(07-06-2022 10:01 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:43 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I believe the numbers are coming from a former FOX Sports Executive. The base value from the Big Ten's pov is $71.5M since that is supposedly the payout for each member of the BIG projected for the next contract. That means a single addition has to bring that value while a pair has to bring that value doubled to $143M.

So what precisely is being valued hasn't been clearly defined but the assumption is that it encompasses not just tv ratings but market reach as well (and perhaps other criteria? -not sure on this part).

This former FOX Sports executive has said that the combined value of Oregon and Washington was only $60M. The assumption is that the previously accepted pair of USC and UCLA met the $143 or more for two and that ND would make the cut with a possible plus one as well.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Neil

If that's true it means that the pair of USC and UCLA combined were worth about $50mil since Oregon and Washington represented 26% of the Pac12 TV contract and USC and UCLA represented 21%.

The B1G took USC on the gamble that they could get ND to join too. That's the only way these acquisitions make sense.

Again, I am only going by what was stated in article referencing this former FOX Sports Media executive. According to him, the PAC was looking for an upcoming deal for $500M a year for 12 institutions. When USC and UCLA left for the B1G the guy said the PAC would now, at best, get $300M per year.

This would appear to indicate that the overall value of USC and UCLA was 40% not 21%. Of which I suspect USC was the major lifter. Just as though Oregon and Washington was deemed to bring $60M I would suspect Oregon was worth more of that 60M than Washington.

As for the B1G counting on ND joining since USC was now in the league and so they calculated that into the equation doesn't seem likely to me considering their past conservative ways in conference realignment. More likely they wanted USC and UCLA as a counter move to the SEC picking up Texas and OU. ND perhaps joining as a result of them getting USC may have been an ancillary bonus but likely not a required outcome.

Just my opinion. I have been known to be wrong before.

Cheers,
Neil

Clearly these value numbers being tossed around are in the context of a given conference. For instance, a Fox expert stated that USC+UCLA in the Big Ten are worth $143 million/year. That's more than they were worth in the Pac-12, so that 21% of $500M might be about right ($105M).

Next question would then be "why are they saying the Pac-10 is worth $200M less without USC and UCLA?" The answer, I think, is because ALL Pac-12 teams lose value when they no longer get to play in Los Angeles.

That somewhat explains why some people think Clemson - currently estimated to be worth $ M in the ACC - would be worth more than the SEC's new payout, estimated at over $70M. Clemson+SEC = synergy.
(Another reason: people tend to overestimate the value of their favorite team)

(07-06-2022 04:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:01 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:43 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I believe the numbers are coming from a former FOX Sports Executive. The base value from the Big Ten's pov is $71.5M since that is supposedly the payout for each member of the BIG projected for the next contract. That means a single addition has to bring that value while a pair has to bring that value doubled to $143M.

So what precisely is being valued hasn't been clearly defined but the assumption is that it encompasses not just tv ratings but market reach as well (and perhaps other criteria? -not sure on this part).

This former FOX Sports executive has said that the combined value of Oregon and Washington was only $60M. The assumption is that the previously accepted pair of USC and UCLA met the $143 or more for two and that ND would make the cut with a possible plus one as well.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Neil

If that's true it means that the pair of USC and UCLA combined were worth about $50mil since Oregon and Washington represented 26% of the Pac12 TV contract and USC and UCLA represented 21%.

The B1G took USC on the gamble that they could get ND to join too. That's the only way these acquisitions make sense.

Again, I am only going by what was stated in article referencing this former FOX Sports Media executive. According to him, the PAC was looking for an upcoming deal for $500M a year for 12 institutions. When USC and UCLA left for the B1G the guy said the PAC would now, at best, get $300M per year.

This would appear to indicate that the overall value of USC and UCLA was 40% not 21%. Of which I suspect USC was the major lifter. Just as though Oregon and Washington was deemed to bring $60M I would suspect Oregon was worth more of that 60M than Washington.

As for the B1G counting on ND joining since USC was now in the league and so they calculated that into the equation doesn't seem likely to me considering their past conservative ways in conference realignment. More likely they wanted USC and UCLA as a counter move to the SEC picking up Texas and OU. ND perhaps joining as a result of them getting USC may have been an ancillary bonus but likely not a required outcome.

Just my opinion. I have been known to be wrong before.

Cheers,
Neil

Clearly these value numbers being tossed around are in the context of a given conference. For instance, a Fox expert stated that USC+UCLA in the Big Ten are worth $143 million/year. That's more than they were worth in the Pac-12, so that 21% of $500M might be about right ($105M).

Next question would then be "why are they saying the Pac-10 is worth $200M less without USC and UCLA?" The answer, I think, is because ALL Pac-12 teams lose value when they no longer get to play in Los Angeles.

That somewhat explains why some people think Clemson - currently estimated to be worth $ M in the ACC - would be worth more than the SEC's new payout, estimated at over $70M. Clemson+SEC = synergy.
(Another reason: people tend to overestimate the value of their favorite team)

Great insight.

Cheers,
Neil

I guess Washington, Oregon and the other remaining PAC 12 teams are not worth 100 mil to FOX and ESPN.

Sadly, the answer based on value considerations and old evaluation tools is only one, Notre Dame.

Happily, the premise of the OP's question is moot. Future evaluation will be predicated upon how much of a large market the school penetrates, how many eyes they average on events in which they participate, obviously branding ties in with this.

These schools will not be measured against the ACC and B1G metrics to determine whether their addition is accretive, because the SEC and B1G aren't behind these moves and are simply the proxies of FOX and ESPN which by every indication are building 2 leagues in an NFL closed system model and the networks are adding key markets, top brands, and anyone who has won a football national championship in the last 30 years.

The only question will be does your school's inclusion meet their needs. If so they will guarantee the 100 million. They want to operate a 16 school CFP valued at over 3 billion and host their own hoops tournament (which will reach beyond the Super 2) for over a billion and will likely payout 50% of the take to the invited schools as opposed to the 20% they get now.

In that setting many more than N.D. could hold enough value to be included. The 100 million isn't connected to anything per se but serves as a lowballed inducement for change.

(08-04-2022 06:59 AM)E2THEX Wrote:  I guess Washington, Oregon and the other remaining PAC 12 teams are not worth 100 mil to FOX and ESPN.

Short answer: no one except Notre Dame
Long answer: possibly Florida State

If the SEC and B1G go strictly by the rule that you have to be worth more than what they already get, then realignment may be done. I know that idea is not popular.

The only exception being possible ACC expansion. Once the valuable teams in the Big XII and Pac-10 realize that they are not getting a golden ticket, they'll be a lot more agreeable to taking Commissioner Phillips' calls.

Also, once it's clear that current ACC teams have nowhere else to go maybe they'll focus a little harder to making their current home nicer?

I'll admit, I could be wrong, I'm just basing it on recent statements from the SEC and B1G.

Only Notre Dame

(08-04-2022 09:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 06:59 AM)E2THEX Wrote:  I guess Washington, Oregon and the other remaining PAC 12 teams are not worth 100 mil to FOX and ESPN.

Short answer: no one except Notre Dame
Long answer: possibly Florida State

If the SEC and B1G go strictly by the rule that you have to be worth more than what they already get, then realignment may be done. I know that idea is not popular.

The only exception being possible ACC expansion. Once the valuable teams in the Big XII and Pac-10 realize that they are not getting a golden ticket, they'll be a lot more agreeable to taking Commissioner Phillips' calls.

Also, once it's clear that current ACC teams have nowhere else to go maybe they'll focus a little harder to making their current home nicer?

I'll admit, I could be wrong, I'm just basing it on recent statements from the SEC and B1G.

just curious ...
what bowl is fsu identified with ...
which market does fsu monopolize ...
sparsely populated panhandle ...
why can’t fsu compete in nil era ...
or so they say ...
on a side note ...
would you trade our recruiting hotbed for anyone else’s ...
when’s fsu’s proposed $800M stadium pattered after baylor’s coming online ...
knock yourself out ...

BRAIN TEASER

Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue and a lot of other teams aren’t worth 100 million a year.

(08-04-2022 11:00 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue and a lot of other teams aren’t worth 100 million a year.

They all got in while admission was cheap. None of them could get in now.

ND - To any conference
UNC - Yes to B1G and SEC
FSU - Yes to the B1G

But that is under the current operating assumptions. Expand the playoffs, break away from the NCAA, and limit play to the P5 and I think you have many more teams that reach $100MM.

Ten years ago, $100MM a team would have been inconceivable. The way we are going, when will teams be getting $200MM?

(08-04-2022 02:31 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  ND - To any conference
UNC - Yes to B1G and SEC
FSU - Yes to the B1G

But that is under the current operating assumptions. Expand the playoffs, break away from the NCAA, and limit play to the P5 and I think you have many more teams that reach $100MM.

Ten years ago, $100MM a team would have been inconceivable. The way we are going, when will teams be getting $200MM?

You may be right. Hey, who knows, maybe after 2036 the ACC will get a new contract that pays $200M/school..? (Will Notre Dame be fighting to get IN at that point?)

(08-04-2022 02:31 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  Ten years ago, $100MM a team would have been inconceivable. The way we are going, when will teams be getting $200MM?

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1555226882865373184

POINT OF CLARIFICATION

(08-04-2022 03:18 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 02:31 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  Ten years ago, $100MM a team would have been inconceivable. The way we are going, when will teams be getting $200MM?

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1555226882865373184

POINT OF CLARIFICATION

Hooey! They didn't back off because media partners couldn't justify the payouts, that's just an excuse. They backed off because they were threatened with a collusion suit!

Oh, and one more thing, when the PAC contract expires, then we'll all see how much interest the Big Ten has. No new contract, no GOR, no exit fee, and boom if they want 'em their gone, so why push it now?

ND is probably the only program available that is close to being worth $100 million....