(03-12-2013 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:31 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:06 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 07:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:25 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  I see what you guys are saying about Rutgers and Missouri, and I don't disagree with your points as they relate directly to those schools. But FSU is a totally different ballgame. Missouri wanted the B1G for DECADES, and settled for the SEC. Rutgers wasn't even a serious participant in college athletics for DECADES, and had a serious debate on campus about dropping to Division 2! Rutgers was openly known to want the B1G.

In contrast, FSU actually turned down the SEC at the onset of the BCS. FSU's president basically, in no uncertain terms, told the Big 12 to pound sand less than two years ago.

Compound all that with how they went to bat for Louisville just a few months ago, and you're talking about a whole 'nother level if disingenuousness, not to mention multiple personality syndrome.

Which is exactly what was verbalized by Spetman this past week. Otherwise what you are saying would not only make sense, but wouldn't even need to be said at all. But Spetman spoke and it's game on for speculation again. The question is why does an A.D. of a school which supposedly should be trying to settle down the sparks surrounding his conference take a moment to obviously fan the flames? When that question is answered we will all truly know something.

I believe it is for negotiating leverage. If the ACC wants to crowbar more money out of ESPN, then it's best if ESPN thinks there is a legitimate chance FSU might go to the Big 12. The same goes for UNC to the B1G.
ESPN owns a much higher percentage of the ACC's media rights than it does of any other conference's media rights. So they stand to lose more if the ACC comes unglued.

This is the main reason I think the ACC stays together. The conference is grossly underpaid relative to the others and based on the metrics they use to calculate value. Sure, the ACC is technically locked in to some contracts. But the individual members of the conference are not. And it's those individual members that create value for ESPN. If ESPN wants to keep them around, then they will pay the ACC more.

On the flip side, if UNC, UVa, FSU, etc. are not worth more money to ESPN, it's hard to see why they would be worth these gargantuan sums being thrown about by the B1G and SEC either.

If ESPN executives have the same mindset that there's no way that ACC teams would leave for the B1G or SEC (and particularly the Big12) that many here have (and I am not saying that's an unreasonable mindset, although it strikes me as a bit (no pun intended) too absolute at times), then they'd also see it as nothing more than posturing for the sake of negotiation, and have no reason to increase the deal out of fear of losing assets.

I do think that the ACC will stay intact. It's also not news to me that schools will continue to analyze their options as time goes by, if for no other reason than due diligence to avoid getting caught flat-footed. That analysis doesn't imply an impending move, it can just mean that they're doing their homework.

It really all boils down to Maryland. If the fee holds so does the ACC and they may even move to 16 with the right teams. If the fee doesn't hold then we have a whole new paradigm in which ESPN might rather move their best brands to the next conference that they own the largest piece of, the SEC. Then instead of conferences looking for 16 teams the focus will shift to 20.

With a solid ACC the focus shifts to the Big 12 again where Slive, Dleany, and Scott could work together to end this and move us to that 4x16 plus 1 group. But if the ACC doesn't hold the SEC and Big 10 will be looking at 20 and the Big 12 will have a hard time holding on and we will wind up with 3 x 20, 2 x 20 & 1 x 24, or even a 1 x 20 & 2 x 24 look to the upper tier.

I really don't think at this time that it is in the interest of the SEC to poach, or destabilize the ACC. They are, and have been, a nice buffer that shares a part of the SEC culture and would likely become the SEC's partner should the Big 12 be parsed out. If however Maryland's case indicates losses for the ACC the SEC will become proactive.

The brands that ESPN will likely look to protect could be: Duke, North Carolina, and Florida State as national brands; Virginia Tech, Clemson & Syracuse as regional brands; Pitt, Miami, or N.C. State to make combinations work. They will not want any of the first 5 going to the Big 10.

It truly is going to come down to the courts and the networks. In the absence of clear conference control in this anything could happen based upon what the networks are willing to pay to keep, or pay to get.

You are looking at the ACC in the wrong light.
The ACC is ESPN's basketball conference. Expansion may have been all about football but ESPN keeping ther ACC together is a basketball issue. With the C7 moving to Fox the ACC's position within the ESPN "family" has only gotten stronger.

(03-12-2013 03:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:24 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:55 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  UNC is not going to give up its catbird seat in the ACC for a few TV dollars.

For a few, no. But for a sh!tload, yes. Assuming there is ever a sh!tload of difference, which I don't think there will be.

Exactly how long will the cable extortion model last for?

Doesn't matter. It depends on what the decision makers believe.

(03-12-2013 03:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:31 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:06 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 07:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Which is exactly what was verbalized by Spetman this past week. Otherwise what you are saying would not only make sense, but wouldn't even need to be said at all. But Spetman spoke and it's game on for speculation again. The question is why does an A.D. of a school which supposedly should be trying to settle down the sparks surrounding his conference take a moment to obviously fan the flames? When that question is answered we will all truly know something.

I believe it is for negotiating leverage. If the ACC wants to crowbar more money out of ESPN, then it's best if ESPN thinks there is a legitimate chance FSU might go to the Big 12. The same goes for UNC to the B1G.
ESPN owns a much higher percentage of the ACC's media rights than it does of any other conference's media rights. So they stand to lose more if the ACC comes unglued.

This is the main reason I think the ACC stays together. The conference is grossly underpaid relative to the others and based on the metrics they use to calculate value. Sure, the ACC is technically locked in to some contracts. But the individual members of the conference are not. And it's those individual members that create value for ESPN. If ESPN wants to keep them around, then they will pay the ACC more.

On the flip side, if UNC, UVa, FSU, etc. are not worth more money to ESPN, it's hard to see why they would be worth these gargantuan sums being thrown about by the B1G and SEC either.

If ESPN executives have the same mindset that there's no way that ACC teams would leave for the B1G or SEC (and particularly the Big12) that many here have (and I am not saying that's an unreasonable mindset, although it strikes me as a bit (no pun intended) too absolute at times), then they'd also see it as nothing more than posturing for the sake of negotiation, and have no reason to increase the deal out of fear of losing assets.

I do think that the ACC will stay intact. It's also not news to me that schools will continue to analyze their options as time goes by, if for no other reason than due diligence to avoid getting caught flat-footed. That analysis doesn't imply an impending move, it can just mean that they're doing their homework.

It really all boils down to Maryland. If the fee holds so does the ACC and they may even move to 16 with the right teams. If the fee doesn't hold then we have a whole new paradigm in which ESPN might rather move their best brands to the next conference that they own the largest piece of, the SEC. Then instead of conferences looking for 16 teams the focus will shift to 20.

With a solid ACC the focus shifts to the Big 12 again where Slive, Dleany, and Scott could work together to end this and move us to that 4x16 plus 1 group. But if the ACC doesn't hold the SEC and Big 10 will be looking at 20 and the Big 12 will have a hard time holding on and we will wind up with 3 x 20, 2 x 20 & 1 x 24, or even a 1 x 20 & 2 x 24 look to the upper tier.

I really don't think at this time that it is in the interest of the SEC to poach, or destabilize the ACC. They are, and have been, a nice buffer that shares a part of the SEC culture and would likely become the SEC's partner should the Big 12 be parsed out. If however Maryland's case indicates losses for the ACC the SEC will become proactive.

The brands that ESPN will likely look to protect could be: Duke, North Carolina, and Florida State as national brands; Virginia Tech, Clemson & Syracuse as regional brands; Pitt, Miami, or N.C. State to make combinations work. They will not want any of the first 5 going to the Big 10.

It truly is going to come down to the courts and the networks. In the absence of clear conference control in this anything could happen based upon what the networks are willing to pay to keep, or pay to get.

You are looking at the ACC in the wrong light.
The ACC is ESPN's basketball conference. Expansion may have been all about football but ESPN keeping ther ACC together is a basketball issue. With the C7 moving to Fox the ACC's position within the ESPN "family" has only gotten stronger.

I understand your point and I can see how ESPN might wish to do that. But the final question will be how bad does FOX want into the mid-Atlantic through the Big 10 Network, and how bad does ESPN want to hold onto that property. If it is football dollars that are up against basketball dollars (value wise) then will it make sense for ESPN to hang on to basketball property that is going to have to be competitive in earnings with football property? Now I realize the Big 10 is interested in all of it, football, basketball, markets, and academics. So how much is that worth to Delany and how much are those markets worth to FOX?

So if the Maryland fee holds ESPN can hang onto the basketball product without having to have a big outlay to make the package competitive with the Big 10. If Maryland's fees are reduced then the issue becomes for ESPN at what price do the schools involved exceed what ESPN is willing to pay for that product? And if further losses are about to happen would it be cheaper to raise the package deal for the best brands by relocating them to another ESPN controlled property (CBS is no threat) the SEC and paying just those brands significantly more and sheltering them within a new network that will be competitive.

(03-12-2013 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it is football dollars that are up against basketball dollars (value wise) then will it make sense for ESPN to hang on to basketball property that is going to have to be competitive in earnings with football property? Now I realize the Big 10 is interested in all of it, football, basketball, markets, and academics. So how much is that worth to Delany and how much are those markets worth to FOX?

So if the Maryland fee holds ESPN can hang onto the basketball product without having to have a big outlay to make the package competitive with the Big 10. If Maryland's fees are reduced then the issue becomes for ESPN at what price do the schools involved exceed what ESPN is willing to pay for that product? And if further losses are about to happen would it be cheaper to raise the package deal for the best brands by relocating them to another ESPN controlled property (CBS is no threat) the SEC and paying just those brands significantly more and sheltering them within a new network that will be competitive.

I really think the day is coming where these Big Five conferences make a move to get more basketball money away from the NCAA. They may or may not break away entirely from the NCAA. But given how supremely money driven they have proven themselves to be, there is just no way in hell they continue to let all that basketball money get funneled into the three dozen other no-name conferences that have NCAA tourney auto-bids.

The day is coming when that basketball money is going to mean a lot more than it does now.

(03-12-2013 03:24 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:55 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  UNC is not going to give up its catbird seat in the ACC for a few TV dollars.

For a few, no. But for a sh!tload, yes. Assuming there is ever a sh!tload of difference, which I don't think there will be.

IF the B1G were to land UNC & UVA or UNC & GaTech, their per team pay out would be obscenely high and would dwarf everyone but the SEC.....and that is once the SEC has its network rolling.

UNC may not go to the B1G but they are making this decision for reasons other than money.

(03-14-2013 11:54 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:24 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:55 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  UNC is not going to give up its catbird seat in the ACC for a few TV dollars.

For a few, no. But for a sh!tload, yes. Assuming there is ever a sh!tload of difference, which I don't think there will be.

IF the B1G were to land UNC & UVA or UNC & GaTech, their per team pay out would be obscenely high and would dwarf everyone but the SEC.....and that is once the SEC has its network rolling.

UNC may not go to the B1G but they are making this decision for reasons other than money.

I just don't think it's that easy. Everyone just accepts this notion that the B1G has some kind of mortal lock on earning NFL money into perpetuity and that nobody else can possibly compete. There is just no way Michigan-Ohio State can carry that forever. The IU-Purdue game isn't worth $40 million a year or whatever they are claiming.

I hope Texas never leaves the big 12 and they expand and make it more nice and stable. That would be best.

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:54 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:24 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:55 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  UNC is not going to give up its catbird seat in the ACC for a few TV dollars.

For a few, no. But for a sh!tload, yes. Assuming there is ever a sh!tload of difference, which I don't think there will be.

IF the B1G were to land UNC & UVA or UNC & GaTech, their per team pay out would be obscenely high and would dwarf everyone but the SEC.....and that is once the SEC has its network rolling.

UNC may not go to the B1G but they are making this decision for reasons other than money.

I just don't think it's that easy. Everyone just accepts this notion that the B1G has some kind of mortal lock on earning NFL money into perpetuity and that nobody else can possibly compete. There is just no way Michigan-Ohio State can carry that forever. The IU-Purdue game isn't worth $40 million a year or whatever they are claiming.

I don't think you understand how many people follow the mid tier Big Ten schools. You bring up Purdue and Indiana? Purdue actually does have a decent following although it has waned some in recent years due to a heavy win drought for them. Indiana is actually building up it's program and their stands are filling up more and more. If they can actually get that stadium filled up, it is an impressive stadium and the school has a lot of potential in that regard.

When you start looking at other schools besides OSU and MU, you have Wisconsin with a huge following, you have MSU with a large following, you have Iowa with a large following, when Illinois actually does well then they have a large following, Minnesota actually has a strong following despite their achievements, Nebraska of course brings great ratings and following, Penn State...despite recent events still brings in the numbers.

Basically across the board, the Big Ten brings in ratings and that is why they get paid. Your attempt to only talk about OSU, Michigan, IU and Purdue is very misleading. The payment is for the conference as a whole and the numbers it brings. It is still yet to be seen what kind of numbers Maryland and Rutgers will bring, we won't know that until 2-3 years in but the potential is certainly there. Rutgers was already building a buzz there while in the Big East, now that they are Big Ten they are getting a whole lot more attention there in Jersey. Hopefully the same will happen for Maryland.

Basically, your comparison was overly simplistic.

(03-14-2013 12:39 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  I hope Texas never leaves the big 12 and they expand and make it more nice and stable. That would be best.

Hope UNC doesn't leave the ACC either and makes it more stable. I have no desire whatsoever to see 16 team leagues again. They are doomed to split apart just as the WAC 16 did. But hey, if the BiG wants to fall apart, I'd say let it. The SEC needs to avoid jumping off that cliff!!!

(03-14-2013 11:37 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:39 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  I hope Texas never leaves the big 12 and they expand and make it more nice and stable. That would be best.

Hope UNC doesn't leave the ACC either and makes it more stable. I have no desire whatsoever to see 16 team leagues again. They are doomed to split apart just as the WAC 16 did. But hey, if the BiG wants to fall apart, I'd say let it. The SEC needs to avoid jumping off that cliff!!!

Yeah...because leagues like the Big Ten and WAC are comparable in terms of following and support....right.

Doomed for failure at 16! Too funny.

The $50 million exit fee from the ACC is hideous, but it will not stop anyone from leaving the ACC for the B1G.do the math. The money will be recouped in a few years. No one is going to turn down a long term gain for a short term inconvenience.

The money is very important to Maryland because their finances are in such bad shape, but the other ACC schools in the conversation are not facing the same financial problems.

Consistently overlooked in these conversations is the CIC, which is a huge generator of research funds. More lucrative than college sports. It's the CIC that tempts these big research universities, not athletics, not football, not basketball.

If UVA, UNC, or GA Tech leave for the B1G, the $50 million exit fee will not be a factor in their decision one way or the other.

(03-14-2013 07:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  The IU-Purdue game isn't worth $40 million a year or whatever they are claiming.

Basically, your comparison was overly simplistic.

I was trying to keep it simple to make this basic point. Right now, in terms of media rights, IU and Purdue are in theory worth as much as Michigan and Ohio State because they reside in the same conference and get the same paycheck. In contrast, UNC and UVa are worth far less than IU and Purdue (half??) because they are in the ACC.

That extra money is the result of a somewhat artificial and most likely temporary advantage - the BTN. It is NOT the result of some inherent superiority of Purdue and IU over UNC and UVa in terms of their media value taken in isolation.

The B1G has its own network and the ACC doesn't. That's the advantage. But that won't last forever. A la carte cable TV pricing is coming. It's only a matter of time. Much like Samsung copying Apple's iPhone (and just like Microsoft copying Apple's operating system years before), the other conferences can follow that BTN model as their media contracts expire. The B1G built a better mousetrap. Now everyone will adjust and follow the blueprint. But that takes time.

This is basically an example of "vertical integration" in corporate merger terms. The people who produce the content (the games) are merging with the distribution networks (ESPN, Fox, etc.). The B1G got the jump and did it first. But the others will follow, and the comparative advantage will subside.

Perhaps even more important is shifting populations. The ACC's population footprint is growing much faster than the B1G's population, and that will shift media value over time. The same can be said of the SEC relative to the B1G. This is a major reason why the B1G wants to expand southward. They realize that demography is destiny. These southern schools have more leverage than they realize.

You and I will never have any way of coming up with an "I told you so" moment for this because the time needed to answer the question is too long, and the chances of us still yacking on this message board at that time are nill.

But I highly doubt that in 15 years time, if you compare the B1G to the other major conferences around then, the B1G will still have the same media rights advantages it does now. The competition adapts and comes up with new ideas.

The problem is that over that same 15 years, the conferences are going to create one effed up situation after another - like WVU in the Big 12 or GT in the B1G - that make no sense for anything other than maximizing next year's media revenue.

Once those media rights advantages dissipate, we are going to be left with a bunch of schools in the wrong conferences. Even if they do get to this cherished 4x16 arrangement, it won't stay that way.

(03-15-2013 06:43 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  The $50 million exit fee from the ACC is hideous, but it will not stop anyone from leaving the ACC for the B1G.do the math. The money will be recouped in a few years. No one is going to turn down a long term gain for a short term inconvenience.

The money is very important to Maryland because their finances are in such bad shape, but the other ACC schools in the conversation are not facing the same financial problems.

Consistently overlooked in these conversations is the CIC, which is a huge generator of research funds. More lucrative than college sports. It's the CIC that tempts these big research universities, not athletics, not football, not basketball.

If UVA, UNC, or GA Tech leave for the B1G, the $50 million exit fee will not be a factor in their decision one way or the other.

The only way UNC makes that jump is if they have to. Right now they don't have to. They've had a Big 10 invite on the table for years. UNC isn't going anywhere.

(03-15-2013 07:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:43 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  The $50 million exit fee from the ACC is hideous, but it will not stop anyone from leaving the ACC for the B1G.do the math. The money will be recouped in a few years. No one is going to turn down a long term gain for a short term inconvenience.

The money is very important to Maryland because their finances are in such bad shape, but the other ACC schools in the conversation are not facing the same financial problems.

Consistently overlooked in these conversations is the CIC, which is a huge generator of research funds. More lucrative than college sports. It's the CIC that tempts these big research universities, not athletics, not football, not basketball.

If UVA, UNC, or GA Tech leave for the B1G, the $50 million exit fee will not be a factor in their decision one way or the other.

The only way UNC makes that jump is if they have to. Right now they don't have to. They've had a Big 10 invite on the table for years. UNC isn't going anywhere.

So has Georgia Tech the past couple of years...but you can't say that on this board..

(03-15-2013 06:43 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  The $50 million exit fee from the ACC is hideous, but it will not stop anyone from leaving the ACC for the B1G.do the math. The money will be recouped in a few years. No one is going to turn down a long term gain for a short term inconvenience.

The money is very important to Maryland because their finances are in such bad shape, but the other ACC schools in the conversation are not facing the same financial problems.

Consistently overlooked in these conversations is the CIC, which is a huge generator of research funds. More lucrative than college sports. It's the CIC that tempts these big research universities, not athletics, not football, not basketball.

If UVA, UNC, or GA Tech leave for the B1G, the $50 million exit fee will not be a factor in their decision one way or the other.

Not if the B1G just admits them with a proportional share of revenues.

(03-15-2013 06:43 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Consistently overlooked in these conversations is the CIC, which is a huge generator of research funds. More lucrative than college sports. It's the CIC that tempts these big research universities, not athletics, not football, not basketball.

The CIC does not work like that. It does not generate one dime in research funds.

The CIC is a price club for buying in bulk.

(03-14-2013 07:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:54 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:24 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:55 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  UNC is not going to give up its catbird seat in the ACC for a few TV dollars.

For a few, no. But for a sh!tload, yes. Assuming there is ever a sh!tload of difference, which I don't think there will be.

IF the B1G were to land UNC & UVA or UNC & GaTech, their per team pay out would be obscenely high and would dwarf everyone but the SEC.....and that is once the SEC has its network rolling.

UNC may not go to the B1G but they are making this decision for reasons other than money.

I just don't think it's that easy. Everyone just accepts this notion that the B1G has some kind of mortal lock on earning NFL money into perpetuity and that nobody else can possibly compete. There is just no way Michigan-Ohio State can carry that forever. The IU-Purdue game isn't worth $40 million a year or whatever they are claiming.

I don't think you understand how many people follow the mid tier Big Ten schools. You bring up Purdue and Indiana? Purdue actually does have a decent following although it has waned some in recent years due to a heavy win drought for them. Indiana is actually building up it's program and their stands are filling up more and more. If they can actually get that stadium filled up, it is an impressive stadium and the school has a lot of potential in that regard.

When you start looking at other schools besides OSU and MU, you have Wisconsin with a huge following, you have MSU with a large following, you have Iowa with a large following, when Illinois actually does well then they have a large following, Minnesota actually has a strong following despite their achievements, Nebraska of course brings great ratings and following, Penn State...despite recent events still brings in the numbers.

Basically across the board, the Big Ten brings in ratings and that is why they get paid. Your attempt to only talk about OSU, Michigan, IU and Purdue is very misleading. The payment is for the conference as a whole and the numbers it brings. It is still yet to be seen what kind of numbers Maryland and Rutgers will bring, we won't know that until 2-3 years in but the potential is certainly there. Rutgers was already building a buzz there while in the Big East, now that they are Big Ten they are getting a whole lot more attention there in Jersey. Hopefully the same will happen for Maryland.

Basically, your comparison was overly simplistic.

As He1nous well knows, one other thing to remember about B1G schools is that they're well, BIG. While UNC and UVa's undergraduate enrollments are under 20K, schools like Purdue and Minnesota have over 30K - and they've been big schools for a long time, with graduates having migrated all over the country.