Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #81
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(01-27-2015 09:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 09:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.


The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

Oklahoma under Boren is very determined to gather as much academic clout as they can. Oklahoma football is a blue blood elite program. Norman, Oklahoma is located only 2 1/2 hours away from Dallas/Ft. Worth. Oklahoma, as a blue blood program located that close to the strongest recruiting market in the entire country, will never have serious problems with recruiting. That leaves them the capability of making the academic minded decision. That isn't to say that Big Ten membership will suddenly cause a dramatic rise in Oklahoma's academic m arks but people are people and those people, if they had to choose, would rather be considered among peers with Big Ten schools.

They can win championships from within the Big Ten so why wouldn't they make that choice?

Because outside of Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa the rest is too danged far to drive. And if the additions are Kansas and Oklahoma then Nebraska is really the only game the Sooner fans would care about.

Who needs to drive to every away game? You get 7 home games a year. Most of the SEC is a long drive too, so I don't see that argument as being all that viable. Sorry. Oklahoma fans really don't care all that much about the SEC nor for many of the teams in it. I guess I get why an SEC fan would think their teams would be more alluring to Oklahoma fans but I really don't think they care more for SEC match ups than they do for Big Ten or PAC match ups.

That is a low priority on the totem pole.

1. Boren is on a short leash.
2. In the end butts in the seats at home games matter and a donating pecking order for away games matters.
3. Both are the reason the move, if there is one, will be decided by the fan base's wishes more than by Academia, or big money donors.
4. If the SEC refused to take Okie State the Sooners won't be going anywhere.
01-27-2015 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #82
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
You are right about Oklahoma State. What I don't think you are right about though is the desire of the Kings of the SEC to invite in any more programs that could dethrone them. Oklahoma State is less of a Brand threat while still providing strong competition.
01-27-2015 09:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #83
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(01-27-2015 09:16 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.


The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I think OU will be in the B1G or SEC. I think OU has no desire for the ACC (and has suitors in the B1G, SEC, and PAC which are much better fits) and that was more of Texas seeing what the ACC was willing to do. The PAC really should have taken them last go around, now the B1G is talking with them and the SEC has been whispering in their ear for awhile. I think the PAC window has closed unless they take 6-8 schools to put political pressure on Texas and OU to take care of the little brothers.

I would think that Texahoma deal to the ACC would be more likely now, than in 2011, since the ACC already bent on academics with the UL add, so maybe OSU and TTU would have company at the academic bottom there. Then again, maybe that was all the academic heavyweights (Duke, UNC, UVA) in the ACC were willing to allow and the next adds will have to be more to the original ACC standard. That said I think that combo of 4 schools as sailed. I really think the only schools that fit the original ACC mold (before UL add) in the B12 are Texas, Kansas, Baylor, and TCU. I think the last two would be the most likely candidates to head to the ACC with Texas.

The Louisville addition was an anomaly. It satisfied several strategic objectives for the ACC.
The only Texahoma school that would have an opportunity to join the ACC would be Texas.
01-28-2015 09:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #84
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(01-28-2015 09:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 09:16 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.


The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I think OU will be in the B1G or SEC. I think OU has no desire for the ACC (and has suitors in the B1G, SEC, and PAC which are much better fits) and that was more of Texas seeing what the ACC was willing to do. The PAC really should have taken them last go around, now the B1G is talking with them and the SEC has been whispering in their ear for awhile. I think the PAC window has closed unless they take 6-8 schools to put political pressure on Texas and OU to take care of the little brothers.

I would think that Texahoma deal to the ACC would be more likely now, than in 2011, since the ACC already bent on academics with the UL add, so maybe OSU and TTU would have company at the academic bottom there. Then again, maybe that was all the academic heavyweights (Duke, UNC, UVA) in the ACC were willing to allow and the next adds will have to be more to the original ACC standard. That said I think that combo of 4 schools as sailed. I really think the only schools that fit the original ACC mold (before UL add) in the B12 are Texas, Kansas, Baylor, and TCU. I think the last two would be the most likely candidates to head to the ACC with Texas.

The Louisville addition was an anomaly. It satisfied several strategic objectives for the ACC.
The only Texahoma school that would have an opportunity to join the ACC would be Texas.

And that may be why the ACC continues to lag in revenue in the future. I'm sure ESPN is looking at ways to enhance your value, but the old core is resistant to the options that would cement football and relegate basketball therefore it is the attitudes of the basketball first schools that will likely keep a network at bay and near the end of your GOR could lead to instability again. But there is another option available to the network. They could keep the ACC relatively intact and simply break up the old basketball core.
01-31-2015 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #85
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(01-31-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2015 09:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 09:16 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.


The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I think OU will be in the B1G or SEC. I think OU has no desire for the ACC (and has suitors in the B1G, SEC, and PAC which are much better fits) and that was more of Texas seeing what the ACC was willing to do. The PAC really should have taken them last go around, now the B1G is talking with them and the SEC has been whispering in their ear for awhile. I think the PAC window has closed unless they take 6-8 schools to put political pressure on Texas and OU to take care of the little brothers.

I would think that Texahoma deal to the ACC would be more likely now, than in 2011, since the ACC already bent on academics with the UL add, so maybe OSU and TTU would have company at the academic bottom there. Then again, maybe that was all the academic heavyweights (Duke, UNC, UVA) in the ACC were willing to allow and the next adds will have to be more to the original ACC standard. That said I think that combo of 4 schools as sailed. I really think the only schools that fit the original ACC mold (before UL add) in the B12 are Texas, Kansas, Baylor, and TCU. I think the last two would be the most likely candidates to head to the ACC with Texas.

The Louisville addition was an anomaly. It satisfied several strategic objectives for the ACC.
The only Texahoma school that would have an opportunity to join the ACC would be Texas.

And that may be why the ACC continues to lag in revenue in the future. I'm sure ESPN is looking at ways to enhance your value, but the old core is resistant to the options that would cement football and relegate basketball therefore it is the attitudes of the basketball first schools that will likely keep a network at bay and near the end of your GOR could lead to instability again. But there is another option available to the network. They could keep the ACC relatively intact and simply break up the old basketball core.

When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.
02-01-2015 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #86
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-31-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2015 09:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 09:16 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I think OU will be in the B1G or SEC. I think OU has no desire for the ACC (and has suitors in the B1G, SEC, and PAC which are much better fits) and that was more of Texas seeing what the ACC was willing to do. The PAC really should have taken them last go around, now the B1G is talking with them and the SEC has been whispering in their ear for awhile. I think the PAC window has closed unless they take 6-8 schools to put political pressure on Texas and OU to take care of the little brothers.

I would think that Texahoma deal to the ACC would be more likely now, than in 2011, since the ACC already bent on academics with the UL add, so maybe OSU and TTU would have company at the academic bottom there. Then again, maybe that was all the academic heavyweights (Duke, UNC, UVA) in the ACC were willing to allow and the next adds will have to be more to the original ACC standard. That said I think that combo of 4 schools as sailed. I really think the only schools that fit the original ACC mold (before UL add) in the B12 are Texas, Kansas, Baylor, and TCU. I think the last two would be the most likely candidates to head to the ACC with Texas.

The Louisville addition was an anomaly. It satisfied several strategic objectives for the ACC.
The only Texahoma school that would have an opportunity to join the ACC would be Texas.

And that may be why the ACC continues to lag in revenue in the future. I'm sure ESPN is looking at ways to enhance your value, but the old core is resistant to the options that would cement football and relegate basketball therefore it is the attitudes of the basketball first schools that will likely keep a network at bay and near the end of your GOR could lead to instability again. But there is another option available to the network. They could keep the ACC relatively intact and simply break up the old basketball core.

When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

Has it occurred to you that your GOR wasn't signed so much to lock you into the ACC as it was to lock you in as ESPN property following the Maryland departure? That obligation doesn't expire until years after the new Big 10 contract is signed. It locks you into ESPN at ESPN's discretion, as does the SECN with our conference, and the LHN with Texas. Further realignment will be no more than rearranging the properties within the ESPN family with the possible exceptions of Oklahoma (FOX) and West Virginia (IMG). I still believe the PAC is a long shot for selling interest in its own network. A piece of Big 10 T1 is all ESPN is interested in. They won't part with prime property to get it either.

What is marketable from the PAC? U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and sometimes Stanford. Is it worth buying content from all of the PAC to gain access to these schools when a simple split lease with FOX gives them what they want? No.

What is marketable from the Big 10? Ohio State, gap, Michigan, gap, Penn State, gap, Nebraska, gap, Wisconsin, bigger gap, Michigan State. The only games of content worth having here are games between those 5. Nobody nationally, and few regionally want to watch Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, or Maryland. ESPN is money ahead to only have a part of the T1 here.

So as long as you are under contract to ESPN (2025 or thereabouts) none of these prospects you mention are feasible economically for the ACC. Besides, nobody hypes your schools like the Mouse. And with the fallout from realignment and the expense of tickets during an economic downturn, and at a time when Boomers head into retirement and the succeeding generation doesn't have the means of its predecessors, it is unlikely that these contracts will remain high for very long and upstart networks like FOX simply can't do for you what ESPN can.

So while I know there is truth in your words, I also know that you are past the point of no return on exercising any of those options, which now are just "what could have been" thoughts. To hold onto them as viable options is either delusion or fantasy. The duration of contracts for all involved and more importantly the valuations of the GOR's being predominantly in the hands of the networks holding them have effectively eliminated all else.
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2015 02:40 PM by JRsec.)
02-01-2015 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #87
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-01-2015 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-31-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2015 09:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-27-2015 09:16 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I think OU will be in the B1G or SEC. I think OU has no desire for the ACC (and has suitors in the B1G, SEC, and PAC which are much better fits) and that was more of Texas seeing what the ACC was willing to do. The PAC really should have taken them last go around, now the B1G is talking with them and the SEC has been whispering in their ear for awhile. I think the PAC window has closed unless they take 6-8 schools to put political pressure on Texas and OU to take care of the little brothers.

I would think that Texahoma deal to the ACC would be more likely now, than in 2011, since the ACC already bent on academics with the UL add, so maybe OSU and TTU would have company at the academic bottom there. Then again, maybe that was all the academic heavyweights (Duke, UNC, UVA) in the ACC were willing to allow and the next adds will have to be more to the original ACC standard. That said I think that combo of 4 schools as sailed. I really think the only schools that fit the original ACC mold (before UL add) in the B12 are Texas, Kansas, Baylor, and TCU. I think the last two would be the most likely candidates to head to the ACC with Texas.

The Louisville addition was an anomaly. It satisfied several strategic objectives for the ACC.
The only Texahoma school that would have an opportunity to join the ACC would be Texas.

And that may be why the ACC continues to lag in revenue in the future. I'm sure ESPN is looking at ways to enhance your value, but the old core is resistant to the options that would cement football and relegate basketball therefore it is the attitudes of the basketball first schools that will likely keep a network at bay and near the end of your GOR could lead to instability again. But there is another option available to the network. They could keep the ACC relatively intact and simply break up the old basketball core.

When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

Has it occurred to you that your GOR wasn't signed so much to lock you into the ACC as it was to lock you in as ESPN property following the Maryland departure? That obligation doesn't expire until years after the new Big 10 contract is signed. It locks you into ESPN at ESPN's discretion, as does the SECN with our conference, and the LHN with Texas. Further realignment will be no more than rearranging the properties within the ESPN family with the possible exceptions of Oklahoma (FOX) and West Virginia (IMG). I still believe the PAC is a long shot for selling interest in its own network. A piece of Big 10 T1 is all ESPN is interested in. They won't part with prime property to get it either.

What is marketable from the PAC? U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and sometimes Stanford. Is it worth buying content from all of the PAC to gain access to these schools when a simple split lease with FOX gives them what they want? No.

What is marketable from the Big 10? Ohio State, gap, Michigan, gap, Penn State, gap, Nebraska, gap, Wisconsin, bigger gap, Michigan State. The only games of content worth having here are games between those 5. Nobody nationally, and few regionally want to watch Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, or Maryland. ESPN is money ahead to only have a part of the T1 here.

So as long as you are under contract to ESPN (2025 or thereabouts) none of these prospects you mention are feasible economically for the ACC. Besides, nobody hypes your schools like the Mouse. And with the fallout from realignment and the expense of tickets during an economic downturn, and at a time when Boomers head into retirement and the succeeding generation doesn't have the means of its predecessors, it is unlikely that these contracts will remain high for very long and upstart networks like FOX simply can't do for you what ESPN can.

So while I know there is truth in your words, I also know that you are past the point of no return on exercising any of those options, which now are just "what could have been" thoughts. To hold onto them as viable options is either delusion or fantasy. The duration of contracts for all involved and more importantly the valuations of the GOR's being predominantly in the hands of the networks holding them have effectively eliminated all else.

The Grandover Folks are well aware of our obligations that extend well into the middle of the next decade. Prudent management, however, is prepared for all contingencies.
02-01-2015 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #88
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-01-2015 04:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-31-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2015 09:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  The Louisville addition was an anomaly. It satisfied several strategic objectives for the ACC.
The only Texahoma school that would have an opportunity to join the ACC would be Texas.

And that may be why the ACC continues to lag in revenue in the future. I'm sure ESPN is looking at ways to enhance your value, but the old core is resistant to the options that would cement football and relegate basketball therefore it is the attitudes of the basketball first schools that will likely keep a network at bay and near the end of your GOR could lead to instability again. But there is another option available to the network. They could keep the ACC relatively intact and simply break up the old basketball core.

When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

Has it occurred to you that your GOR wasn't signed so much to lock you into the ACC as it was to lock you in as ESPN property following the Maryland departure? That obligation doesn't expire until years after the new Big 10 contract is signed. It locks you into ESPN at ESPN's discretion, as does the SECN with our conference, and the LHN with Texas. Further realignment will be no more than rearranging the properties within the ESPN family with the possible exceptions of Oklahoma (FOX) and West Virginia (IMG). I still believe the PAC is a long shot for selling interest in its own network. A piece of Big 10 T1 is all ESPN is interested in. They won't part with prime property to get it either.

What is marketable from the PAC? U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and sometimes Stanford. Is it worth buying content from all of the PAC to gain access to these schools when a simple split lease with FOX gives them what they want? No.

What is marketable from the Big 10? Ohio State, gap, Michigan, gap, Penn State, gap, Nebraska, gap, Wisconsin, bigger gap, Michigan State. The only games of content worth having here are games between those 5. Nobody nationally, and few regionally want to watch Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, or Maryland. ESPN is money ahead to only have a part of the T1 here.

So as long as you are under contract to ESPN (2025 or thereabouts) none of these prospects you mention are feasible economically for the ACC. Besides, nobody hypes your schools like the Mouse. And with the fallout from realignment and the expense of tickets during an economic downturn, and at a time when Boomers head into retirement and the succeeding generation doesn't have the means of its predecessors, it is unlikely that these contracts will remain high for very long and upstart networks like FOX simply can't do for you what ESPN can.

So while I know there is truth in your words, I also know that you are past the point of no return on exercising any of those options, which now are just "what could have been" thoughts. To hold onto them as viable options is either delusion or fantasy. The duration of contracts for all involved and more importantly the valuations of the GOR's being predominantly in the hands of the networks holding them have effectively eliminated all else.

The Grandover Folks are well aware of our obligations that extend well into the middle of the next decade. Prudent management, however, is prepared for all contingencies.

There has been nothing prudent from any of these college presidents of our conferences regarding and / or protecting our rights to our own sports property. They sold their souls when they hired former network contract lawyers to be their commissioners. Those guys made their money from their associations with the networks, and not their allegiances to our schools or conferences. You may have great faith in your academic leadership, but I don't have any for any of them. Like people who lost their lunch in 2008 with Wall Street, they believe what they are told. They are hardly the super intellects that people make them out to be. Many of them are outstanding educators, well spoken, well mannered, and very nice people to be around, but in the end when entering into the corporate world they are naive and clueless about the scope of the vacuum of integrity in business. They too are victims. And if they can't prevent academic fraud within their own bailiwick how are they prepared for battle with the networks?
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2015 07:18 AM by JRsec.)
02-05-2015 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #89
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
Honestly, they should hire some guys who worked for the professional leagues negotiating TV contracts and other forms of revenue. Those guys know how to squeeze out every dollar.
02-05-2015 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #90
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-05-2015 07:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 04:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-31-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And that may be why the ACC continues to lag in revenue in the future. I'm sure ESPN is looking at ways to enhance your value, but the old core is resistant to the options that would cement football and relegate basketball therefore it is the attitudes of the basketball first schools that will likely keep a network at bay and near the end of your GOR could lead to instability again. But there is another option available to the network. They could keep the ACC relatively intact and simply break up the old basketball core.

When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

Has it occurred to you that your GOR wasn't signed so much to lock you into the ACC as it was to lock you in as ESPN property following the Maryland departure? That obligation doesn't expire until years after the new Big 10 contract is signed. It locks you into ESPN at ESPN's discretion, as does the SECN with our conference, and the LHN with Texas. Further realignment will be no more than rearranging the properties within the ESPN family with the possible exceptions of Oklahoma (FOX) and West Virginia (IMG). I still believe the PAC is a long shot for selling interest in its own network. A piece of Big 10 T1 is all ESPN is interested in. They won't part with prime property to get it either.

What is marketable from the PAC? U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and sometimes Stanford. Is it worth buying content from all of the PAC to gain access to these schools when a simple split lease with FOX gives them what they want? No.

What is marketable from the Big 10? Ohio State, gap, Michigan, gap, Penn State, gap, Nebraska, gap, Wisconsin, bigger gap, Michigan State. The only games of content worth having here are games between those 5. Nobody nationally, and few regionally want to watch Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, or Maryland. ESPN is money ahead to only have a part of the T1 here.

So as long as you are under contract to ESPN (2025 or thereabouts) none of these prospects you mention are feasible economically for the ACC. Besides, nobody hypes your schools like the Mouse. And with the fallout from realignment and the expense of tickets during an economic downturn, and at a time when Boomers head into retirement and the succeeding generation doesn't have the means of its predecessors, it is unlikely that these contracts will remain high for very long and upstart networks like FOX simply can't do for you what ESPN can.

So while I know there is truth in your words, I also know that you are past the point of no return on exercising any of those options, which now are just "what could have been" thoughts. To hold onto them as viable options is either delusion or fantasy. The duration of contracts for all involved and more importantly the valuations of the GOR's being predominantly in the hands of the networks holding them have effectively eliminated all else.

The Grandover Folks are well aware of our obligations that extend well into the middle of the next decade. Prudent management, however, is prepared for all contingencies.

There has been nothing prudent from any of these college presidents of our conferences regarding and / or protecting our rights to our own sports property. They sold their souls when they hired former network contract lawyers to be their commissioners. Those guys made their money from their associations with the networks, and not their allegiances to our schools or conferences. You may have great faith in your academic leadership, but I don't have any for any of them. Like people who lost their lunch in 2008 with Wall Street, they believe what they are told. They are hardly the super intellects that people make them out to be. Many of them are outstanding educators, well spoken, well mannered, and very nice people to be around, but in the end when entering into the corporate world they are naive and clueless about the scope of the vacuum of integrity in business. They too are victims. And if they can't prevent academic fraud within their own bailiwick how are they prepared for battle with the networks?

I'm not sure who you are referring to but the ACC's commissioner is a former athletic director (he is not an attorney but does have a Master's degree in Athletics Administration). And speaking of super intellects, our commissioner attended Carolina on a Morehead Scholarship (now known as the Morehead-Cain Scholarship) which actually does place him among the cream of the academic world.
02-08-2015 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #91
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-08-2015 05:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-05-2015 07:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 04:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

Has it occurred to you that your GOR wasn't signed so much to lock you into the ACC as it was to lock you in as ESPN property following the Maryland departure? That obligation doesn't expire until years after the new Big 10 contract is signed. It locks you into ESPN at ESPN's discretion, as does the SECN with our conference, and the LHN with Texas. Further realignment will be no more than rearranging the properties within the ESPN family with the possible exceptions of Oklahoma (FOX) and West Virginia (IMG). I still believe the PAC is a long shot for selling interest in its own network. A piece of Big 10 T1 is all ESPN is interested in. They won't part with prime property to get it either.

What is marketable from the PAC? U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and sometimes Stanford. Is it worth buying content from all of the PAC to gain access to these schools when a simple split lease with FOX gives them what they want? No.

What is marketable from the Big 10? Ohio State, gap, Michigan, gap, Penn State, gap, Nebraska, gap, Wisconsin, bigger gap, Michigan State. The only games of content worth having here are games between those 5. Nobody nationally, and few regionally want to watch Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, or Maryland. ESPN is money ahead to only have a part of the T1 here.

So as long as you are under contract to ESPN (2025 or thereabouts) none of these prospects you mention are feasible economically for the ACC. Besides, nobody hypes your schools like the Mouse. And with the fallout from realignment and the expense of tickets during an economic downturn, and at a time when Boomers head into retirement and the succeeding generation doesn't have the means of its predecessors, it is unlikely that these contracts will remain high for very long and upstart networks like FOX simply can't do for you what ESPN can.

So while I know there is truth in your words, I also know that you are past the point of no return on exercising any of those options, which now are just "what could have been" thoughts. To hold onto them as viable options is either delusion or fantasy. The duration of contracts for all involved and more importantly the valuations of the GOR's being predominantly in the hands of the networks holding them have effectively eliminated all else.

The Grandover Folks are well aware of our obligations that extend well into the middle of the next decade. Prudent management, however, is prepared for all contingencies.

There has been nothing prudent from any of these college presidents of our conferences regarding and / or protecting our rights to our own sports property. They sold their souls when they hired former network contract lawyers to be their commissioners. Those guys made their money from their associations with the networks, and not their allegiances to our schools or conferences. You may have great faith in your academic leadership, but I don't have any for any of them. Like people who lost their lunch in 2008 with Wall Street, they believe what they are told. They are hardly the super intellects that people make them out to be. Many of them are outstanding educators, well spoken, well mannered, and very nice people to be around, but in the end when entering into the corporate world they are naive and clueless about the scope of the vacuum of integrity in business. They too are victims. And if they can't prevent academic fraud within their own bailiwick how are they prepared for battle with the networks?

I'm not sure who you are referring to but the ACC's commissioner is a former athletic director (he is not an attorney but does have a Master's degree in Athletics Administration). And speaking of super intellects, our commissioner attended Carolina on a Morehead Scholarship (now known as the Morehead-Cain Scholarship) which actually does place him among the cream of the academic world.

And your point is what? Being the cream of the crop in academia doesn't make one a prudent or forward thinking businessman. But I was lumping Slive and Delany into the genre of television contract negotiators. But if I'm not mistaken your commissioners son enjoys his affiliation with the networks, even if obliquely, and somewhat at the expense of the ACC. Scott made his mark expanding niche sports and utilized television well to do so. Bowlsby is more of Swofford's ilk except for having a child in the television business.

But as things stand they all dance (except Scott) to the tune the networks play and nobody is more completely sold out to one of them than your guy. 100% with no current ability to even buy back sublet rights.....genius, sheer genius.
02-08-2015 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #92
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

ACC Game of the Week on BTN? That would be an interesting twist.
02-12-2015 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #93
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-12-2015 06:24 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

ACC Game of the Week on BTN? That would be an interesting twist.

Of course by that same logic Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan should join Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska as SEC members so that all of those with stadiums approaching or presently with 100,000 capacity could play as peers.
02-12-2015 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #94
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-12-2015 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-12-2015 06:24 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

ACC Game of the Week on BTN? That would be an interesting twist.

Of course by that same logic Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan should join Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska as SEC members so that all of those with stadiums approaching or presently with 100,000 capacity could play as peers.

I have thought that thirty years from now college football (if it still exists) will be split into three tiers. The first tier will be the big programs with the large stadia, which would be a loose association of like programs who independently schedule each other: ND, USC, Bama, TAMU, PSU, OSU...probably Michigan State and Wisconsin get in there, as well as UCLA and maybe Oregon.

Then a second tier of medium sized programs left over from the P5 plus any move ups from the G5. They would be reorganized regionally, so you may see some interesting conferences emerge. Rutgers could be back playing mostly Eastern schools while Iowa State could play in a mostly Midwest league with the Purdue's and the Illinoises. There may be a few games between the first and second tiers for scheduling purposes or for historical reasons.

Finally, a third tier of mostly G5 schools with a few drops from the P5, mostly the smaller schools grandfathered into the current P5. These also would be reorganized regionally.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2015 07:01 AM by Transic_nyc.)
02-13-2015 06:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #95
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-13-2015 06:58 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(02-12-2015 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-12-2015 06:24 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  When the ACC expanded to 12 there were talks with the PAC about a joint network, an opportunity for continuous broadcasting from noon till midnight. The ACC declined at that time, saying that they weren't ready. But those talks even though sporadic are ongoing. There are still ongoing conversations with the B1G.
The folks at Grandover will be well prepared if necessary to live life without and beyond ESPN.
As we move from a P5 to a P4 the TV monies will tend to even out over time, but that's not to say that a 60,000 seat stadium school would ever be able to match revenue with a school that has a football stadium seating 80,000 to 100,000, no matter how large the basketball arena is.

ACC Game of the Week on BTN? That would be an interesting twist.

Of course by that same logic Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan should join Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska as SEC members so that all of those with stadiums approaching or presently with 100,000 capacity could play as peers.

I have thought that thirty years from now college football (if it still exists) will be split into three tiers. The first tier will be the big programs with the large stadia, which would be a loose association of like programs who independently schedule each other: ND, USC, Bama, TAMU, PSU, OSU...probably Michigan State and Wisconsin get in there, as well as UCLA and maybe Oregon.

Then a second tier of medium sized programs left over from the P5 plus any move ups from the G5. They would be reorganized regionally, so you may see some interesting conferences emerge. Rutgers could be back playing mostly Eastern schools while Iowa State could play in a mostly Midwest league with the Purdue's and the Illinoises. There may be a few games between the first and second tiers for scheduling purposes or for historical reasons.

Finally, a third tier of mostly G5 schools with a few drops from the P5, mostly the smaller schools grandfathered into the current P5. These also would be reorganized regionally.

I think we are headed there. The P5 will eventually be a P4 with likely a fifth conference made up of privates as some of you have speculated. Then over time there will be a winnowing of the P4 state schools and many of those may drop half a notch and form a conference with the separated big money privates. Some G5 might move into this category as well. Then there will be a separation of G5's as those suffering state budget cuts that were already at the lower rungs of the G5 drop down. We wind up with possibly as many as 4 levels. Heavy weights, light heavy weights, middle weights, and bantam weights to borrow boxing parlance.
02-22-2015 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mac6115cd Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,439
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Bearcats
Location: Waynesville, Ohio
Post: #96
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
Stadium size does not equate to program success. You might as well divide teams by living alumni which, at least, might correlate to potential TV viewers.
02-27-2015 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #97
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(02-27-2015 12:54 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Stadium size does not equate to program success. You might as well divide teams by living alumni which, at least, might correlate to potential TV viewers.
With the exception of Vanderbilt who is grandfathered in the sec has minimum stadium capacity requirements for entrants. The reason is travel crowds. Travel tickets in the SEC go to premium donors to the athletic departments. We like to offer 15,000 minimum to a visiting conference school. Most programs sell out that allocation.
02-27-2015 06:15 PM
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.