Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Author Message
CardinalJim Online
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,476
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #41
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
All of these pie in the sky hypotheticals are all well and good but the bottom line is The ACC member schools want to stay together and at this point The Big 12, member schools, at least those that add any value, won't committ to a less than clear future.

We are nearly two decades away from an ACC program being free from its GOR to become a Big Ten program. We are what five years away from The Big 12 GOR expiring?

Survival at this point is a game of wait and see.

It's foolish and foolhardy to predict what will happen with The ACC or Big 12 in reference to The Big Ten when no one knows for sure what that conferences position will be in two decades. I'm not sold that The Big Ten, that missed the play-offs this year, will be in a position of strength in 20 years.

Remember some of the same procrastinators here just over 5 years ago had The ACC struggling, never making the play-offs and The Big 12 having a conference network.
CJ
01-24-2018 04:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 04:17 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  All of these pie in the sky hypotheticals are all well and good but the bottom line is The ACC member schools want to stay together and at this point The Big 12, member schools, at least those that add any value, won't committ to a less than clear future.

We are nearly two decades away from an ACC program being free from its GOR to become a Big Ten program. We are what five years away from The Big 12 GOR expiring?

Survival at this point is a game of wait and see.

It's foolish and foolhardy to predict what will happen with The ACC or Big 12 in reference to The Big Ten when no one knows for sure what that conferences position will be in two decades. I'm not sold that The Big Ten, that missed the play-offs this year, will be in a position of strength in 20 years.

Remember some of the same procrastinators here just over 5 years ago had The ACC struggling, never making the play-offs and The Big 12 having a conference network.
CJ

That's peculiar! I started the thread with data that is solid as a rock when indicating the value of individual schools being assessed for a possible move. The whole point was to indicate that when all is said and done there are really only 3 schools that meet and exceed the metrics of the SEC and Big 10.

And technically Jim none of them are ACC members. Notre Dame is not a football member. And I seriously doubt whether N.D. would be capable of a full move before say a couple of years prior to the ACC's GOR expiring around 2032-3.

To say that the ACCN is an unproven quantity is simply a fact. To say that the changeover at ESPN could impact that is simply a reality. But it is a reality that will be considered by all of their business partners. While I have no doubts that the ACCN will materialize, the wild euphoria of it's estimated worth remains to be seen, especially given the ratio of actual viewers to potential viewers within your footprint. The more we move toward pay models based on actual viewers and away from subscription based pay models the greater the variance will be for the PAC and ACC over what the variance will be for the SEC or Big 10.

Given the Big 10 will pay out next year 51.1 million as published by Wisconsin and that Missouri just reported that their share of the SEC TV revenue this year will be 46.4 million, the indications are the networks still find value in the Big 10 and SEC, and that really has nothing to do with whether either is the recent champion. They have value because of the ratio of actual viewers to total viewers within their footprints. The SEC has the highest % of actual viewers to potential viewers, the Big 12 is nip and tuck with the Big 10 every year in the same stat and both are relatively close to the SEC, but lagging all three of those are the PAC and ACC which are nip and tuck every year for last place.

What I'm confident in is that those trends are not changing, and they aren't changing because of cultural reasons. Generally speaking people living in the coastal regions are more affluent than those living in the heartland, and they have much greater access to alternate forms of entertainment. It simply is what it is. With the exception of the Los Angeles schools most schools on the coast have smaller venues as well. That partly has to do with property values and the availability of land, and partly to do with supply and demand.

What I do have faith in is that the market will supply the answers to most of the fans questions about realignment. And that's true whether the organizing principle is academics or athletics.

And what I know is that no matter how soberly you try to approach this subject on this board that there will be endless posts spent hypothesizing about the global takeover of this or that conference with conferences projected to grow to numbers as large as there are schools in a division. But then fantasy drives hits and that's good for the site.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2018 11:42 AM by JRsec.)
01-24-2018 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #43
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The more we move toward pay models based on actual viewers and away from subscription based pay models the greater the variance will be for the PAC and ACC over what the variance will be for the SEC or Big 10.

Given the Big 10 will pay out next year 51.1 million as published by Wisconsin and that Missouri just reported that their share of the SEC TV revenue this year will be 46.4 million, the indications are the networks still find value in the Big 10 and SEC, and that really has nothing to do with whether either is the recent champion.

When televised sports transitions to a model where the revenue comes only from those who choose to subscribe (or pay per game), and leaves behind the model where the network or conference gets money from every home with a cable box, then all of this could be quite different.

Right now there is a lot of potential data that is hidden because the TV packages are lumped together for all teams in a conference and for both football and basketball. Once that's all separated out and everyone can see who is willing to pay to watch each individual team and each sport, we will learn a lot of interesting things.

One thing that I've mentioned before is that the model in which each conference member gets an equal share of media revenue might fall apart. If the average Ohio State or Michigan football game is purchased several hundred thousand times but any Indiana, Rutgers, or Minnesota football game not featuring a marquee opponent is only purchased several hundred times, then Ohio State and Michigan might demand a much larger share, especially if costs continue to escalate and Meyer or Harbaugh or the next superstar head coach is making $20 million/year plus another $20 million/year to pay the rest of their coaching staff.

We can easily imagine any of the "king" programs saying, "We're not going to sign any more grants of media rights to the conference unless the top earners get a percentage that is proportionate to the value they contribute."
01-24-2018 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #44
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Ask a good CPA what 2+2 is and he will answer "anything you want it to be'". Such is the world of numbers.
People talk in absolutes, when there are things that are just unknown. If anybody really knew about CR as an absolute there wouldn't be speculation or a need for this outlet.
We will be using the "market" model until the end of the current contracts. Several of those expire in about 5 years while some are in force for another 20 years.
And when you talk about trends, one has to wonder whether there will be any football as we know it when those contracts expire in the early 2030's.
Baseball at all levels is making a comeback.............
01-24-2018 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #45
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
As the data becomes better and better, the TV guys can precisely quantify the value of different teams, not just conferences or regions. We know that Clemson football is a more valuable property than Wake Forest football, Alabama more valuable than Missouri, etc., etc., but the TV data is getting to the point where they can quantify whether the value difference is 5x or 10x or 100x instead of just saying "a lot more valuable".

TV already cares a lot more about how many people are actually watching than about market size. That's why Atlanta is more valuable for college football on TV than New York City. NYC is a lot more valuable for college basketball, though of course hoops doesn't command the same amount of TV money.
01-24-2018 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ask a good CPA what 2+2 is and he will answer "anything you want it to be'". Such is the world of numbers.
People talk in absolutes, when there are things that are just unknown. If anybody really knew about CR as an absolute there wouldn't be speculation or a need for this outlet.
We will be using the "market" model until the end of the current contracts. Several of those expire in about 5 years while some are in force for another 20 years.
And when you talk about trends, one has to wonder whether there will be any football as we know it when those contracts expire in the early 2030's.
Baseball at all levels is making a comeback.............

That's because baseball is the greatest game ever invented. Your fate is not determined by a clock. Everyone gets 27 outs if needed. It was the first sport to play until there was a clear winner, and does so without altering the flow and play of the game to achieve it. It has room for individual and team achievement. In encompasses hand eye coordination, speed, and space negotiation, along with strategy, including deception. It is comprehensive but not a contact sport per se. And they don't play in inclimate conditions so therefore the relative comfort of both the players and spectators is assumed.

And if you don't take your cell phone with you to the game you can truly escape for an afternoon.

If the future of college sports was organized around baseball I'd be a happy camper. The only thing we need to do to preserve it is to kick IMG's butt out of our venues and let the quiet moments of baseball return. That, and execute the first fools who want to introduce the clock into the game. And Momma's your sons have less of a chance to get a concussion in a baseball game than any other organized team sport, and probably less of a chance than your child experiences at PE at school.

So X, we are in agreement on this one.
01-24-2018 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 01:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The more we move toward pay models based on actual viewers and away from subscription based pay models the greater the variance will be for the PAC and ACC over what the variance will be for the SEC or Big 10.

Given the Big 10 will pay out next year 51.1 million as published by Wisconsin and that Missouri just reported that their share of the SEC TV revenue this year will be 46.4 million, the indications are the networks still find value in the Big 10 and SEC, and that really has nothing to do with whether either is the recent champion.

When televised sports transitions to a model where the revenue comes only from those who choose to subscribe (or pay per game), and leaves behind the model where the network or conference gets money from every home with a cable box, then all of this could be quite different.

Right now there is a lot of potential data that is hidden because the TV packages are lumped together for all teams in a conference and for both football and basketball. Once that's all separated out and everyone can see who is willing to pay to watch each individual team and each sport, we will learn a lot of interesting things.

One thing that I've mentioned before is that the model in which each conference member gets an equal share of media revenue might fall apart. If the average Ohio State or Michigan football game is purchased several hundred thousand times but any Indiana, Rutgers, or Minnesota football game not featuring a marquee opponent is only purchased several hundred times, then Ohio State and Michigan might demand a much larger share, especially if costs continue to escalate and Meyer or Harbaugh or the next superstar head coach is making $20 million/year plus another $20 million/year to pay the rest of their coaching staff.

We can easily imagine any of the "king" programs saying, "We're not going to sign any more grants of media rights to the conference unless the top earners get a percentage that is proportionate to the value they contribute."

In a subscriber model, the basketball schools probably increase in relative value. Kentucky had one of the highest Tier 3 values in the SEC before the formation of the SECN. Football will still draw better ratings, but either one can drive subscriber fees.
01-24-2018 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ask a good CPA what 2+2 is and he will answer "anything you want it to be'". Such is the world of numbers.
People talk in absolutes, when there are things that are just unknown. If anybody really knew about CR as an absolute there wouldn't be speculation or a need for this outlet.
We will be using the "market" model until the end of the current contracts. Several of those expire in about 5 years while some are in force for another 20 years.
And when you talk about trends, one has to wonder whether there will be any football as we know it when those contracts expire in the early 2030's.
Baseball at all levels is making a comeback.............

No, that's a bad CPA, one about to lose his or her license.
01-24-2018 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ask a good CPA what 2+2 is and he will answer "anything you want it to be'". Such is the world of numbers.
People talk in absolutes, when there are things that are just unknown. If anybody really knew about CR as an absolute there wouldn't be speculation or a need for this outlet.
We will be using the "market" model until the end of the current contracts. Several of those expire in about 5 years while some are in force for another 20 years.
And when you talk about trends, one has to wonder whether there will be any football as we know it when those contracts expire in the early 2030's.
Baseball at all levels is making a comeback.............

No, that's a bad CPA, one about to lose his or her license.
Well apparently U.N.C. is Mob run so.....
01-24-2018 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,789
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #50
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 04:17 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  All of these pie in the sky hypotheticals are all well and good but the bottom line is The ACC member schools want to stay together and at this point The Big 12, member schools, at least those that add any value, won't committ to a less than clear future.

We are nearly two decades away from an ACC program being free from its GOR to become a Big Ten program. We are what five years away from The Big 12 GOR expiring?

Survival at this point is a game of wait and see.

It's foolish and foolhardy to predict what will happen with The ACC or Big 12 in reference to The Big Ten when no one knows for sure what that conferences position will be in two decades. I'm not sold that The Big Ten, that missed the play-offs this year, will be in a position of strength in 20 years.

Remember some of the same procrastinators here just over 5 years ago had The ACC struggling, never making the play-offs and The Big 12 having a conference network.
CJ

I'm not convinced that is entirely correct. I think the ACC is not so much a conference that wants to be together as much as it is a collection of schools unwilling to risk being left behind if the conference was broken wide open. There is a huge and relatively permanent financial gap between the last ACC school to land an SEC/Big Ten slot and the next best school who gets left behind.

ND, Florida St, and Clemson are the gems that could make another conference even more profitable.

Then you have a huge middle class that could potentially ride coat tails out of the league or be left behind to wither away. In state politics further muddies this as the VA and NC state schools definitely do not want to be left behind while the other school lands in a better league. L'ville and GT don't trust that their OOC instate rivals would lift a finger to improve their lot so they too are extremely shy to rock the boat too hard.

Then you have the schools that have little to no hope at ever leaving: WF, BC, Syracuse, Pitt. These schools are ACC for life.

If that middle class could all be given a strong degree of confidence they could land a better spot they'd stop voting for GORs and we'd see a big exodus.
01-24-2018 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,899
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not convinced that is entirely correct. I think the ACC is not so much a conference that wants to be together as much as it is a collection of schools unwilling to risk being left behind if the conference was broken wide open. There is a huge and relatively permanent financial gap between the last ACC school to land an SEC/Big Ten slot and the next best school who gets left behind.

ND, Florida St, and Clemson are the gems that could make another conference even more profitable.

Then you have a huge middle class that could potentially ride coat tails out of the league or be left behind to wither away. In state politics further muddies this as the VA and NC state schools definitely do not want to be left behind while the other school lands in a better league. L'ville and GT don't trust that their OOC instate rivals would lift a finger to improve their lot so they too are extremely shy to rock the boat too hard.

Then you have the schools that have little to no hope at ever leaving: WF, BC, Syracuse, Pitt. These schools are ACC for life.

If that middle class could all be given a strong degree of confidence they could land a better spot they'd stop voting for GORs and we'd see a big exodus.

If the ACC "gems" ever leave, I see the rest as a massive expansion by the XII.

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

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

XII
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St
East: TCU, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
*Notre Dame non-football with football scheduling agreement*

LOL
01-24-2018 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,789
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #52
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 05:48 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not convinced that is entirely correct. I think the ACC is not so much a conference that wants to be together as much as it is a collection of schools unwilling to risk being left behind if the conference was broken wide open. There is a huge and relatively permanent financial gap between the last ACC school to land an SEC/Big Ten slot and the next best school who gets left behind.

ND, Florida St, and Clemson are the gems that could make another conference even more profitable.

Then you have a huge middle class that could potentially ride coat tails out of the league or be left behind to wither away. In state politics further muddies this as the VA and NC state schools definitely do not want to be left behind while the other school lands in a better league. L'ville and GT don't trust that their OOC instate rivals would lift a finger to improve their lot so they too are extremely shy to rock the boat too hard.

Then you have the schools that have little to no hope at ever leaving: WF, BC, Syracuse, Pitt. These schools are ACC for life.

If that middle class could all be given a strong degree of confidence they could land a better spot they'd stop voting for GORs and we'd see a big exodus.

If the ACC "gems" ever leave, I see the rest as a massive expansion by the XII.

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

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

XII
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St
East: TCU, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
*Notre Dame non-football with football scheduling agreement*

LOL

Miami is not AAU say they would be a No for the Big Ten. GT and Pitt from the AAU would be the two likely options unless they look past the AAU thing to get into a market.
01-24-2018 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #53
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
I see the US taking away the non-profit status if these schools pursue something like these grand scenarios.
01-24-2018 10:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #54
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 03:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 01:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The more we move toward pay models based on actual viewers and away from subscription based pay models the greater the variance will be for the PAC and ACC over what the variance will be for the SEC or Big 10.

Given the Big 10 will pay out next year 51.1 million as published by Wisconsin and that Missouri just reported that their share of the SEC TV revenue this year will be 46.4 million, the indications are the networks still find value in the Big 10 and SEC, and that really has nothing to do with whether either is the recent champion.

When televised sports transitions to a model where the revenue comes only from those who choose to subscribe (or pay per game), and leaves behind the model where the network or conference gets money from every home with a cable box, then all of this could be quite different.

Right now there is a lot of potential data that is hidden because the TV packages are lumped together for all teams in a conference and for both football and basketball. Once that's all separated out and everyone can see who is willing to pay to watch each individual team and each sport, we will learn a lot of interesting things.

One thing that I've mentioned before is that the model in which each conference member gets an equal share of media revenue might fall apart. If the average Ohio State or Michigan football game is purchased several hundred thousand times but any Indiana, Rutgers, or Minnesota football game not featuring a marquee opponent is only purchased several hundred times, then Ohio State and Michigan might demand a much larger share, especially if costs continue to escalate and Meyer or Harbaugh or the next superstar head coach is making $20 million/year plus another $20 million/year to pay the rest of their coaching staff.

We can easily imagine any of the "king" programs saying, "We're not going to sign any more grants of media rights to the conference unless the top earners get a percentage that is proportionate to the value they contribute."

In a subscriber model, the basketball schools probably increase in relative value. Kentucky had one of the highest Tier 3 values in the SEC before the formation of the SECN. Football will still draw better ratings, but either one can drive subscriber fees.

Yes, if part of the subscription model is that you can buy a $50 season pass to telecasts of all of a team's games, there might be more subscribers to Kentucky basketball than, say, LSU football.

One of the unknown factors in any subscription model is what percentage of fans who watch now will pay to watch on a per-game or per-team or per-sport basis. That percentage might vary quite a bit from team to team or sport to sport.
01-24-2018 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 444
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #55
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929


When Discussing Realignment Fans Ignore Statistics That Can Indicate the Value of a Team to a Conference.

The first number is the average football attendance of the conference. This number tends to indicate the impact that those schools can have when visiting your campus. That is why they are important. They aren't a deal maker, but they can be a deal breaker.

The second number is the average gross total revenue earned by a conference school. If a candidate's gross total revenue is at or above the average gross revenue for a conference it generally indicates whether or not the school being added brings enough value for consideration. But in fairness you have to handicap this number by subtracting the total TV revenue of the conference of the candidate from the total of the conference which is looking to add them.

For comparison's sake last year the SEC earned 40.1 million in TV revenue and the Big 10 earned about 43 million for all tiers, the Big 12 35 million plus their T3, the PAC roughly 29 million for all tiers, and the ACC roughly 28 million for all tiers.

The third number is the dollar amount of impact that a school brings to its surrounding markets. This might be the best factor to consider when looking at whether or not a school will pay its own way into another conference. It's also the best way to see whether or not a pair of schools add value.

To make that determination add the total impact value of the pair of schools and divide by 2. If that average is higher than the conference average for the conference they wish to join the answer is yes. If it is lower than that average then the answer is no.

When you've done this you will find that the number of schools which could add value to a particular conference is much smaller than you might think.

Candidates that add to the averages of the SEC:
SEC avgs: 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $ 525,416,428
1. Texas: 97,881 / $182,104,126 / $1,243,124,000
2. Oklahoma: 86,857 / $150,371,878 / $1,001,967,000
3. Notre Dame: 80,795 / $134,211,095 / $ 856,938,000
4. Florida St.: 76,800 / $123,344,314 / $ 385,938,000
5. Clemson: 80,970 / $ 95,800,326 / $328,411,000

No other schools add to any metric for the SEC.

The following schools might be considered for market Additions and Academics:

1. Virginia 39,929 / $100,632,895 / $ 168,534,000
2. Kansas 25,828 / $ 94,697,418 / $ 183,031,000
3. T.C.U. 45,168 / $ 93,259,382 / $ 153,631,000
4. Duke 29,895 / $ 91,971,836 / $ 64,195,000
5. West Va. 57,583 / $ 91,412,352 / $ 72,649,000
6. North Car. 50,250 / $ 90,969,518 / $ 147,179,000
7. Ok. State 53,814 / $ 90,049,297 / $ 285,293,000
8. Miami 58,572 / $ 85,615,972 / $ 254,502,000
9. Va. Tech 63,043 / $ 84,064,779 / $ 269,883,000
10. N.C.St. 57,497 / $ 80,255,029 / $ 191,813,000


You will note the relatively low impact values for Duke and West Virginia. This is a big issue where these two are concerned. It is why both Duke and West Virginia would likely have to be paired with a better addition to gain membership in the SEC, or in Duke's case either the SEC or Big 10. In fact Miami, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State show their strength in being someone's #2 by virtue of the economic impact they have within their states.


For the Big 10 there are only 3 schools that add to all of their metrics:
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame

For the markets and academics compare the following to the Big 10's averages:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia Tech
4. Duke
5. N.C. State
6. Syracuse


So if you are going to propose that certain schools should be placed in any conference my suggestion is to run the numbers and see if it is doable first. In the vast majority of cases it will not be.

If we decide to ditch the “eliminate the Big 12” stuff and use these same metrics/methods, at least two of these methods shows why the Big 12 decided not to expand (I used the first two methods, FYI. Have not tried method #3 but have a morning appointment to attend. I will attempt #3 later.). Using the first two methods, only UCONN looks like an expansion candidate and that’s only by substituting the Big 12 Conference’s median for its mean.
01-25-2018 01:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 10:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I see the US taking away the non-profit status if these schools pursue something like these grand scenarios.

The vast majority are state schools. Besides they already have taken away the tax deductible status of donations for the purchase of tickets. It's in the new tax bill. If anything that may eventually force larger associations for the purpose of leverage. But then on the flip side as Wedge suggests the ability to count actual viewers could one day make everyone an independent too. I guess change is going to be the only constant from here on out, and I'm afraid for much more than our college sports.
01-25-2018 02:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-25-2018 01:21 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929


When Discussing Realignment Fans Ignore Statistics That Can Indicate the Value of a Team to a Conference.

The first number is the average football attendance of the conference. This number tends to indicate the impact that those schools can have when visiting your campus. That is why they are important. They aren't a deal maker, but they can be a deal breaker.

The second number is the average gross total revenue earned by a conference school. If a candidate's gross total revenue is at or above the average gross revenue for a conference it generally indicates whether or not the school being added brings enough value for consideration. But in fairness you have to handicap this number by subtracting the total TV revenue of the conference of the candidate from the total of the conference which is looking to add them.

For comparison's sake last year the SEC earned 40.1 million in TV revenue and the Big 10 earned about 43 million for all tiers, the Big 12 35 million plus their T3, the PAC roughly 29 million for all tiers, and the ACC roughly 28 million for all tiers.

The third number is the dollar amount of impact that a school brings to its surrounding markets. This might be the best factor to consider when looking at whether or not a school will pay its own way into another conference. It's also the best way to see whether or not a pair of schools add value.

To make that determination add the total impact value of the pair of schools and divide by 2. If that average is higher than the conference average for the conference they wish to join the answer is yes. If it is lower than that average then the answer is no.

When you've done this you will find that the number of schools which could add value to a particular conference is much smaller than you might think.

Candidates that add to the averages of the SEC:
SEC avgs: 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $ 525,416,428
1. Texas: 97,881 / $182,104,126 / $1,243,124,000
2. Oklahoma: 86,857 / $150,371,878 / $1,001,967,000
3. Notre Dame: 80,795 / $134,211,095 / $ 856,938,000
4. Florida St.: 76,800 / $123,344,314 / $ 385,938,000
5. Clemson: 80,970 / $ 95,800,326 / $328,411,000

No other schools add to any metric for the SEC.

The following schools might be considered for market Additions and Academics:

1. Virginia 39,929 / $100,632,895 / $ 168,534,000
2. Kansas 25,828 / $ 94,697,418 / $ 183,031,000
3. T.C.U. 45,168 / $ 93,259,382 / $ 153,631,000
4. Duke 29,895 / $ 91,971,836 / $ 64,195,000
5. West Va. 57,583 / $ 91,412,352 / $ 72,649,000
6. North Car. 50,250 / $ 90,969,518 / $ 147,179,000
7. Ok. State 53,814 / $ 90,049,297 / $ 285,293,000
8. Miami 58,572 / $ 85,615,972 / $ 254,502,000
9. Va. Tech 63,043 / $ 84,064,779 / $ 269,883,000
10. N.C.St. 57,497 / $ 80,255,029 / $ 191,813,000


You will note the relatively low impact values for Duke and West Virginia. This is a big issue where these two are concerned. It is why both Duke and West Virginia would likely have to be paired with a better addition to gain membership in the SEC, or in Duke's case either the SEC or Big 10. In fact Miami, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State show their strength in being someone's #2 by virtue of the economic impact they have within their states.


For the Big 10 there are only 3 schools that add to all of their metrics:
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame

For the markets and academics compare the following to the Big 10's averages:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia Tech
4. Duke
5. N.C. State
6. Syracuse


So if you are going to propose that certain schools should be placed in any conference my suggestion is to run the numbers and see if it is doable first. In the vast majority of cases it will not be.

If we decide to ditch the “eliminate the Big 12” stuff and use these same metrics/methods, at least two of these methods shows why the Big 12 decided not to expand (I used the first two methods, FYI. Have not tried method #3 but have a morning appointment to attend. I will attempt #3 later.). Using the first two methods, only UCONN looks like an expansion candidate and that’s only by substituting the Big 12 Conference’s median for its mean.

That's the whole reason I decided to go ahead and post it. It's tough at the top. The Big 10 and SEC really only have 3 viable candidates if they are looking to improve the metrics. The question that is developing is "how real is the threat that the Big 12 might be able to expand out of the PAC?

But remember the market model/subscription fee approach hasn't been totally abandoned as a pay model. It might still be possible if the SEC or Big 10 added a school from a large enough state to add a profit under the old model. But even those targets are limited. Consider that alternate method #4.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2018 02:26 AM by JRsec.)
01-25-2018 02:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #58
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-24-2018 10:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 03:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 01:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The more we move toward pay models based on actual viewers and away from subscription based pay models the greater the variance will be for the PAC and ACC over what the variance will be for the SEC or Big 10.

Given the Big 10 will pay out next year 51.1 million as published by Wisconsin and that Missouri just reported that their share of the SEC TV revenue this year will be 46.4 million, the indications are the networks still find value in the Big 10 and SEC, and that really has nothing to do with whether either is the recent champion.

When televised sports transitions to a model where the revenue comes only from those who choose to subscribe (or pay per game), and leaves behind the model where the network or conference gets money from every home with a cable box, then all of this could be quite different.

Right now there is a lot of potential data that is hidden because the TV packages are lumped together for all teams in a conference and for both football and basketball. Once that's all separated out and everyone can see who is willing to pay to watch each individual team and each sport, we will learn a lot of interesting things.

One thing that I've mentioned before is that the model in which each conference member gets an equal share of media revenue might fall apart. If the average Ohio State or Michigan football game is purchased several hundred thousand times but any Indiana, Rutgers, or Minnesota football game not featuring a marquee opponent is only purchased several hundred times, then Ohio State and Michigan might demand a much larger share, especially if costs continue to escalate and Meyer or Harbaugh or the next superstar head coach is making $20 million/year plus another $20 million/year to pay the rest of their coaching staff.

We can easily imagine any of the "king" programs saying, "We're not going to sign any more grants of media rights to the conference unless the top earners get a percentage that is proportionate to the value they contribute."

In a subscriber model, the basketball schools probably increase in relative value. Kentucky had one of the highest Tier 3 values in the SEC before the formation of the SECN. Football will still draw better ratings, but either one can drive subscriber fees.

Yes, if part of the subscription model is that you can buy a $50 season pass to telecasts of all of a team's games, there might be more subscribers to Kentucky basketball than, say, LSU football.

One of the unknown factors in any subscription model is what percentage of fans who watch now will pay to watch on a per-game or per-team or per-sport basis. That percentage might vary quite a bit from team to team or sport to sport.

As a part of ESPN's ACCN implementation many schools in the conference have offered just that for several years. It's called the ACC digital network.
I can, for $99, get a live feed with competent announcing of all of the Carolina home baseball games. The camera work is getting better, but it's only three cameras (max) and up until this point the production is limited (no slow motion replay).
01-25-2018 05:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #59
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-25-2018 02:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 01:21 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929


When Discussing Realignment Fans Ignore Statistics That Can Indicate the Value of a Team to a Conference.

The first number is the average football attendance of the conference. This number tends to indicate the impact that those schools can have when visiting your campus. That is why they are important. They aren't a deal maker, but they can be a deal breaker.

The second number is the average gross total revenue earned by a conference school. If a candidate's gross total revenue is at or above the average gross revenue for a conference it generally indicates whether or not the school being added brings enough value for consideration. But in fairness you have to handicap this number by subtracting the total TV revenue of the conference of the candidate from the total of the conference which is looking to add them.

For comparison's sake last year the SEC earned 40.1 million in TV revenue and the Big 10 earned about 43 million for all tiers, the Big 12 35 million plus their T3, the PAC roughly 29 million for all tiers, and the ACC roughly 28 million for all tiers.

The third number is the dollar amount of impact that a school brings to its surrounding markets. This might be the best factor to consider when looking at whether or not a school will pay its own way into another conference. It's also the best way to see whether or not a pair of schools add value.

To make that determination add the total impact value of the pair of schools and divide by 2. If that average is higher than the conference average for the conference they wish to join the answer is yes. If it is lower than that average then the answer is no.

When you've done this you will find that the number of schools which could add value to a particular conference is much smaller than you might think.

Candidates that add to the averages of the SEC:
SEC avgs: 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $ 525,416,428
1. Texas: 97,881 / $182,104,126 / $1,243,124,000
2. Oklahoma: 86,857 / $150,371,878 / $1,001,967,000
3. Notre Dame: 80,795 / $134,211,095 / $ 856,938,000
4. Florida St.: 76,800 / $123,344,314 / $ 385,938,000
5. Clemson: 80,970 / $ 95,800,326 / $328,411,000

No other schools add to any metric for the SEC.

The following schools might be considered for market Additions and Academics:

1. Virginia 39,929 / $100,632,895 / $ 168,534,000
2. Kansas 25,828 / $ 94,697,418 / $ 183,031,000
3. T.C.U. 45,168 / $ 93,259,382 / $ 153,631,000
4. Duke 29,895 / $ 91,971,836 / $ 64,195,000
5. West Va. 57,583 / $ 91,412,352 / $ 72,649,000
6. North Car. 50,250 / $ 90,969,518 / $ 147,179,000
7. Ok. State 53,814 / $ 90,049,297 / $ 285,293,000
8. Miami 58,572 / $ 85,615,972 / $ 254,502,000
9. Va. Tech 63,043 / $ 84,064,779 / $ 269,883,000
10. N.C.St. 57,497 / $ 80,255,029 / $ 191,813,000


You will note the relatively low impact values for Duke and West Virginia. This is a big issue where these two are concerned. It is why both Duke and West Virginia would likely have to be paired with a better addition to gain membership in the SEC, or in Duke's case either the SEC or Big 10. In fact Miami, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State show their strength in being someone's #2 by virtue of the economic impact they have within their states.


For the Big 10 there are only 3 schools that add to all of their metrics:
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame

For the markets and academics compare the following to the Big 10's averages:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia Tech
4. Duke
5. N.C. State
6. Syracuse


So if you are going to propose that certain schools should be placed in any conference my suggestion is to run the numbers and see if it is doable first. In the vast majority of cases it will not be.

If we decide to ditch the “eliminate the Big 12” stuff and use these same metrics/methods, at least two of these methods shows why the Big 12 decided not to expand (I used the first two methods, FYI. Have not tried method #3 but have a morning appointment to attend. I will attempt #3 later.). Using the first two methods, only UCONN looks like an expansion candidate and that’s only by substituting the Big 12 Conference’s median for its mean.

That's the whole reason I decided to go ahead and post it. It's tough at the top. The Big 10 and SEC really only have 3 viable candidates if they are looking to improve the metrics. The question that is developing is "how real is the threat that the Big 12 might be able to expand out of the PAC?

But remember the market model/subscription fee approach hasn't been totally abandoned as a pay model. It might still be possible if the SEC or Big 10 added a school from a large enough state to add a profit under the old model. But even those targets are limited. Consider that alternate method #4.

In your OP, you basically identified UT, OU and Notre Dame as the only three who really move the needle for the bigs. And, considering that ND can't move anywhere until about 2035 by contract, that leaves two.

Unless the B1G were to go beyond 16, which I doubt, the addition of Texhoma would put those schools in a position where they have few real rivals their own fans (and potential recruits) want to see them play. And based on the average Sagarin strength ratings over the past 8 seasons, Texas would rank #13 in a 16 team SEC that includes OU. I don't think Texas wants to be in a league where they can't even pretend to be (one of) the 800 pound gorillas.

The P5 (and the Mouse) all have it pretty good exactly the way things stand today. I still believe that there are more reasons to keep the status quo than to reorganize further.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2018 10:16 AM by ken d.)
01-25-2018 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-25-2018 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 02:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 01:21 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929


When Discussing Realignment Fans Ignore Statistics That Can Indicate the Value of a Team to a Conference.

The first number is the average football attendance of the conference. This number tends to indicate the impact that those schools can have when visiting your campus. That is why they are important. They aren't a deal maker, but they can be a deal breaker.

The second number is the average gross total revenue earned by a conference school. If a candidate's gross total revenue is at or above the average gross revenue for a conference it generally indicates whether or not the school being added brings enough value for consideration. But in fairness you have to handicap this number by subtracting the total TV revenue of the conference of the candidate from the total of the conference which is looking to add them.

For comparison's sake last year the SEC earned 40.1 million in TV revenue and the Big 10 earned about 43 million for all tiers, the Big 12 35 million plus their T3, the PAC roughly 29 million for all tiers, and the ACC roughly 28 million for all tiers.

The third number is the dollar amount of impact that a school brings to its surrounding markets. This might be the best factor to consider when looking at whether or not a school will pay its own way into another conference. It's also the best way to see whether or not a pair of schools add value.

To make that determination add the total impact value of the pair of schools and divide by 2. If that average is higher than the conference average for the conference they wish to join the answer is yes. If it is lower than that average then the answer is no.

When you've done this you will find that the number of schools which could add value to a particular conference is much smaller than you might think.

Candidates that add to the averages of the SEC:
SEC avgs: 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $ 525,416,428
1. Texas: 97,881 / $182,104,126 / $1,243,124,000
2. Oklahoma: 86,857 / $150,371,878 / $1,001,967,000
3. Notre Dame: 80,795 / $134,211,095 / $ 856,938,000
4. Florida St.: 76,800 / $123,344,314 / $ 385,938,000
5. Clemson: 80,970 / $ 95,800,326 / $328,411,000

No other schools add to any metric for the SEC.

The following schools might be considered for market Additions and Academics:

1. Virginia 39,929 / $100,632,895 / $ 168,534,000
2. Kansas 25,828 / $ 94,697,418 / $ 183,031,000
3. T.C.U. 45,168 / $ 93,259,382 / $ 153,631,000
4. Duke 29,895 / $ 91,971,836 / $ 64,195,000
5. West Va. 57,583 / $ 91,412,352 / $ 72,649,000
6. North Car. 50,250 / $ 90,969,518 / $ 147,179,000
7. Ok. State 53,814 / $ 90,049,297 / $ 285,293,000
8. Miami 58,572 / $ 85,615,972 / $ 254,502,000
9. Va. Tech 63,043 / $ 84,064,779 / $ 269,883,000
10. N.C.St. 57,497 / $ 80,255,029 / $ 191,813,000


You will note the relatively low impact values for Duke and West Virginia. This is a big issue where these two are concerned. It is why both Duke and West Virginia would likely have to be paired with a better addition to gain membership in the SEC, or in Duke's case either the SEC or Big 10. In fact Miami, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State show their strength in being someone's #2 by virtue of the economic impact they have within their states.


For the Big 10 there are only 3 schools that add to all of their metrics:
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame

For the markets and academics compare the following to the Big 10's averages:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia Tech
4. Duke
5. N.C. State
6. Syracuse


So if you are going to propose that certain schools should be placed in any conference my suggestion is to run the numbers and see if it is doable first. In the vast majority of cases it will not be.

If we decide to ditch the “eliminate the Big 12” stuff and use these same metrics/methods, at least two of these methods shows why the Big 12 decided not to expand (I used the first two methods, FYI. Have not tried method #3 but have a morning appointment to attend. I will attempt #3 later.). Using the first two methods, only UCONN looks like an expansion candidate and that’s only by substituting the Big 12 Conference’s median for its mean.

That's the whole reason I decided to go ahead and post it. It's tough at the top. The Big 10 and SEC really only have 3 viable candidates if they are looking to improve the metrics. The question that is developing is "how real is the threat that the Big 12 might be able to expand out of the PAC?

But remember the market model/subscription fee approach hasn't been totally abandoned as a pay model. It might still be possible if the SEC or Big 10 added a school from a large enough state to add a profit under the old model. But even those targets are limited. Consider that alternate method #4.

In your OP, you basically identified UT, OU and Notre Dame as the only three who really move the needle for the bigs. And, considering that ND can't move anywhere until about 2035 by contract, that leaves two.

Unless the B1G were to go beyond 16, which I doubt, the addition of Texhoma would put those schools in a position where they have few real rivals their own fans (and potential recruits) want to see them play. And based on the average Sagarin strength ratings over the past 8 seasons, Texas would rank #13 in that 16 team league. I don't think Texas wants to be in a league where they can't even pretend to be (one of) the 800 pound gorillas.

The P5 (and the Mouse) all have it pretty good exactly the way things stand today. I still believe that there are more reasons to keep the status quo than to reorganize further.

Texa-homa to the SEC is quite a different matter. A division of 6 would give Texas these schools on the annual schedule: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, & Texas Tech. A&M could be a permanent crossover. If we have two divisions of 9 it would add Ole Miss, A&M and L.S.U. Still a very satisfying schedule all the way around. Alabama, Auburn and Miss State would shift East.

The big issues for Texas and Oklahoma are fans who are extremely dissatisfied with home schedules.

Still, the inertia of Texas is quite strong which is why many at Oklahoma feel they have to be the first to make a move and offering OSU with them might be enough to get that ball started.

The eruption of dissatisfaction in the PAC is the blip on the radar screen that bears watching. Their contract is up in 2024-5 as well and apparently their PACN contractual characteristics are constraining with regard to selling a network a % of the interest.

And while I said that there are only three who move the needle for the SEC or Big 10, it must also be noted that the total value of OU and UT as a pair could indeed cover the little brothers and still add to the bottom line, just not nearly as much. So that is an angle to play with. An SEC with the added leverage of those two brands would be a formidable force in negotiations and that more than anything else would probably be why Disney would prefer stasis. And if the PAC suffers defection they will get it if the beneficiary is the Big 12. Such an event, however unlikely, could expand the Big 10 as well, but less from metrics than from markets and academic goals.
01-25-2018 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


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