(05-27-2019 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's real simple. With no expansion at all the Big 10 will be sitting at 54 million a year plus escalators with another contract renewal in 2024. The SEC will be sitting at 58 million (possibly a bit more) when the new T1 contract is announced.

If either of them attract Texas and/or Oklahoma it goes up roughly 5 million in value for each one they land (content and market values baked in).

The ACCN will likely payout about 3 million per school the first year and based on your current viewer numbers max out around 7 million plus escalators within a few years following. That would put the ACC in the low 40's while both the SEC and Big 10 will be pushing 60 million.

So if OU which is making around 41-2 currently, or Texas which is making around 51 currently see where their presence in another conference could net the a 20 million a year gain (Oklahoma) or a 13 million a year gain (Texas) then that gap grows to over 20 million with no more game changing pieces on the board.

I don't think the ACC will be poachable until 2035 but if the revenue gap is over 20 million at that time anything becomes possible, especially with state and federal funds continually getting harder to get.

So 2025 won't impact the ACC now. But it might very well impact the ACC in another 10 years following.

Football championships are largely due to Jimbo Fisher and Dabo and Clemson and F.S.U.'s sports objectives being football first. UNC and UVa will hold academic value for the Big 10 and market significance for the Big 10. Likewise their value is the same for the SEC, but with the SEC Virginia Tech might actually be of a bit more potential value than Virginia.

When Nole talks about a select few schools he's really talking about F.S.U., Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia/Virginia Tech. Georgia Tech not so much for either the SEC or Big 10. In 2012 GaTech would have held much more value market wise than today. N.C. State isn't the prize in North Carolina. Duke would be preferable to the academically minded Big 10.

So really there are 4 ACC schools that would be of interest to the Big 10 and 5 of interest to the SEC.

It's why I stated earlier the trick would be for the ACC to try to move to 20 by taking 5 from the Big 12 and cherry picking them at that. UT / OU / KU / and likely OSU and TTU as the cost.

That move adds catch up value to the ACC and denies the Big 10 and SEC the ability to really widen the gap dramatically while leaving no school of particular value to either the PAC or ACC.

That's the ball game. If the SEC and Big 10 add the cream of the Big 12 its game over for the P5, P4, and P3 and what Nole has predicted is the likely outcome. I figure for competitive reasons more of a P2 of 24 teams each rather than a P2 of 20 teams each.

I don't see the PAC being positioned or financed in a manner to be able to pull off a coup of the Texa-homa sized plan in 2011. The ACC is better positioned, but also not in quite the financial position to lure Texas or Oklahoma. But by creating a division and taking little brothers too you might be positioned to strike a bargain even at less of a financial windfall and in so doing prevent what is certain to be the creation of a insurmountable gap.

Your numbers are, as usual, all over the place JR.
TEXAS and Oklahoma are now up to 5 million each when for years it's been 2.5. The ACCN only earning 3 million the first year when the FSU AD predicted 15 (the truth is probably somewhere in between) .
The ACC will survive and thrive if ESPN deems it their most profitable route to take.

Let's look at a fact that is relevant: FOX has bailed on the Big 12. ESPN bought 3 championship game broadcasts and the T3 (six seasons/8 schools) content (which they will move to ESPN+) for $40 million and there is no chatter about the renewal of the Big 12's T1 and T2 contracts at all.

If ESPN wants the ACC to work, they can promote it into success (as long as there is successful product, which the ACC has delivered in spades).
Why would they want the ACC to be successful? Leverage against other conferences from becoming too powerful and demanding and ESPN is obligated to pay the ACC a lot of money for the next 15 years. No smart businessman wants dead inventory that becomes an expense rather than an asset (the Mouse is smart, we aren't worried).

No X as usual your thinking is centrist to the ACC position and not up to current circumstances. Under the market model from 2012 Texas would have been worth about 3.5 to the Big 10 and about 2 million to the SEC which already had A&M. Now that approach only has value to the conference networks. Content is being rewarded much more due to the ability of two brands playing drawing a much larger national audience. So Texas has the ability to multiply the content values of conferences and the value is dependent upon the number of national draws within that conference (in football). Now Texas is worth more in the SEC as opposed to the Big 10 but in either they are worth a lot more than they are in any of the other 3 P conferences. Oklahoma doesn't have the T3 value of Texas to the Big 10 and only the value of a potential 4 million people figure 1.3 million households to the Big 10, SEC or anybody. But they do have the content multiplier value going for them as well. And it is that brand power that has the potential to hit another 5 million in value in either the Big 10 or SEC vs a higher number of other national brands.

So the question is if they leave the Big 12 where are they worth the most to ESPN and that answer is pretty simple.

You are obviously not a farmer or rancher. ESPN cobbled together a herd of schools they wanted to save from their competition. They fed them and kept them alive until time to take them to market. Then they parse them out according to their value placing the choicest animals in herds where the breeding produces even higher values.

Realignment has been following this course for every conference. They are not emotionally attached to any of us and will always act in their self interest. They are a corporation with quarterly reports to file to shareholders. That is their only concern and this myth that ESPN will save us that is repeated by many posters here reminds me of the inmates at Dachau who believed if they worked harder the Nazis wouldn't kill them in the end. It's kind of the beginning of Stockholm syndrome.

And ESPN isn't concerned with a conference's leverage. The market isn't that competitive. What they are concerned with is product placement and the % of yield they get from having school x playing school y & z.

Eventually they will cull every conference. The college model is more profitable when only quality plays quality and much cheaper to maintain because the overhead of producing the product is the cost of each school.

If Texas and Oklahoma wind up in either or both of the Big 10 and SEC the pathway to two leagues of high national interest grows. The desire due to profit to be in one of those 2 leagues grows as well.

ESPN isn't collecting schools to get get more profit, they are slowly rearranging the schools (product placement) and culling them to get more profit.

Virginia Tech and Miami, Syracuse and Pittsburgh were worth more in the ACC than in the Old Big East. Texas A&M was worth more in the SEC than the Big 12 and under the market model so was Missouri, Rutgers, and Maryland worth more in their new homes.

The ACC will be vulnerable when more can be made off of Clemson and Florida State in a football rich conference and more off of Duke, Syracuse, and North Carolina in a basketball rich conference.

City schools like Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Miami would be of more value in streaming mode.

And when the two leagues eventually emerge pressure will begin to mount to shed the SEC and Big 10 schools that can't keep up and which don't have a large national following.

But the issue corporately X is that a journey of a 1000 miles must be accomplished step by step and we are in the first couple of hundred miles so those eventualities are not yet due to be discussed as doing so may get in the way of the next few steps.

And X when we get there it will be sold and assured that it will only impact football. Basketball, baseball, softball, etc, will still be broad in number of schools and likely still tied to some form of the old conference structure and that will be the soft soap for selling the more extreme position on football.

It would be interesting to hear the real thoughts of Kentucky and Vanderbilt and Ole Miss and Mississippi State on this. The SEC + OU and Texas. Why should any of them even bother fielding a football team? Ole Miss could put together one of the better rosters in school history .... and finish 5th in their division behind OU, Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Is $20-30m a year worth a losing season for the rest of time in the sports you care about?

That's more just an interesting thought than anything else. They'll of course take the money. If the Big 12 gets liquidated the spending cap horse has left the stable. There will be no reigning it in at that point.

(05-27-2019 12:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be interesting to hear the real thoughts of Kentucky and Vanderbilt and Ole Miss and Mississippi State on this. The SEC + OU and Texas. Why should any of them even bother fielding a football team? Ole Miss could put together one of the better rosters in school history .... and finish 5th in their division behind OU, Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Is $20-30m a year worth a losing season for the rest of time in the sports you care about?

That's more just an interesting thought than anything else. They'll of course take the money. If the Big 12 gets liquidated the spending cap horse has left the stable. There will be no reigning it in at that point.

Luckily I don’t think UT will ever join the SEC. Too many things working against that union. We’ll find out in a couple years regardless, an interesting couple of years.

(05-27-2019 12:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be interesting to hear the real thoughts of Kentucky and Vanderbilt and Ole Miss and Mississippi State on this. The SEC + OU and Texas. Why should any of them even bother fielding a football team? Ole Miss could put together one of the better rosters in school history .... and finish 5th in their division behind OU, Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Is $20-30m a year worth a losing season for the rest of time in the sports you care about?

That's more just an interesting thought than anything else. They'll of course take the money. If the Big 12 gets liquidated the spending cap horse has left the stable. There will be no reigning it in at that point.

That's not a strong argument. If Texas and Oklahoma came on board Auburn and Alabama would move East and the Mississippi schools would be no worse off, and possibly more competitive with Texas and Oklahoma.

The merit in your line of thinking would be with Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina, but two of those schools would welcome having the Tide and Tigers back on the annual schedule.

Due to the length of our TV contract I just don't see even a super-duper on the field performing/functioning ACC (with a decent ACCN) doing any better than $45 million per team payout by fiscal year 2022. That will certainly solidify third amongst the P5 by a decent margin but will remain far behind the Greater 2 of the P5.

It is what it is folks.

But let's keep in mind that in less than a decade that would be more than double what the average payout was back in 2013-14.

We simply aren't the SEC or B1G.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-27-2019 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 12:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be interesting to hear the real thoughts of Kentucky and Vanderbilt and Ole Miss and Mississippi State on this. The SEC + OU and Texas. Why should any of them even bother fielding a football team? Ole Miss could put together one of the better rosters in school history .... and finish 5th in their division behind OU, Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Is $20-30m a year worth a losing season for the rest of time in the sports you care about?

That's more just an interesting thought than anything else. They'll of course take the money. If the Big 12 gets liquidated the spending cap horse has left the stable. There will be no reigning it in at that point.

That's not a strong argument. If Texas and Oklahoma came on board Auburn and Alabama would move East and the Mississippi schools would be no worse off, and possibly more competitive with Texas and Oklahoma.

The merit in your line of thinking would be with Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina, but two of those schools would welcome having the Tide and Tigers back on the annual schedule.

True about Florida and Tennessee being able to play Auburn yearly. Although, I don't think the Gators care about playing 'Bama every year; historically they haven't been on a regular rotation, even before the conference title game.

But this leads us back into the argument of "do the Mississippi schools and LSU want to lose the yearly Alabama and Auburn games?" That is basically what they will be voting for. The Alabama game has become every team in the West's Super Bowl. Also, LSU had ample opportunities over the years to join the SWC and then the Big XII, so did Arkansas for that matter. Both preferred the SEC, so why would they now prefer a division that is SWC-lite?

I'm not convinced on a few things here:

1) Texas has ANY interest in the SEC.

2) If it comes down to it, Oklahoma prefers the SEC to the Big 10. In fact, I believe otherwise.

3) The Mississippi schools are guaranteed "yes" votes in favor of losing annual games vs. Alabama and Auburn.

(05-27-2019 03:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  We simply aren't the SEC or B1G.

Cheers,
Neil

Thank God. And they aren’t us. The ACC just keeps winning. Bigly. Enjoy it.

(05-27-2019 05:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 12:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be interesting to hear the real thoughts of Kentucky and Vanderbilt and Ole Miss and Mississippi State on this. The SEC + OU and Texas. Why should any of them even bother fielding a football team? Ole Miss could put together one of the better rosters in school history .... and finish 5th in their division behind OU, Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Is $20-30m a year worth a losing season for the rest of time in the sports you care about?

That's more just an interesting thought than anything else. They'll of course take the money. If the Big 12 gets liquidated the spending cap horse has left the stable. There will be no reigning it in at that point.

That's not a strong argument. If Texas and Oklahoma came on board Auburn and Alabama would move East and the Mississippi schools would be no worse off, and possibly more competitive with Texas and Oklahoma.

The merit in your line of thinking would be with Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina, but two of those schools would welcome having the Tide and Tigers back on the annual schedule.

True about Florida and Tennessee being able to play Auburn yearly. Although, I don't think the Gators care about playing 'Bama every year; historically they haven't been on a regular rotation, even before the conference title game.

But this leads us back into the argument of "do the Mississippi schools and LSU want to lose the yearly Alabama and Auburn games?" That is basically what they will be voting for. The Alabama game has become every team in the West's Super Bowl. Also, LSU had ample opportunities over the years to join the SWC and then the Big XII, so did Arkansas for that matter. Both preferred the SEC, so why would they now prefer a division that is SWC-lite?

I'm not convinced on a few things here:

1) Texas has ANY interest in the SEC.

2) If it comes down to it, Oklahoma prefers the SEC to the Big 10. In fact, I believe otherwise.

3) The Mississippi schools are guaranteed "yes" votes in favor of losing annual games vs. Alabama and Auburn.

1. Texas to be sure prefers it's own conference, but they have been in talks with the SEC since 1987 and have remained in talks with us about their valuations (standard) and their options (not standard) ever since. They've always been mouthy about the SEC, but they have kept calling us for 32 years.

2. Oklahoma academics might prefer the Big 10 and that's natural. But, the boosters who give lucratively to baseball, softball, and women's gymnastics do not see any advantages of playing in the Big 10 and Oklahoma football boosters don't either as they recognize the obvious need to retain Southern recruiting ties. They are a house divided on this matter.

3. The Mississippi schools are just happy to be along for the ride and they know about the struggles of budgeting given the economic woes of their state. They will continue to field competitive teams for football, have stellar baseball, and hope for runs on the hardwood, but they suffer no delusions about natty's in football. In short if the payday is even bigger they are all in.

Football talent pools are shrinking yearly with fewer playing nationally. The Southeast is rapidly becoming the last bastion of talent outside of the state of Texas. The strength of that position for what is the iconic sport in the deep South and Southwest will remain a strategic advantage that the SEC will have with only Clemson and Florida State competing at any sustained and quantity level of success for those recruits.

There's a reason that F.S.U. and now Clemson are dominating the ACC in football. They reside in football first states with access to scores of talent from South Carolina through Georgia and into Florida. Culturally things have been gradually shifting in Miami for 30 years or would still include the Canes. If Ga. Tech had sustained any consistent success I would have included them.

(05-27-2019 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 05:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 12:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be interesting to hear the real thoughts of Kentucky and Vanderbilt and Ole Miss and Mississippi State on this. The SEC + OU and Texas. Why should any of them even bother fielding a football team? Ole Miss could put together one of the better rosters in school history .... and finish 5th in their division behind OU, Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Is $20-30m a year worth a losing season for the rest of time in the sports you care about?

That's more just an interesting thought than anything else. They'll of course take the money. If the Big 12 gets liquidated the spending cap horse has left the stable. There will be no reigning it in at that point.

That's not a strong argument. If Texas and Oklahoma came on board Auburn and Alabama would move East and the Mississippi schools would be no worse off, and possibly more competitive with Texas and Oklahoma.

The merit in your line of thinking would be with Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina, but two of those schools would welcome having the Tide and Tigers back on the annual schedule.

True about Florida and Tennessee being able to play Auburn yearly. Although, I don't think the Gators care about playing 'Bama every year; historically they haven't been on a regular rotation, even before the conference title game.

But this leads us back into the argument of "do the Mississippi schools and LSU want to lose the yearly Alabama and Auburn games?" That is basically what they will be voting for. The Alabama game has become every team in the West's Super Bowl. Also, LSU had ample opportunities over the years to join the SWC and then the Big XII, so did Arkansas for that matter. Both preferred the SEC, so why would they now prefer a division that is SWC-lite?

I'm not convinced on a few things here:

1) Texas has ANY interest in the SEC.

2) If it comes down to it, Oklahoma prefers the SEC to the Big 10. In fact, I believe otherwise.

3) The Mississippi schools are guaranteed "yes" votes in favor of losing annual games vs. Alabama and Auburn.

1. Texas to be sure prefers it's own conference, but they have been in talks with the SEC since 1987 and have remained in talks with us about their valuations (standard) and their options (not standard) ever since. They've always been mouthy about the SEC, but they have kept calling us for 32 years.

2. Oklahoma academics might prefer the Big 10 and that's natural. But, the boosters who give lucratively to baseball, softball, and women's gymnastics do not see any advantages of playing in the Big 10 and Oklahoma football boosters don't either as they recognize the obvious need to retain Southern recruiting ties. They are a house divided on this matter.

3. The Mississippi schools are just happy to be along for the ride and they know about the struggles of budgeting given the economic woes of their state. They will continue to field competitive teams for football, have stellar baseball, and hope for runs on the hardwood, but they suffer no delusions about natty's in football. In short if the payday is even bigger they are all in.

Football talent pools are shrinking yearly with fewer playing nationally. The Southeast is rapidly becoming the last bastion of talent outside of the state of Texas. The strength of that position for what is the iconic sport in the deep South and Southwest will remain a strategic advantage that the SEC will have with only Clemson and Florida State competing at any sustained and quantity level of success for those recruits.

There's a reason that F.S.U. and now Clemson are dominating the ACC in football. They reside in football first states with access to scores of talent from South Carolina through Georgia and into Florida. Culturally things have been gradually shifting in Miami for 30 years or would still include the Canes. If Ga. Tech had sustained any consistent success I would have included them.

The SEC will be lucky to get one of the two and it WILL NOT BE TEXAS.

(05-27-2019 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's real simple. With no expansion at all the Big 10 will be sitting at 54 million a year plus escalators with another contract renewal in 2024. The SEC will be sitting at 58 million (possibly a bit more) when the new T1 contract is announced.

If either of them attract Texas and/or Oklahoma it goes up roughly 5 million in value for each one they land (content and market values baked in).

The ACCN will likely payout about 3 million per school the first year and based on your current viewer numbers max out around 7 million plus escalators within a few years following. That would put the ACC in the low 40's while both the SEC and Big 10 will be pushing 60 million.

So if OU which is making around 41-2 currently, or Texas which is making around 51 currently see where their presence in another conference could net the a 20 million a year gain (Oklahoma) or a 13 million a year gain (Texas) then that gap grows to over 20 million with no more game changing pieces on the board.

I don't think the ACC will be poachable until 2035 but if the revenue gap is over 20 million at that time anything becomes possible, especially with state and federal funds continually getting harder to get.

So 2025 won't impact the ACC now. But it might very well impact the ACC in another 10 years following.

Football championships are largely due to Jimbo Fisher and Dabo and Clemson and F.S.U.'s sports objectives being football first. UNC and UVa will hold academic value for the Big 10 and market significance for the Big 10. Likewise their value is the same for the SEC, but with the SEC Virginia Tech might actually be of a bit more potential value than Virginia.

When Nole talks about a select few schools he's really talking about F.S.U., Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia/Virginia Tech. Georgia Tech not so much for either the SEC or Big 10. In 2012 GaTech would have held much more value market wise than today. N.C. State isn't the prize in North Carolina. Duke would be preferable to the academically minded Big 10.

So really there are 4 ACC schools that would be of interest to the Big 10 and 5 of interest to the SEC.

It's why I stated earlier the trick would be for the ACC to try to move to 20 by taking 5 from the Big 12 and cherry picking them at that. UT / OU / KU / and likely OSU and TTU as the cost.

That move adds catch up value to the ACC and denies the Big 10 and SEC the ability to really widen the gap dramatically while leaving no school of particular value to either the PAC or ACC.

That's the ball game. If the SEC and Big 10 add the cream of the Big 12 its game over for the P5, P4, and P3 and what Nole has predicted is the likely outcome. I figure for competitive reasons more of a P2 of 24 teams each rather than a P2 of 20 teams each.

I don't see the PAC being positioned or financed in a manner to be able to pull off a coup of the Texa-homa sized plan in 2011. The ACC is better positioned, but also not in quite the financial position to lure Texas or Oklahoma. But by creating a division and taking little brothers too you might be positioned to strike a bargain even at less of a financial windfall and in so doing prevent what is certain to be the creation of a insurmountable gap.

Your numbers are, as usual, all over the place JR.
TEXAS and Oklahoma are now up to 5 million each when for years it's been 2.5. The ACCN only earning 3 million the first year when the FSU AD predicted 15 (the truth is probably somewhere in between) .
The ACC will survive and thrive if ESPN deems it their most profitable route to take.

Let's look at a fact that is relevant: FOX has bailed on the Big 12. ESPN bought 3 championship game broadcasts and the T3 (six seasons/8 schools) content (which they will move to ESPN+) for $40 million and there is no chatter about the renewal of the Big 12's T1 and T2 contracts at all.

If ESPN wants the ACC to work, they can promote it into success (as long as there is successful product, which the ACC has delivered in spades).
Why would they want the ACC to be successful? Leverage against other conferences from becoming too powerful and demanding and ESPN is obligated to pay the ACC a lot of money for the next 15 years. No smart businessman wants dead inventory that becomes an expense rather than an asset (the Mouse is smart, we aren't worried).

No X as usual your thinking is centrist to the ACC position and not up to current circumstances. Under the market model from 2012 Texas would have been worth about 3.5 to the Big 10 and about 2 million to the SEC which already had A&M. Now that approach only has value to the conference networks. Content is being rewarded much more due to the ability of two brands playing drawing a much larger national audience. So Texas has the ability to multiply the content values of conferences and the value is dependent upon the number of national draws within that conference (in football). Now Texas is worth more in the SEC as opposed to the Big 10 but in either they are worth a lot more than they are in any of the other 3 P conferences. Oklahoma doesn't have the T3 value of Texas to the Big 10 and only the value of a potential 4 million people figure 1.3 million households to the Big 10, SEC or anybody. But they do have the content multiplier value going for them as well. And it is that brand power that has the potential to hit another 5 million in value in either the Big 10 or SEC vs a higher number of other national brands.

So the question is if they leave the Big 12 where are they worth the most to ESPN and that answer is pretty simple.

You are obviously not a farmer or rancher. ESPN cobbled together a herd of schools they wanted to save from their competition. They fed them and kept them alive until time to take them to market. Then they parse them out according to their value placing the choicest animals in herds where the breeding produces even higher values.

Realignment has been following this course for every conference. They are not emotionally attached to any of us and will always act in their self interest. They are a corporation with quarterly reports to file to shareholders. That is their only concern and this myth that ESPN will save us that is repeated by many posters here reminds me of the inmates at Dachau who believed if they worked harder the Nazis wouldn't kill them in the end. It's kind of the beginning of Stockholm syndrome.

And ESPN isn't concerned with a conference's leverage. The market isn't that competitive. What they are concerned with is product placement and the % of yield they get from having school x playing school y & z.

Eventually they will cull every conference. The college model is more profitable when only quality plays quality and much cheaper to maintain because the overhead of producing the product is the cost of each school.

If Texas and Oklahoma wind up in either or both of the Big 10 and SEC the pathway to two leagues of high national interest grows. The desire due to profit to be in one of those 2 leagues grows as well.

ESPN isn't collecting schools to get get more profit, they are slowly rearranging the schools (product placement) and culling them to get more profit.

Virginia Tech and Miami, Syracuse and Pittsburgh were worth more in the ACC than in the Old Big East. Texas A&M was worth more in the SEC than the Big 12 and under the market model so was Missouri, Rutgers, and Maryland worth more in their new homes.

The ACC will be vulnerable when more can be made off of Clemson and Florida State in a football rich conference and more off of Duke, Syracuse, and North Carolina in a basketball rich conference.

City schools like Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Miami would be of more value in streaming mode.

And when the two leagues eventually emerge pressure will begin to mount to shed the SEC and Big 10 schools that can't keep up and which don't have a large national following.

But the issue corporately X is that a journey of a 1000 miles must be accomplished step by step and we are in the first couple of hundred miles so those eventualities are not yet due to be discussed as doing so may get in the way of the next few steps.

And X when we get there it will be sold and assured that it will only impact football. Basketball, baseball, softball, etc, will still be broad in number of schools and likely still tied to some form of the old conference structure and that will be the soft soap for selling the more extreme position on football.

What you described is a long (very long) term outlook. I don't know whether that will happen in my life time.

For the short term, it's all about Texas and OU. I still think Texas to the ACC as a partial member is a possibility. LHN plus ACCN money would be not far from what Texas would earn from BIG/SEC if not more.

Even if Texas and OU moves to BIG/SEC, I don't think either of these two conferences want to go beyond 16 teams. It's just too many. That leaves at most two spots in BIG/SEC for any potential ACC teams to take. But who would leave? UNC/Duke/UVA are the core of the ACC, and they will never leave the ACC first. VT/NC state want to stay close to the core, and they will never leave the ACC first. So that leaves FSU and Clemson. I don't think BIG is interested in them. Not sure about the SEC, but I won't be surprised if the SEC passes on them like the last time. Rounding out the 16 with FSU and Clemson sounds like a bit of let down.

(05-27-2019 06:19 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's real simple. With no expansion at all the Big 10 will be sitting at 54 million a year plus escalators with another contract renewal in 2024. The SEC will be sitting at 58 million (possibly a bit more) when the new T1 contract is announced.

If either of them attract Texas and/or Oklahoma it goes up roughly 5 million in value for each one they land (content and market values baked in).

The ACCN will likely payout about 3 million per school the first year and based on your current viewer numbers max out around 7 million plus escalators within a few years following. That would put the ACC in the low 40's while both the SEC and Big 10 will be pushing 60 million.

So if OU which is making around 41-2 currently, or Texas which is making around 51 currently see where their presence in another conference could net the a 20 million a year gain (Oklahoma) or a 13 million a year gain (Texas) then that gap grows to over 20 million with no more game changing pieces on the board.

I don't think the ACC will be poachable until 2035 but if the revenue gap is over 20 million at that time anything becomes possible, especially with state and federal funds continually getting harder to get.

So 2025 won't impact the ACC now. But it might very well impact the ACC in another 10 years following.

Football championships are largely due to Jimbo Fisher and Dabo and Clemson and F.S.U.'s sports objectives being football first. UNC and UVa will hold academic value for the Big 10 and market significance for the Big 10. Likewise their value is the same for the SEC, but with the SEC Virginia Tech might actually be of a bit more potential value than Virginia.

When Nole talks about a select few schools he's really talking about F.S.U., Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia/Virginia Tech. Georgia Tech not so much for either the SEC or Big 10. In 2012 GaTech would have held much more value market wise than today. N.C. State isn't the prize in North Carolina. Duke would be preferable to the academically minded Big 10.

So really there are 4 ACC schools that would be of interest to the Big 10 and 5 of interest to the SEC.

It's why I stated earlier the trick would be for the ACC to try to move to 20 by taking 5 from the Big 12 and cherry picking them at that. UT / OU / KU / and likely OSU and TTU as the cost.

That move adds catch up value to the ACC and denies the Big 10 and SEC the ability to really widen the gap dramatically while leaving no school of particular value to either the PAC or ACC.

That's the ball game. If the SEC and Big 10 add the cream of the Big 12 its game over for the P5, P4, and P3 and what Nole has predicted is the likely outcome. I figure for competitive reasons more of a P2 of 24 teams each rather than a P2 of 20 teams each.

I don't see the PAC being positioned or financed in a manner to be able to pull off a coup of the Texa-homa sized plan in 2011. The ACC is better positioned, but also not in quite the financial position to lure Texas or Oklahoma. But by creating a division and taking little brothers too you might be positioned to strike a bargain even at less of a financial windfall and in so doing prevent what is certain to be the creation of a insurmountable gap.

Your numbers are, as usual, all over the place JR.
TEXAS and Oklahoma are now up to 5 million each when for years it's been 2.5. The ACCN only earning 3 million the first year when the FSU AD predicted 15 (the truth is probably somewhere in between) .
The ACC will survive and thrive if ESPN deems it their most profitable route to take.

Let's look at a fact that is relevant: FOX has bailed on the Big 12. ESPN bought 3 championship game broadcasts and the T3 (six seasons/8 schools) content (which they will move to ESPN+) for $40 million and there is no chatter about the renewal of the Big 12's T1 and T2 contracts at all.

If ESPN wants the ACC to work, they can promote it into success (as long as there is successful product, which the ACC has delivered in spades).
Why would they want the ACC to be successful? Leverage against other conferences from becoming too powerful and demanding and ESPN is obligated to pay the ACC a lot of money for the next 15 years. No smart businessman wants dead inventory that becomes an expense rather than an asset (the Mouse is smart, we aren't worried).

No X as usual your thinking is centrist to the ACC position and not up to current circumstances. Under the market model from 2012 Texas would have been worth about 3.5 to the Big 10 and about 2 million to the SEC which already had A&M. Now that approach only has value to the conference networks. Content is being rewarded much more due to the ability of two brands playing drawing a much larger national audience. So Texas has the ability to multiply the content values of conferences and the value is dependent upon the number of national draws within that conference (in football). Now Texas is worth more in the SEC as opposed to the Big 10 but in either they are worth a lot more than they are in any of the other 3 P conferences. Oklahoma doesn't have the T3 value of Texas to the Big 10 and only the value of a potential 4 million people figure 1.3 million households to the Big 10, SEC or anybody. But they do have the content multiplier value going for them as well. And it is that brand power that has the potential to hit another 5 million in value in either the Big 10 or SEC vs a higher number of other national brands.

So the question is if they leave the Big 12 where are they worth the most to ESPN and that answer is pretty simple.

You are obviously not a farmer or rancher. ESPN cobbled together a herd of schools they wanted to save from their competition. They fed them and kept them alive until time to take them to market. Then they parse them out according to their value placing the choicest animals in herds where the breeding produces even higher values.

Realignment has been following this course for every conference. They are not emotionally attached to any of us and will always act in their self interest. They are a corporation with quarterly reports to file to shareholders. That is their only concern and this myth that ESPN will save us that is repeated by many posters here reminds me of the inmates at Dachau who believed if they worked harder the Nazis wouldn't kill them in the end. It's kind of the beginning of Stockholm syndrome.

And ESPN isn't concerned with a conference's leverage. The market isn't that competitive. What they are concerned with is product placement and the % of yield they get from having school x playing school y & z.

Eventually they will cull every conference. The college model is more profitable when only quality plays quality and much cheaper to maintain because the overhead of producing the product is the cost of each school.

If Texas and Oklahoma wind up in either or both of the Big 10 and SEC the pathway to two leagues of high national interest grows. The desire due to profit to be in one of those 2 leagues grows as well.

ESPN isn't collecting schools to get get more profit, they are slowly rearranging the schools (product placement) and culling them to get more profit.

Virginia Tech and Miami, Syracuse and Pittsburgh were worth more in the ACC than in the Old Big East. Texas A&M was worth more in the SEC than the Big 12 and under the market model so was Missouri, Rutgers, and Maryland worth more in their new homes.

The ACC will be vulnerable when more can be made off of Clemson and Florida State in a football rich conference and more off of Duke, Syracuse, and North Carolina in a basketball rich conference.

City schools like Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Miami would be of more value in streaming mode.

And when the two leagues eventually emerge pressure will begin to mount to shed the SEC and Big 10 schools that can't keep up and which don't have a large national following.

But the issue corporately X is that a journey of a 1000 miles must be accomplished step by step and we are in the first couple of hundred miles so those eventualities are not yet due to be discussed as doing so may get in the way of the next few steps.

And X when we get there it will be sold and assured that it will only impact football. Basketball, baseball, softball, etc, will still be broad in number of schools and likely still tied to some form of the old conference structure and that will be the soft soap for selling the more extreme position on football.

What you described is a long (very long) term outlook. I don't know whether that will happen in my life time.

For the short term, it's all about Texas and OU. I still think Texas to the ACC as a partial member is a possibility. LHN plus ACCN money would be not far from what Texas would earn from BIG/SEC if not more.

Even if Texas and OU moves to BIG/SEC, I don't think either of these two conferences want to go beyond 16 teams. It's just too many. That leaves at most two spots in BIG/SEC for any potential ACC teams to take. But who would leave? UNC/Duke/UVA are the core of the ACC, and they will never leave the ACC first. VT/NC state want to stay close to the core, and they will never leave the ACC first. So that leaves FSU and Clemson. I don't think BIG is interested in them. Not sure about the SEC, but I won't be surprised if the SEC passes on them like the last time. Rounding out the 16 with FSU and Clemson sounds like a bit of let down.

The SEC didn't pass on Clemson and F.S.U. in 2011-2. We couldn't renegotiate our contract values with ESPN unless we acquired two new markets. Since we had Florida and South Carolina that meant we couldn't consider F.S.U. and Clemson. Once that ended in 2012 with A&M & Missouri Slive stated no such stipulations would exist in the future, with the exception that anyone added had to add to the bottom line. Under the market model that would exclude F.S.U. and Clemson. In a content driven payout it might not. But clearly the two that add the most are Texas and Oklahoma both of which are top 7 revenue earners and national brands. That's not to say that either of them are coming to the SEC but rather to say that they would add revenue to every SEC school if they did.

If there are realignment acquisitions in 2023 I doubt any of them will be from the ACC since the GOR runs through 2037 and the earliest anyone could decide to leave would be 2035.

The rough gauge for this is to look at the conference averages vs the candidates averages. The conference Gross Revenue Average for the SEC was around 133 million, the average attendance was 75,000 and everyone in the SEC had a R1 research designation.

So a school earning 133 million a year for the athletic department with an average football attendance of 75,000 or more with a research ranking of R1 or higher would be the candidates. That would be Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State if looking at the Big 12 and SEC. Other considerations may be a physical presence in a large metro area which means if looking for an alternate companion for an Oklahoma that T.C.U. could get a look even though they don't meet the metrics listed above. Louisville did earn 140 million last year and is in a metro, but one where Kentucky has good representation as well so I didn't include them.

I'd toss in Kansas but averaging 16,000 for football home games "ain't gettin' her done" for the SEC.

If either Texas or Oklahoma committed to coming but insisted on a particular partner then the average of those two would need to exceed the conference averages. Why? I said it was a rough gauge but a school exceeding those three metrics would be the most likely to add revenue.

Now if you figure the same for the ACC it will tell you a lot more about who might and might not be viable for you.

JR, given those parameters a tweek, the average stadium size of 49K, the mid range R-1 R&D of VT, NC State, UVa, and Miami ranked 46, 47, 51, and 64 respectively and the universe of expansion options are USF, Iowa State, Kansas, Cincy, UCF, TT, Houston, and West Virginia.

School, Attendence for FB, Resarch Dollar Rank:

ISU, 58K, 73 (This is NC State's and VT's doppelganger)
TT, 55K, 113 (Another NC State and VT doppelganger)
USF, 31K, 42 (no real ACC analogue)
UCF, 37K, 98 (no real ACC analogue)
West Va, 56K, 117 (A poor version of Clemson?)
Houston, 32 K, 125 (A less athletically successful version of Louisville)

TCU is a less academically inclined version of BC - undergraduate oriented.
Cincy has mid range ACC academics, but is seating an average of just 28K for football (would likely push to an average of 38K in the ACC).
Kansas is UNC's doppelganger but has no football program.
Baylor, KSU and OSU don't match academically and or ideologically.
ECU is not going to happen.
Army and or Navy have no analogue in the ACC

Unless and until ESPN's machinations can shake the "little brothers" loose and move them to their conference maximizing locations, I just don't see anything happening. NC State, VT, Purdue, NW, Mississippi State, Vandy, TT, and Iowa State all have more value in another conference.

The bottom line is that none of these make the ACC "more money".

The analogue for the ACC has and always will be the Pac-12 (minus the parallel universe sociology system, though that can be seen in Chapel Hill as well). The SEC is a one trick pony. It just so happens that one trick is currently responsible for 80% of all revenue and realigning conferences themselves at all power levels. I always felt like the ACC philosophy was to seek the total package: compete for titles in revenue sports, compete for titles in Olympic sports, be elite academically.

(05-27-2019 09:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  JR, given those parameters a tweek, the average stadium size of 49K, the mid range R-1 R&D of VT, NC State, UVa, and Miami ranked 46, 47, 51, and 64 respectively and the universe of expansion options are USF, Iowa State, Kansas, Cincy, UCF, TT, Houston, and West Virginia.

School, Attendence for FB, Resarch Dollar Rank:

ISU, 58K, 73 (This is NC State's and VT's doppelganger)
TT, 55K, 113 (Another NC State and VT doppelganger)
USF, 31K, 42 (no real ACC analogue)
UCF, 37K, 98 (no real ACC analogue)
West Va, 56K, 117 (A poor version of Clemson?)
Houston, 32 K, 125 (A less athletically successful version of Louisville)

TCU is a less academically inclined version of BC - undergraduate oriented.
Cincy has mid range ACC academics, but is seating an average of just 28K for football (would likely push to an average of 38K in the ACC).
Kansas is UNC's doppelganger but has no football program.
Baylor, KSU and OSU don't match academically and or ideologically.
ECU is not going to happen.
Army and or Navy have no analogue in the ACC

Unless and until ESPN's machinations can shake the "little brothers" loose and move them to their conference maximizing locations, I just don't see anything happening. NC State, VT, Purdue, NW, Mississippi State, Vandy, TT, and Iowa State all have more value in another conference.

The bottom line is that none of these make the ACC "more money".

That's good work, and it reveals how just down to the nitty gritty we are. The PAC and the ACC have the same play. Offer Texa-homa and add Kansas. The problem for both conferences is that each has 2 real football brands and 1 regional brand with which to multiply the value of Texas and Oklahoma.

The PAC has USC and Washington with regional brand Oregon and the ACC has national brand Florida State, an emerging national brand in Clemson, and a regional brand in Virginia Tech. So that means that neither really has the earning potential to make that kind of move viable for Texas who makes 51 million in media money now or Oklahoma who makes roughly 40 (all three tiers for both OU & UT).

That is why "if there is movement" it will likely be to either the SEC or Big 10 because it simply isn't financially feasible to consider the other two options.

In this world trades never happen but Ole Miss would be better suited to the ACC than a Miss State and the metrics are about the same with slightly better academics. Vanderbilt would be interesting as well and both schools would perform better in the ACC as a whole. That said their moving is extremely unlikely.

The SEC really only has 3 prospects and one is tied up in a GOR until 2037. The Big 10 is in the same shape as the SEC and the PAC is in exactly the same shape as the ACC.

I don't buy these theories that have G5 promotion. The metrics just aren't there for those who bother to look and see. What needs to happen if the Big 12 does blow apart is for some contraction to occur along with the expansion.

(05-27-2019 09:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The analogue for the ACC has and always will be the Pac-12 (minus the parallel universe sociology system, though that can be seen in Chapel Hill as well). The SEC is a one trick pony. It just so happens that one trick is currently responsible for 80% of all revenue and realigning conferences themselves at all power levels. I always felt like the ACC philosophy was to seek the total package: compete for titles in revenue sports, compete for titles in Olympic sports, be elite academically.

One trick pony? Hogwash. Google our championships and take a gander. We are also catching up academically and although we might never catch the top of the ACC we might well match or best your conference average academically in the decades ahead. You will be seeing more medical schools popping up in the SEC in the years to come and maybe one day Vet Med will actually be permitted to be counted in research.

(05-27-2019 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The analogue for the ACC has and always will be the Pac-12 (minus the parallel universe sociology system, though that can be seen in Chapel Hill as well). The SEC is a one trick pony. It just so happens that one trick is currently responsible for 80% of all revenue and realigning conferences themselves at all power levels. I always felt like the ACC philosophy was to seek the total package: compete for titles in revenue sports, compete for titles in Olympic sports, be elite academically.

One trick pony? Hogwash. Google our championships and take a gander. We are also catching up academically and although we might never catch the top of the ACC we might well match or best your conference average academically in the decades ahead. You will be seeing more medical schools popping up in the SEC in the years to come and maybe one day Vet Med will actually be permitted to be counted in research.

There's no result I can find for cataloging NCAA titles by conference. I imagine the SEC has plenty in track and gymnastics too. It's a different story in a lot of other places. Doesn't South Carolina still play soccer in C-USA or something?

(05-27-2019 10:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The analogue for the ACC has and always will be the Pac-12 (minus the parallel universe sociology system, though that can be seen in Chapel Hill as well). The SEC is a one trick pony. It just so happens that one trick is currently responsible for 80% of all revenue and realigning conferences themselves at all power levels. I always felt like the ACC philosophy was to seek the total package: compete for titles in revenue sports, compete for titles in Olympic sports, be elite academically.

One trick pony? Hogwash. Google our championships and take a gander. We are also catching up academically and although we might never catch the top of the ACC we might well match or best your conference average academically in the decades ahead. You will be seeing more medical schools popping up in the SEC in the years to come and maybe one day Vet Med will actually be permitted to be counted in research.

There's no result I can find for cataloging NCAA titles by conference. I imagine the SEC has plenty in track and gymnastics too. It's a different story in a lot of other places. Doesn't South Carolina still play soccer in C-USA or something?

Fall:
38 in Football
8 in Men's Cross Country
1 in Women's Cross Country
1 in Women's Soccer

Winter:
11 in Men's Basketball
9 in Women's Basketball
20 in Women's Gymnastics
20 in Men's Indoor Track
15 in Women's Indoor Track
11 in Men's Swimming & Diving
15 in Women's Swimming & Diving
2 in Women's Bowling
2 in Rifle

Spring:
12 in Baseball
3 in Softball
21 in Men's Outdoor Track & Field
17 in Women's Outdoor Track & Field
7 in Men's Tennis
10 in Women's Tennis
13 in Men's Golf
4 in Women's Golf
1 in Boxing
15 in Equestrian

And those don't include national championships won this year like Vandy's women's tennis team yesterday, or Auburn's Equestrian this year.

The problem for the SEC, is that neither Texas or Oklahoma need SEC revenue at this point to "keep up". Of course that may change in the near future, but each will have a clear picture of the future before they actually decide in which direction to go, and if at all.
Texas is and will be the revenue leader for the foreseeable future. Their formula which doesn't require a lot of big name opponents to generate tons of income works, and there is no reason for them to adjust it. The weaker link is Oklahoma. Even though the Sooners rank #7 in revenue, they must rely on a great deal of out of state support and supporters because of their limited population. Oklahoma will need a conference support system in the future to survive. IMO their best option is and always has been to join the SEC.
Texas on the other hand plays by its own set of rules and will do what ever is necessary to preserve its own formula for as long as possible.

(05-27-2019 10:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The analogue for the ACC has and always will be the Pac-12 (minus the parallel universe sociology system, though that can be seen in Chapel Hill as well). The SEC is a one trick pony. It just so happens that one trick is currently responsible for 80% of all revenue and realigning conferences themselves at all power levels. I always felt like the ACC philosophy was to seek the total package: compete for titles in revenue sports, compete for titles in Olympic sports, be elite academically.

One trick pony? Hogwash. Google our championships and take a gander. We are also catching up academically and although we might never catch the top of the ACC we might well match or best your conference average academically in the decades ahead. You will be seeing more medical schools popping up in the SEC in the years to come and maybe one day Vet Med will actually be permitted to be counted in research.

There's no result I can find for cataloging NCAA titles by conference. I imagine the SEC has plenty in track and gymnastics too. It's a different story in a lot of other places. Doesn't South Carolina still play soccer in C-USA or something?

C-USA Soccer members

Kentucky
Old Dominion
Charlotte
FIU
Marshall
UAB
New Mexico
South Carolina
Florida Atlantic

(05-28-2019 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Fall:
38 in Football
8 in Men's Cross Country
1 in Women's Cross Country
1 in Women's Soccer

Winter:
11 in Men's Basketball
9 in Women's Basketball
20 in Women's Gymnastics
20 in Men's Indoor Track
15 in Women's Indoor Track
11 in Men's Swimming & Diving
15 in Women's Swimming & Diving
2 in Women's Bowling
2 in Rifle

Spring:
12 in Baseball
3 in Softball
21 in Men's Outdoor Track & Field
17 in Women's Outdoor Track & Field
7 in Men's Tennis
10 in Women's Tennis
13 in Men's Golf
4 in Women's Golf
1 in Boxing
15 in Equestrian

And those don't include national championships won this year like Vandy's women's tennis team yesterday, or Auburn's Equestrian this year.

Do you have a source that catalogs these things by conference like CFB Data Warehouse use to do for just football?