Observations

1. Expanding into different markets adds value to your 3rd tier, but more than that it adds dedicated eyeballs to your 1st and 2nd tier. In other words, fans that were watching other leagues are now watching yours.

2. Expanding with quality content adds eyeballs to all tiers. The casual fan from across the country wants to watch good competition.

3. Leagues have been stretching the bounds of geography for some time now with very few examples of exhibiting the reverse trend.

Who is vulnerable?

PAC 12 and Big 12 are both having issues.

Quick ways for the SEC to expand its territory assuming everyone is on board:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State

Could they expand their territory further without an excessive number of complications?

I'm going to throw something out there. Assuming the value of a contract with these schools is $60-65 million then I think other opportunities open up. The PAC may very well be vulnerable, but that's stretching yourself pretty thin. Assuming the SEC would be interested in more then looking back East is still the next best play.

The timing is crucial here. I don't think ESPN would be interested in paying for an expansion into ACC territory, but they might pay for another one.

Would ESPN be arrogant enough to think they could breach the Big Ten? Well, why not give it a shot? The Mouse will likely not gain the predominant portion of Big Ten rights anytime soon so what if ESPN used the SEC to alter the balance?

I don't think you could get an Ohio State or Michigan to break ranks. They have too much power after all, but what if the SEC went after some of the Big Ten's middle tier schools? Schools that might be motivated to increase their influence in the world of major college athletics?

What if they looked at Illinois and Indiana?

1. Border states in which the respective campuses aren't very far from SEC territory in the first place.

2. Schools that aren't major players in college sports, but would help alter the market dynamics and throw certain things in favor of the SEC.

3. Schools that couldn't be replaced by the Big Ten with equivalent institutions. Perhaps creating a dynamic whereby players in the Big Ten look at the viability of the ACC in the long term.

(05-19-2019 04:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Observations

1. Expanding into different markets adds value to your 3rd tier, but more than that it adds dedicated eyeballs to your 1st and 2nd tier. In other words, fans that were watching other leagues are now watching yours.

2. Expanding with quality content adds eyeballs to all tiers. The casual fan from across the country wants to watch good competition.

3. Leagues have been stretching the bounds of geography for some time now with very few examples of exhibiting the reverse trend.

Who is vulnerable?

PAC 12 and Big 12 are both having issues.

Quick ways for the SEC to expand its territory assuming everyone is on board:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State

Could they expand their territory further without an excessive number of complications?

I'm going to throw something out there. Assuming the value of a contract with these schools is $60-65 million then I think other opportunities open up. The PAC may very well be vulnerable, but that's stretching yourself pretty thin. Assuming the SEC would be interested in more then looking back East is still the next best play.

The timing is crucial here. I don't think ESPN would be interested in paying for an expansion into ACC territory, but they might pay for another one.

Would ESPN be arrogant enough to think they could breach the Big Ten? Well, why not give it a shot? The Mouse will likely not gain the predominant portion of Big Ten rights anytime soon so what if ESPN used the SEC to alter the balance?

I don't think you could get an Ohio State or Michigan to break ranks. They have too much power after all, but what if the SEC went after some of the Big Ten's middle tier schools? Schools that might be motivated to increase their influence in the world of major college athletics?

What if they looked at Illinois and Indiana?

1. Border states in which the respective campuses aren't very far from SEC territory in the first place.

2. Schools that aren't major players in college sports, but would help alter the market dynamics and throw certain things in favor of the SEC.

3. Schools that couldn't be replaced by the Big Ten with equivalent institutions. Perhaps creating a dynamic whereby players in the Big Ten look at the viability of the ACC in the long term.

Here's the thing. If the SEC's new T1 contract is 275 million (the low estimate) that's an additional 14.7 million per school minus the conference share and less the value of the old contract. We reported 43.7 million this year. That means 58.4 million would be the new TV revenue without adding Texas or Oklahoma. Texas and OU add enough value to the content to merit an additional 5 million per school for the pair and that's 2012's numbers. With them we hit 63.5 million.

Now if the 315 million is the new T1 contract (the high estimate) that's 17.3 million more per school than the existing contract. That's 61 million per year per school which with Texas and Oklahoma would be more like 66 million.

I don't know that Kansas and Iowa State can do anything but subtract from that number regardless if it is the high or low estimate. The question still come down to what will it take to land that pair? I still believe sincerely that the answer would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State which again would detract from the numbers. But if adding that pair severely limits anything that the Big 10 could do then it is still worth it. All we have to be is close on TV revenue with the Big 10. Our attendance, tickets and donations place us 11 million higher in total revenue than the Big 10 when we are within 2 million on TV revenue. Even with their huge advantage in revenue this year we might still edge them out on Gross Total Revenue by a million or so per school average this year.

What we can't afford to have happen is for those two to head North. IMO that is worth taking their tag alongs. Kansas would be better than either of those tag alongs but Iowa State would not.

If we had to take 4 and could have our pick then Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U. and Kansas would be the four, not ISU. But whether it is that move, or Texa-homa, getting her done cements the SEC into the top spot nationally for revenue and the Big 10 knows it, the Big 12 knows it, and we know it. The PAC and the ACC fear it.

A 54 million dollar Big 10 and a 58 million dollar SEC, let alone 61 million, is just way too much of a gap for further consolidation not to happen.

(05-20-2019 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 04:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Observations

1. Expanding into different markets adds value to your 3rd tier, but more than that it adds dedicated eyeballs to your 1st and 2nd tier. In other words, fans that were watching other leagues are now watching yours.

2. Expanding with quality content adds eyeballs to all tiers. The casual fan from across the country wants to watch good competition.

3. Leagues have been stretching the bounds of geography for some time now with very few examples of exhibiting the reverse trend.

Who is vulnerable?

PAC 12 and Big 12 are both having issues.

Quick ways for the SEC to expand its territory assuming everyone is on board:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State

Could they expand their territory further without an excessive number of complications?

I'm going to throw something out there. Assuming the value of a contract with these schools is $60-65 million then I think other opportunities open up. The PAC may very well be vulnerable, but that's stretching yourself pretty thin. Assuming the SEC would be interested in more then looking back East is still the next best play.

The timing is crucial here. I don't think ESPN would be interested in paying for an expansion into ACC territory, but they might pay for another one.

Would ESPN be arrogant enough to think they could breach the Big Ten? Well, why not give it a shot? The Mouse will likely not gain the predominant portion of Big Ten rights anytime soon so what if ESPN used the SEC to alter the balance?

I don't think you could get an Ohio State or Michigan to break ranks. They have too much power after all, but what if the SEC went after some of the Big Ten's middle tier schools? Schools that might be motivated to increase their influence in the world of major college athletics?

What if they looked at Illinois and Indiana?

1. Border states in which the respective campuses aren't very far from SEC territory in the first place.

2. Schools that aren't major players in college sports, but would help alter the market dynamics and throw certain things in favor of the SEC.

3. Schools that couldn't be replaced by the Big Ten with equivalent institutions. Perhaps creating a dynamic whereby players in the Big Ten look at the viability of the ACC in the long term.

Here's the thing. If the SEC's new T1 contract is 275 million (the low estimate) that's an additional 14.7 million per school minus the conference share and less the value of the old contract. We reported 43.7 million this year. That means 58.4 million would be the new TV revenue without adding Texas or Oklahoma. Texas and OU add enough value to the content to merit an additional 5 million per school for the pair and that's 2012's numbers. With them we hit 63.5 million.

Now if the 315 million is the new T1 contract (the high estimate) that's 17.3 million more per school than the existing contract. That's 61 million per year per school which with Texas and Oklahoma would be more like 66 million.

I don't know that Kansas and Iowa State can do anything but subtract from that number regardless if it is the high or low estimate. The question still come down to what will it take to land that pair? I still believe sincerely that the answer would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State which again would detract from the numbers. But if adding that pair severely limits anything that the Big 10 could do then it is still worth it. All we have to be is close on TV revenue with the Big 10. Our attendance, tickets and donations place us 11 million higher in total revenue than the Big 10 when we are within 2 million on TV revenue. Even with their huge advantage in revenue this year we might still edge them out on Gross Total Revenue by a million or so per school average this year.

What we can't afford to have happen is for those two to head North. IMO that is worth taking their tag alongs. Kansas would be better than either of those tag alongs but Iowa State would not.

If we had to take 4 and could have our pick then Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U. and Kansas would be the four, not ISU. But whether it is that move, or Texa-homa, getting her done cements the SEC into the top spot nationally for revenue and the Big 10 knows it, the Big 12 knows it, and we know it. The PAC and the ACC fear it.

A 54 million dollar Big 10 and a 58 million dollar SEC, let alone 61 million, is just way too much of a gap for further consolidation not to happen.

If SEC revenue gets that high, would there really be any teams outside of maybe the Big Ten which could even maintain (much less increase) that revenue level?

So if there are no ACC teams worth adding to the SEC, and none the ACC could add to catch up, the only way to go from there is contraction - removing the least-valuable members. Addition by subtraction.

(05-20-2019 09:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 04:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Observations

1. Expanding into different markets adds value to your 3rd tier, but more than that it adds dedicated eyeballs to your 1st and 2nd tier. In other words, fans that were watching other leagues are now watching yours.

2. Expanding with quality content adds eyeballs to all tiers. The casual fan from across the country wants to watch good competition.

3. Leagues have been stretching the bounds of geography for some time now with very few examples of exhibiting the reverse trend.

Who is vulnerable?

PAC 12 and Big 12 are both having issues.

Quick ways for the SEC to expand its territory assuming everyone is on board:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State

Could they expand their territory further without an excessive number of complications?

I'm going to throw something out there. Assuming the value of a contract with these schools is $60-65 million then I think other opportunities open up. The PAC may very well be vulnerable, but that's stretching yourself pretty thin. Assuming the SEC would be interested in more then looking back East is still the next best play.

The timing is crucial here. I don't think ESPN would be interested in paying for an expansion into ACC territory, but they might pay for another one.

Would ESPN be arrogant enough to think they could breach the Big Ten? Well, why not give it a shot? The Mouse will likely not gain the predominant portion of Big Ten rights anytime soon so what if ESPN used the SEC to alter the balance?

I don't think you could get an Ohio State or Michigan to break ranks. They have too much power after all, but what if the SEC went after some of the Big Ten's middle tier schools? Schools that might be motivated to increase their influence in the world of major college athletics?

What if they looked at Illinois and Indiana?

1. Border states in which the respective campuses aren't very far from SEC territory in the first place.

2. Schools that aren't major players in college sports, but would help alter the market dynamics and throw certain things in favor of the SEC.

3. Schools that couldn't be replaced by the Big Ten with equivalent institutions. Perhaps creating a dynamic whereby players in the Big Ten look at the viability of the ACC in the long term.

Here's the thing. If the SEC's new T1 contract is 275 million (the low estimate) that's an additional 14.7 million per school minus the conference share and less the value of the old contract. We reported 43.7 million this year. That means 58.4 million would be the new TV revenue without adding Texas or Oklahoma. Texas and OU add enough value to the content to merit an additional 5 million per school for the pair and that's 2012's numbers. With them we hit 63.5 million.

Now if the 315 million is the new T1 contract (the high estimate) that's 17.3 million more per school than the existing contract. That's 61 million per year per school which with Texas and Oklahoma would be more like 66 million.

I don't know that Kansas and Iowa State can do anything but subtract from that number regardless if it is the high or low estimate. The question still come down to what will it take to land that pair? I still believe sincerely that the answer would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State which again would detract from the numbers. But if adding that pair severely limits anything that the Big 10 could do then it is still worth it. All we have to be is close on TV revenue with the Big 10. Our attendance, tickets and donations place us 11 million higher in total revenue than the Big 10 when we are within 2 million on TV revenue. Even with their huge advantage in revenue this year we might still edge them out on Gross Total Revenue by a million or so per school average this year.

What we can't afford to have happen is for those two to head North. IMO that is worth taking their tag alongs. Kansas would be better than either of those tag alongs but Iowa State would not.

If we had to take 4 and could have our pick then Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U. and Kansas would be the four, not ISU. But whether it is that move, or Texa-homa, getting her done cements the SEC into the top spot nationally for revenue and the Big 10 knows it, the Big 12 knows it, and we know it. The PAC and the ACC fear it.

A 54 million dollar Big 10 and a 58 million dollar SEC, let alone 61 million, is just way too much of a gap for further consolidation not to happen.

If SEC revenue gets that high, would there really be any teams outside of maybe the Big Ten which could even maintain (much less increase) that revenue level?

So if there are no ACC teams worth adding to the SEC, and none the ACC could add to catch up, the only way to go from there is contraction - removing the least-valuable members. Addition by subtraction.

The list would be very short indeed: Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame and perhaps Penn State. So in essence if the SEC made the additions of Texas and Oklahoma and whoever they insisted upon bringing along realignment is over for the SEC.

Now if the Big 10 and PAC merged and they took the 8 AAU PAC schools they might look to pull two from the ACC at some point. And a merger of the PAC and Big 10 might similarly make the SEC and ACC consider it with up to 8 from ACC. That in essence would be your addition by subtraction and the easiest way to do it. You can leave schools behind much easier than you can kick them out.

(05-20-2019 09:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 04:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Observations

1. Expanding into different markets adds value to your 3rd tier, but more than that it adds dedicated eyeballs to your 1st and 2nd tier. In other words, fans that were watching other leagues are now watching yours.

2. Expanding with quality content adds eyeballs to all tiers. The casual fan from across the country wants to watch good competition.

3. Leagues have been stretching the bounds of geography for some time now with very few examples of exhibiting the reverse trend.

Who is vulnerable?

PAC 12 and Big 12 are both having issues.

Quick ways for the SEC to expand its territory assuming everyone is on board:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State

Could they expand their territory further without an excessive number of complications?

I'm going to throw something out there. Assuming the value of a contract with these schools is $60-65 million then I think other opportunities open up. The PAC may very well be vulnerable, but that's stretching yourself pretty thin. Assuming the SEC would be interested in more then looking back East is still the next best play.

The timing is crucial here. I don't think ESPN would be interested in paying for an expansion into ACC territory, but they might pay for another one.

Would ESPN be arrogant enough to think they could breach the Big Ten? Well, why not give it a shot? The Mouse will likely not gain the predominant portion of Big Ten rights anytime soon so what if ESPN used the SEC to alter the balance?

I don't think you could get an Ohio State or Michigan to break ranks. They have too much power after all, but what if the SEC went after some of the Big Ten's middle tier schools? Schools that might be motivated to increase their influence in the world of major college athletics?

What if they looked at Illinois and Indiana?

1. Border states in which the respective campuses aren't very far from SEC territory in the first place.

2. Schools that aren't major players in college sports, but would help alter the market dynamics and throw certain things in favor of the SEC.

3. Schools that couldn't be replaced by the Big Ten with equivalent institutions. Perhaps creating a dynamic whereby players in the Big Ten look at the viability of the ACC in the long term.

Here's the thing. If the SEC's new T1 contract is 275 million (the low estimate) that's an additional 14.7 million per school minus the conference share and less the value of the old contract. We reported 43.7 million this year. That means 58.4 million would be the new TV revenue without adding Texas or Oklahoma. Texas and OU add enough value to the content to merit an additional 5 million per school for the pair and that's 2012's numbers. With them we hit 63.5 million.

Now if the 315 million is the new T1 contract (the high estimate) that's 17.3 million more per school than the existing contract. That's 61 million per year per school which with Texas and Oklahoma would be more like 66 million.

I don't know that Kansas and Iowa State can do anything but subtract from that number regardless if it is the high or low estimate. The question still come down to what will it take to land that pair? I still believe sincerely that the answer would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State which again would detract from the numbers. But if adding that pair severely limits anything that the Big 10 could do then it is still worth it. All we have to be is close on TV revenue with the Big 10. Our attendance, tickets and donations place us 11 million higher in total revenue than the Big 10 when we are within 2 million on TV revenue. Even with their huge advantage in revenue this year we might still edge them out on Gross Total Revenue by a million or so per school average this year.

What we can't afford to have happen is for those two to head North. IMO that is worth taking their tag alongs. Kansas would be better than either of those tag alongs but Iowa State would not.

If we had to take 4 and could have our pick then Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U. and Kansas would be the four, not ISU. But whether it is that move, or Texa-homa, getting her done cements the SEC into the top spot nationally for revenue and the Big 10 knows it, the Big 12 knows it, and we know it. The PAC and the ACC fear it.

A 54 million dollar Big 10 and a 58 million dollar SEC, let alone 61 million, is just way too much of a gap for further consolidation not to happen.

If SEC revenue gets that high, would there really be any teams outside of maybe the Big Ten which could even maintain (much less increase) that revenue level?

So if there are no ACC teams worth adding to the SEC, and none the ACC could add to catch up, the only way to go from there is contraction - removing the least-valuable members. Addition by subtraction.

The list would be very short indeed: Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame and perhaps Penn State. So in essence if the SEC made the additions of Texas and Oklahoma and whoever they insisted upon bringing along realignment is over for the SEC.

Now if the Big 10 and PAC merged and they took the 8 AAU PAC schools they might look to pull two from the ACC at some point. And a merger of the PAC and Big 10 might similarly make the SEC and ACC consider it with up to 8 from ACC. That in essence would be your addition by subtraction and the easiest way to do it. You can leave schools behind much easier than you can kick them out.

VERY true! Who knows what will ultimately happen - likely something that none of us has predicted on any of these forums!