Soobahk40050
1st String
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Tennessee
Location: |
RE: Realignment by the Numbers 2025
(08-19-2019 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote: (08-19-2019 12:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: (08-19-2019 12:16 AM)JRsec Wrote: Based on current numbers and projecting that by 2025 the SEC will also be making 60 million plus per schools in media payouts. Here are the schools that do add to all of the averages of the SEC:
1. Texas: Attendance: 98,052 SEC Average: 75,074
Gross Revenue: $210,370,940 SEC Average: $133,491,529
WSJ Valuation: $1,105,493,378 SEC Average: $535,137,001
2. Oklahoma: Attendance: 86,771
Gross Revenue: $175,325,500
WSJ Valuation: $885,558,053
*There are no other schools in the Big 12 or ACC that add to all 3 metric averages of the SEC outside of Notre Dame which would also average more than all 3 averages.
Florida State, Kansas and Louisville add to the Gross Total Revenue
Clemson adds to the Attendance Average and is within the Media Contract difference projected in 2025 on Gross Total Revenue.
No other schools add to the WSJ valuation average of the SEC.
If the SEC had to take just Texas, or just Oklahoma here are the pairings that would be likely when averaged together:
1. Texas & Texas Tech would average 140 million in Gross Total Revenue. They would average $674,795,255 in WSJ valuation, 77,850 in attendance. All three metrics exceed the current SEC averages.
2. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State would average $578,255,892 which is greater than the SEC average for the WSJ valuation. However that is the only combined total that exceeds our averages as their average attendance is 70,360 below our average, and their Gross Total Revenue average is $130,142,449 which is also below our average.
3. Oklahoma & Kansas would average $546,789,286 in WSJ valuation which is greater than the SEC average. Their Gross Total Revenue would average $134,704,034 which is also higher than the SEC average. But their average attendance gets hammered by Kansas and together they barely average 56,000.
The wild cards here would be Florida State which in the SEC could average our average attendance and which would easily exceed our conference average for Gross Total Revenue. They would get a miss on the WSJ valuation by $200,000 plus.
Clemson would exceed attendance and with SEC money would exceed our Gross Total Revenue Average barely. They too get a miss on the WSJ valuation but around $200,000 plus.
It would take leaving the NCAA altogether to make Duke or UNC viable with the added payout they would get from basketball and it would make Kansas much more attractive.
So the long and short of it is this. Texas and Oklahoma or the extremely unlikely Notre Dame are the only schools that add to all SEC metrics and since the SEC has the highest average of any conference in these three metrics it means they are no brainers for everyone but would make more in the SEC than anywhere else.
Texas is strong enough that even with Texas Tech the average metrics of these two still exceed SEC metrics in all three areas.
Oklahoma is strong enough that coupled with Kansas they could exceed all SEC metrics other than attendance where Kansas is horrid.
Oklahoma with Oklahoma State could exceed the WSJ valuation average of the SEC and with SEC money could exceed the Gross Revenue average. But together they still miss on attendance by an average of 5,000. Still it's better than with Kansas.
If Texas Tech, Kansas and Oklahoma State could be replaced by anyone then Clemson and Florida State jump way up when paired with Texas or Oklahoma.
Technically all other options are off the table because they don't add to any of the metrics.
While I agree with your conclusions (i.e, that only a very few select teams add to the value of the SEC overall, I disagree with your statement "technically all other options are off the table because they don't add to any of the metrics."
I think that needs to be clarified because it assumes that the SEC will look at the same metrics you are looking at. As always, the criteria matter (this is something I am writing on in my dissertation; the criteria we select inevitably changes our outcomes).
Sankey wanted: contiguous, AAU, with great athletic traditions.
For the sake of argument, let's say that contiguous can also mean within a state that already belongs to the SEC.
Contiguous AAU schools =
Texas
Rice
Tulane
Kansas
Iowa State
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Ohio St.
Northwestern
GA Tech
UNC
Duke
Virginia
Take out the Big 10 schools:
1 Texas
2 Rice
3 Tulane
4 Kansas
5 Iowa State
6 GA Tech
7 UNC
8 Duke
9 Virginia
If we are only considered current P5 schools its: Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., GT, UNC, Duke, UVA.
Of those schools, which schools have a "great athletic tradition?" Texas for sure. Kansas, UNC, Duke, and UVA basketball. No slight meant to Iowa St or GT.
Based on those criteria the best grabs would be Texas/Kansas or go to 18 with UNC/Duke or UNC/UVA or Duke/UVA. (
(Of course, I recognize if the SEC could add a school like OK, and perhaps Clemson/FSU, they would do so even though the schools don't meet that criteria).
Other factors Sankey doesn't mention that might come into play: Stadium size, any scandals that arise, coaching changes/stability, geography (Alabama and Auburn to the east?), etc.
Of course when it is all over, Sankey will say whatever school they wound up with meets their criteria, so it is really an after the fact assessment.
Show me where Slive or Sankey ever said a word about having to have AAU schools? Slive did say that whoever is added the first rubric is that they must add to the profits of the SEC.
Sankey to my knowledge hasn't said 1 damned word about realignment other than "it was on the backburner" a year ago, and this year, "It's off the backburner and on a shelf in the cabinet."
Contiguous does not mean same state and it would be misapplication of the word. No doubt we would consider Texas.
When I said the others were off the table it was because of Slive's remarks that nobody would be considered unless they add to the bottom line. And those remarks were made after the additions of A&M and Mizzou.
There isn't anyone in the ACC that can add to our bottom line outside of possibly Florida State or Clemson under the right conditions and probably not as a first selection.
Athletics in the SEC is a business arrangement. Things like AAU are a plus but not a requirement. Oklahoma is not AAU and we would not turn down Oklahoma. Notre Dame is not AAU and the Big 10 would not turn them down and the Big 10 does require AAU status as part of the criteria.
There is no way that Rice or Tulane or Georgia Tech (who is in the last 6 or 7 slots of the current P5) would seriously be considered as a primary addition to the SEC. For that matter the metrics on Iowa State makes them a very long shot under odd circumstances at best.
And the metrics I use are part of the metrics looked at by the SEC. Attendance represents the overall health of the support of the school considered and is somewhat indicative of their travel strength. Total Gross Revenue isn't considered much for TV media which is 1/4 to 1/3 of the most school's totals, but rather because it itemizes donations which does show the breadth of strength a school has economically. The WSJ valuations tell you how much business outside of the athletic department that their brand is capable of generating which illustrates the breadth of fan identification with their brand.
TV ratings are one I don't get into because finding apples to apples numbers is practically impossible. And way down the list is academics. We want schools who add that way too, but not if they can't make everyone else more money.
I suggest you back and find some of the Mr. SEC blogs from 2010-2 and read up. He covered the SEC's criteria pretty well. Slive openly talked about it. I can't remember Sankey ever having made a comment about criteria for expansion.
So these aren't "my metrics" and they've been around for awhile.
I agree that North Carolina and Duke would get a look based on brand identification and history. But their football program which is still 80% of an athletic department's value is nowhere near SEC standards and as an athletic entity alone they don't add to the bottom line, especially now that the market subscription model has passed for all but T3 rights.
Now if the NCAA lost control over P5 Basketball then both of those could add significant value. So there are other considerations but most of them require a change in circumstances before consideration would be profitable.
Virginia Tech is a fine school, but they are nearly 300,000 of the average WSJ valuation of an SEC school, average 9,000 less than our average attendance, and generate on 86 million in total revenue which is below that of Miss State.
I post these numbers every year at the top of this page. If I had TV ratings that were reliable and unambiguous I would post them too. And I've known people who were in on the considerations in the past.
While these aren't all of the factors they are the most important ones. And as with all business decisions unless we can figure out how the conference and its schools profit by an addition it simply won't be made.
saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-expansion-front-burner-issue/
Yes, he says it is a back burner issue, but he also says "there's some information there" in our last expansion of Texas A&M and Missouri. Yes, all that says is that schools like Texas A&M and Missouri fit whatever criteria they were using at the time and that criteria can change.
And to clarify, I am not arguing that your criteria are bad or even that they won't be part of the criteria.
|
|
