(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

(01-31-2022 05:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:17 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the B1G and SEC take advantage of divisionless play and expand to 24 teams in a pay for play model, is there any need for them to be part of a CFP? They could just have their own 4 game playoff with their best 16 teams (8 from each conference) with semis on NYD at the Rose and Sugar Bowls.

Yes. But it would be necessary for that third conference to form (choice) in order to permit a natural winnowing (again choice). Not every school can afford this level of play, but some need time to figure that out. Then the 2 conferences absorb the survivors, and the process avoids legal entanglements. Choice has to be a delineator in addition to the cost. What people also fail to recognize is that the reduction in redundant overhead (# of conferences, conference properties, personnel, etc.) by consolidation and the gains in leverage, also yield strength and dividends. Inevitably both permit greater equity when dealing with the corporate network overlords.

What you will see is that one conference will disappear and only four will remain. Why not three?
Three would be a good solution if the strength was located on the coasts instead of the core of the country. By having the weakest product on the wings it makes it necessary to keep four conferences.
ESPN's grand experiment failed when they found the east coast didn't flow north to south like the west coast did.
Another reason to leave the number at 4 is that the infrastructure is already present in that each of the surviving conferences already having linear networks up and running.

I think that assumes that those linear networks are successful and are something that the conferences media partners want to keep going though. The PAC network struggles and best I can tell, we don't have enough information yet to call the ACC network a success or a failure at this point. So I think it is possible that ESPN or others may seek a way out of continuing those networks, one solution being their absorption like the failed Longhorn network will be absorbed into the successful SEC network.

The ACCN is tied directly to the Conference's contract with ESPN.

Longhorn network failed? Not as far as Texas is concerned. Texas was going to receive an average of $15 Million per year whether the network made a profit for ESPN or not.

"That grew LHN's reach to some 7.5 million subscribers, according to Kagan. So, despite a losing football team, Kagan projects the network will achieve its first profit in 2016, at roughly $2 million on net revenue of $32 million."

Definitely, the Longhorn network is a wonderful thing in every way - for Texas. Not so sure ESPN feels that way about it and they may well be relieved to get out of the contract via Texas' move to the SEC. And the same may apply to the ACC network, sure the schools are happy to get that extra $ and have some added exposure. There are fans who wanted to watch games like UVA-William & Mary and NC State-Furman that wouldn't have been widely available otherwise. But it remains to be seen if it will be a profitable endeavor for ESPN, or just a contractual requirement to keep throwing good money after bad that they would like to find a way out of.

I think the ACC put all their eggs in the basket of a network in order to appear to be a big boy conference like the B1G and SEC, unfortunately for those of you who want the ACC to survive, the golden age of conference networks passed before the channel ever launched. It's too soon to know, but it may end up hastening the inevitable demise of the ACC if ESPN ends up wishing they weren't locked into the deal. If there is no more ACC then there is no more obligation to televise an ACC network.

(01-31-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 05:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:17 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes. But it would be necessary for that third conference to form (choice) in order to permit a natural winnowing (again choice). Not every school can afford this level of play, but some need time to figure that out. Then the 2 conferences absorb the survivors, and the process avoids legal entanglements. Choice has to be a delineator in addition to the cost. What people also fail to recognize is that the reduction in redundant overhead (# of conferences, conference properties, personnel, etc.) by consolidation and the gains in leverage, also yield strength and dividends. Inevitably both permit greater equity when dealing with the corporate network overlords.

What you will see is that one conference will disappear and only four will remain. Why not three?
Three would be a good solution if the strength was located on the coasts instead of the core of the country. By having the weakest product on the wings it makes it necessary to keep four conferences.
ESPN's grand experiment failed when they found the east coast didn't flow north to south like the west coast did.
Another reason to leave the number at 4 is that the infrastructure is already present in that each of the surviving conferences already having linear networks up and running.

I think that assumes that those linear networks are successful and are something that the conferences media partners want to keep going though. The PAC network struggles and best I can tell, we don't have enough information yet to call the ACC network a success or a failure at this point. So I think it is possible that ESPN or others may seek a way out of continuing those networks, one solution being their absorption like the failed Longhorn network will be absorbed into the successful SEC network.

The ACCN is tied directly to the Conference's contract with ESPN.

Longhorn network failed? Not as far as Texas is concerned. Texas was going to receive an average of $15 Million per year whether the network made a profit for ESPN or not.

"That grew LHN's reach to some 7.5 million subscribers, according to Kagan. So, despite a losing football team, Kagan projects the network will achieve its first profit in 2016, at roughly $2 million on net revenue of $32 million."

Definitely, the Longhorn network is a wonderful thing in every way - for Texas. Not so sure ESPN feels that way about it and they may well be relieved to get out of the contract via Texas' move to the SEC. And the same may apply to the ACC network, sure the schools are happy to get that extra $ and have some added exposure. There are fans who wanted to watch games like UVA-William & Mary and NC State-Furman that wouldn't have been widely available otherwise. But it remains to be seen if it will be a profitable endeavor for ESPN, or just a contractual requirement to keep throwing good money after bad that they would like to find a way out of.

I think the ACC put all their eggs in the basket of a network in order to appear to be a big boy conference like the B1G and SEC, unfortunately for those of you who want the ACC to survive, the golden age of conference networks passed before the channel ever launched. It's too soon to know, but it may end up hastening the inevitable demise of the ACC if ESPN ends up wishing they weren't locked into the deal. If there is no more ACC then there is no more obligation to televise an ACC network.

I would imagine that ESPN is overjoyed to have the LHN. It's a lower volume network perfect for training and developing new employees.
As ESPN continues to "retire" some of it's higher priced talent. Smaller networks like the LHN and ACCN are perfect training grounds for the mothership, and all the while those units are actually making money.

(01-31-2022 12:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 05:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:17 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  What you will see is that one conference will disappear and only four will remain. Why not three?
Three would be a good solution if the strength was located on the coasts instead of the core of the country. By having the weakest product on the wings it makes it necessary to keep four conferences.
ESPN's grand experiment failed when they found the east coast didn't flow north to south like the west coast did.
Another reason to leave the number at 4 is that the infrastructure is already present in that each of the surviving conferences already having linear networks up and running.

I think that assumes that those linear networks are successful and are something that the conferences media partners want to keep going though. The PAC network struggles and best I can tell, we don't have enough information yet to call the ACC network a success or a failure at this point. So I think it is possible that ESPN or others may seek a way out of continuing those networks, one solution being their absorption like the failed Longhorn network will be absorbed into the successful SEC network.

The ACCN is tied directly to the Conference's contract with ESPN.

Longhorn network failed? Not as far as Texas is concerned. Texas was going to receive an average of $15 Million per year whether the network made a profit for ESPN or not.

"That grew LHN's reach to some 7.5 million subscribers, according to Kagan. So, despite a losing football team, Kagan projects the network will achieve its first profit in 2016, at roughly $2 million on net revenue of $32 million."

Definitely, the Longhorn network is a wonderful thing in every way - for Texas. Not so sure ESPN feels that way about it and they may well be relieved to get out of the contract via Texas' move to the SEC. And the same may apply to the ACC network, sure the schools are happy to get that extra $ and have some added exposure. There are fans who wanted to watch games like UVA-William & Mary and NC State-Furman that wouldn't have been widely available otherwise. But it remains to be seen if it will be a profitable endeavor for ESPN, or just a contractual requirement to keep throwing good money after bad that they would like to find a way out of.

I think the ACC put all their eggs in the basket of a network in order to appear to be a big boy conference like the B1G and SEC, unfortunately for those of you who want the ACC to survive, the golden age of conference networks passed before the channel ever launched. It's too soon to know, but it may end up hastening the inevitable demise of the ACC if ESPN ends up wishing they weren't locked into the deal. If there is no more ACC then there is no more obligation to televise an ACC network.

I would imagine that ESPN is overjoyed to have the LHN. It's a lower volume network perfect for training and developing new employees.
As ESPN continues to "retire" some of it's higher priced talent. Smaller networks like the LHN and ACCN are perfect training grounds for the mothership, and all the while those units are actually making money.

You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Marcus and Luara came from the SECN. But face the music X, linear is dying. The SEC had the highest opening rate reaching over 70 million subscribers and has dropped around 4 million per school in revenue since its zenith. Gamenole is exactly correct that the ACCN opened a few years past peak.

(01-31-2022 09:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

Ok Swagger, what have the FSU fans griped about in particular? The only thing I have really heard them gripe about is why they are getting less $$ than SEC teams. The answer to that should be obvious. And please do tell what is the ACC's best and most storied rivalry for the past 20 years that is not Clemson-South Carolina, Florida-Florida State, Florida State-Miami, and Clemson-Florida State. Please do tell.

(01-31-2022 02:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

Ok Swagger, what have the FSU fans griped about in particular? The only thing I have really heard them gripe about is why they are getting less $$ than SEC teams. The answer to that should be obvious. And please do tell what is the ACC's best and most storied rivalry for the past 20 years that is not Clemson-South Carolina, Florida-Florida State, Florida State-Miami, and Clemson-Florida State. Please do tell.

Clemson v. Georgia Tech

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I definitely agree with this.

(01-31-2022 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 02:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

Ok Swagger, what have the FSU fans griped about in particular? The only thing I have really heard them gripe about is why they are getting less $$ than SEC teams. The answer to that should be obvious. And please do tell what is the ACC's best and most storied rivalry for the past 20 years that is not Clemson-South Carolina, Florida-Florida State, Florida State-Miami, and Clemson-Florida State. Please do tell.

Clemson v. Georgia Tech

Clemson vs. GA Tech the best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years? No wonder the ACC is doomed. I'll give you that it is a classic ACC rivalry at least, meaning a game that has little national importance or interest.

My guess about the game Swagger mentions is FSU-GA Tech. One of the many idiocies of the ACC divisions is that FSU doesn't annually play GA Tech, the nearest ACC school, but we get annual matchups with BC & Syracuse.

(01-31-2022 09:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

Btw, I get what you are driving at Swagger, but it's like me, Texas A&M and expansion to 16. The Aggies and I didn't want Oklahoma & Texas, but the SEC has them anyway now. If you wanted the ACC to survive, you should have lobbied Commissioner Phillips hard about not joining the Alliance and/or not blocking the SEC'S proposal. But apparently, it didn't happen or didn't work, because here we are!!!! The Alliance's and the ACC's only hope, IMO, is to lobby Congress hard about getting involved in regulating the NIL (on a unrelated note, wonder what the IRS thinks about this...) and pay for play. I can tell you right now what the conservatives will say (heck no, we're not regulating it), and I have my doubts about the liberals/progressives wanting to do this either because it will anger their voters if they do, potentially.

(01-31-2022 02:44 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I definitely agree with this.

(01-31-2022 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 02:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

Ok Swagger, what have the FSU fans griped about in particular? The only thing I have really heard them gripe about is why they are getting less $$ than SEC teams. The answer to that should be obvious. And please do tell what is the ACC's best and most storied rivalry for the past 20 years that is not Clemson-South Carolina, Florida-Florida State, Florida State-Miami, and Clemson-Florida State. Please do tell.

Clemson v. Georgia Tech

Clemson vs. GA Tech the best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years? No wonder the ACC is doomed. I'll give you that it is a classic ACC rivalry at least, meaning a game that has little national importance or interest.

My guess about the game Swagger mentions is FSU-GA Tech. One of the many idiocies of the ACC divisions is that FSU doesn't annually play GA Tech, the nearest ACC school, but we get annual matchups with BC & Syracuse.

Gamenole, I will be honest with you and say that FSU-GT looks about as appetizing as Clemson-GT, but maybe, I am wrong. If Clemson-GT is the game that Swagger is referring to, if Clemson and Georgia Tech so desire, they can schedule that game out of conference. With Clemson in the SEC, that would free up an OOC slot for them, since South Carolina now would be a conference game. However, if GT decided to play Clemson OOC, they would have two slots to permanent non conference games, and two doozies at that (Clemson and UGa)!!!! FSU had that setup for awhile, but even they got tired of it, and convinced Miami to join the ACC from the Big East.

(01-31-2022 10:27 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 02:44 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

I definitely agree with this.

(01-31-2022 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 02:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd rather watch Cal vs Wazzu.

I can tell you haven't talked to either Clemson or FSU fans much about scheduling. There's a pretty obvious omission that FSU fans gripe about in particular. And while it has lacked sizzle the last 5 years, you're also not including the ACC's best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years.

Ok Swagger, what have the FSU fans griped about in particular? The only thing I have really heard them gripe about is why they are getting less $$ than SEC teams. The answer to that should be obvious. And please do tell what is the ACC's best and most storied rivalry for the past 20 years that is not Clemson-South Carolina, Florida-Florida State, Florida State-Miami, and Clemson-Florida State. Please do tell.

Clemson v. Georgia Tech

Clemson vs. GA Tech the best and most storied rivalry of the past 20 years? No wonder the ACC is doomed. I'll give you that it is a classic ACC rivalry at least, meaning a game that has little national importance or interest.

My guess about the game Swagger mentions is FSU-GA Tech. One of the many idiocies of the ACC divisions is that FSU doesn't annually play GA Tech, the nearest ACC school, but we get annual matchups with BC & Syracuse.

Gamenole, I will be honest with you and say that FSU-GT looks about as appetizing as Clemson-GT, but maybe, I am wrong. If Clemson-GT is the game that Swagger is referring to, if Clemson and Georgia Tech so desire, they can schedule that game out of conference. With Clemson in the SEC, that would free up an OOC slot for them, since South Carolina now would be a conference game. However, if GT decided to play Clemson OOC, they would have two slots to permanent non conference games, and two doozies at that (Clemson and UGa)!!!! FSU had that setup for awhile, but even they got tired of it, and convinced Miami to join the ACC from the Big East.

Oh no you're right, it's not anymore appealing from a high stakes or national significance standpoint than Clemson-GT. Less even the last few years, since at least Clemson has generally been a top team and FSU hasn't. It's just one of the few games available in the ACC that does have some appeal to FSU fans like me who want to play Southern teams but not 4 from NC, and yet it doesn't occur annually while multiple uninteresting games do.

(01-28-2022 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the answer to the question is no. It doesn’t make financial sense for the SEC or Big Ten to add anyone other than Notre Dame at this point. The big fish have been landed. It’s the same result no matter how many football divisions they have.

You are too focused on what was, and no longer is. This isn't about conferences. It's about product placement and the segregation of product into similarly priced groups and aligned to maximize national audiences. It's business, not sports as we've known it, and values are determined by metrics alien to those once used by conferences.

It is business, and it is about profit, and they don't profit by adding schools to which TV attaches a lower value than the current SEC and Big Ten TV value averages. There's no one the Big Ten or SEC could add, other than Notre Dame, that has enough TV value to belong in their current similarly priced groups. Cable has one foot in the grave, and going forward cable can't justify adding a Rutgers to grab cable boxes.

I'm not talking cable boxes. USC may not be accretive to B1G payouts based on their own numbers recently, but would more people watch USC/Michigan, USC/Ohio State, USC/Penn State, USC/Wisconsin than would watch USC/Oregon? You bet! Synergism exists as an economic dynamic when you can garner many more brand-on-brand games. The same would be true for Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and likely Stanford vs the Big 10 stalwarts.

Clemson and FSU aren't accretive on paper because they play few games of prominence within the ACC. Do they add to the SEC? You bet! The nation will tune in for Alabama vs FSU because of their history. Clemson vs the SEC East is a strong regional set of games. Put them against the SEC West and it's national.

So, Wedge there is much more value than ND to be had, and we haven't even scratched hoops potential.

Now you're talking about "the NFL of college football" concept, where the big brands play each other every week of the regular season and then have an NFL-style playoff tournament. That won't happen because American college football brands are more like the top European futbol brands than NFL brands.

Major donors and bandwagon fans alike want to see their Big Brand crush the lesser resourced teams in their league every year. Example: Ohio State has won something like 90 percent of its games vs. Big Ten west division teams in the last 10 years -- and their fans like it that way. 10 or more wins a year is what they want. They don't want the Buckeyes to play 12 50-50 games a year and win only 5, 6, or 7 of them. They want to play one or two 50-50 games and 10 or 11 games that the Buckeyes have a 90% chance of winning. Ohio State's current situation gives them that. A league where equals play each other exclusively isn't what their fans want. They don't support the Buckeyes to watch Ohio State football scrap around in the middle of the league or worse every year -- they already have the Cleveland Browns and the NFL if they want to watch that.

Big-brand college football operates in a different niche from the NFL. The CFB big brands are expected to pump up their won-loss records with lots of those 90% games. Alabama wants to keep conference mates like Vandy, Miss State, and Missouri, and a few non-P teams on their schedule every year. They don't want every game to be a clash of two top-10 teams. Nor do those other top-10 teams want to play an Alabama or Ohio State every week. A couple times a year is enough for the big brands.

The economics are far different from the NFL as well. $100 million-plus college athletic budgets often get 25 or 35 percent or more of their annual revenue in donations from boosters. Those boosters donate big to fund big winners, not .500 teams or perennial losers. They can all be big winners only if the bulk of their schedules are those 90% games. Big Brands can't all be big winners if they play football only against each other.

(02-01-2022 12:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the answer to the question is no. It doesn’t make financial sense for the SEC or Big Ten to add anyone other than Notre Dame at this point. The big fish have been landed. It’s the same result no matter how many football divisions they have.

You are too focused on what was, and no longer is. This isn't about conferences. It's about product placement and the segregation of product into similarly priced groups and aligned to maximize national audiences. It's business, not sports as we've known it, and values are determined by metrics alien to those once used by conferences.

It is business, and it is about profit, and they don't profit by adding schools to which TV attaches a lower value than the current SEC and Big Ten TV value averages. There's no one the Big Ten or SEC could add, other than Notre Dame, that has enough TV value to belong in their current similarly priced groups. Cable has one foot in the grave, and going forward cable can't justify adding a Rutgers to grab cable boxes.

I'm not talking cable boxes. USC may not be accretive to B1G payouts based on their own numbers recently, but would more people watch USC/Michigan, USC/Ohio State, USC/Penn State, USC/Wisconsin than would watch USC/Oregon? You bet! Synergism exists as an economic dynamic when you can garner many more brand-on-brand games. The same would be true for Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and likely Stanford vs the Big 10 stalwarts.

Clemson and FSU aren't accretive on paper because they play few games of prominence within the ACC. Do they add to the SEC? You bet! The nation will tune in for Alabama vs FSU because of their history. Clemson vs the SEC East is a strong regional set of games. Put them against the SEC West and it's national.

So, Wedge there is much more value than ND to be had, and we haven't even scratched hoops potential.

Now you're talking about "the NFL of college football" concept, where the big brands play each other every week of the regular season and then have an NFL-style playoff tournament. That won't happen because American college football brands are more like the top European futbol brands than NFL brands.

Major donors and bandwagon fans alike want to see their Big Brand crush the lesser resourced teams in their league every year. Example: Ohio State has won something like 90 percent of its games vs. Big Ten west division teams in the last 10 years -- and their fans like it that way. 10 or more wins a year is what they want. They don't want the Buckeyes to play 12 50-50 games a year and win only 5, 6, or 7 of them. They want to play one or two 50-50 games and 10 or 11 games that the Buckeyes have a 90% chance of winning. Ohio State's current situation gives them that. A league where equals play each other exclusively isn't what their fans want. They don't support the Buckeyes to watch Ohio State football scrap around in the middle of the league or worse every year -- they already have the Cleveland Browns and the NFL if they want to watch that.

Big-brand college football operates in a different niche from the NFL. The CFB big brands are expected to pump up their won-loss records with lots of those 90% games. Alabama wants to keep conference mates like Vandy, Miss State, and Missouri, and a few non-P teams on their schedule every year. They don't want every game to be a clash of two top-10 teams. Nor do those other top-10 teams want to play an Alabama or Ohio State every week. A couple times a year is enough for the big brands.

The economics are far different from the NFL as well. $100 million-plus college athletic budgets often get 25 or 35 percent or more of their annual revenue in donations from boosters. Those boosters donate big to fund big winners, not .500 teams or perennial losers. They can all be big winners only if the bulk of their schedules are those 90% games. Big Brands can't all be big winners if they play football only against each other.

Keep selling yourself that it can't or won't. Professionalism says otherwise. NIL is going to outpace donors and media money will drown out gate. The piper will play, and the rest will dance to their tune.

(02-01-2022 02:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 12:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You are too focused on what was, and no longer is. This isn't about conferences. It's about product placement and the segregation of product into similarly priced groups and aligned to maximize national audiences. It's business, not sports as we've known it, and values are determined by metrics alien to those once used by conferences.

It is business, and it is about profit, and they don't profit by adding schools to which TV attaches a lower value than the current SEC and Big Ten TV value averages. There's no one the Big Ten or SEC could add, other than Notre Dame, that has enough TV value to belong in their current similarly priced groups. Cable has one foot in the grave, and going forward cable can't justify adding a Rutgers to grab cable boxes.

I'm not talking cable boxes. USC may not be accretive to B1G payouts based on their own numbers recently, but would more people watch USC/Michigan, USC/Ohio State, USC/Penn State, USC/Wisconsin than would watch USC/Oregon? You bet! Synergism exists as an economic dynamic when you can garner many more brand-on-brand games. The same would be true for Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and likely Stanford vs the Big 10 stalwarts.

Clemson and FSU aren't accretive on paper because they play few games of prominence within the ACC. Do they add to the SEC? You bet! The nation will tune in for Alabama vs FSU because of their history. Clemson vs the SEC East is a strong regional set of games. Put them against the SEC West and it's national.

So, Wedge there is much more value than ND to be had, and we haven't even scratched hoops potential.

Now you're talking about "the NFL of college football" concept, where the big brands play each other every week of the regular season and then have an NFL-style playoff tournament. That won't happen because American college football brands are more like the top European futbol brands than NFL brands.

Major donors and bandwagon fans alike want to see their Big Brand crush the lesser resourced teams in their league every year. Example: Ohio State has won something like 90 percent of its games vs. Big Ten west division teams in the last 10 years -- and their fans like it that way. 10 or more wins a year is what they want. They don't want the Buckeyes to play 12 50-50 games a year and win only 5, 6, or 7 of them. They want to play one or two 50-50 games and 10 or 11 games that the Buckeyes have a 90% chance of winning. Ohio State's current situation gives them that. A league where equals play each other exclusively isn't what their fans want. They don't support the Buckeyes to watch Ohio State football scrap around in the middle of the league or worse every year -- they already have the Cleveland Browns and the NFL if they want to watch that.

Big-brand college football operates in a different niche from the NFL. The CFB big brands are expected to pump up their won-loss records with lots of those 90% games. Alabama wants to keep conference mates like Vandy, Miss State, and Missouri, and a few non-P teams on their schedule every year. They don't want every game to be a clash of two top-10 teams. Nor do those other top-10 teams want to play an Alabama or Ohio State every week. A couple times a year is enough for the big brands.

The economics are far different from the NFL as well. $100 million-plus college athletic budgets often get 25 or 35 percent or more of their annual revenue in donations from boosters. Those boosters donate big to fund big winners, not .500 teams or perennial losers. They can all be big winners only if the bulk of their schedules are those 90% games. Big Brands can't all be big winners if they play football only against each other.

Keep selling yourself that it can't or won't. Professionalism says otherwise. NIL is going to outpace donors and media money will drown out gate. The piper will play, and the rest will dance to their tune.

Doesn't work economically unless TV dollars approach NFL TV dollars. There would have to be enough TV money on the table so that the increase over what the SEC and Big Ten make today would more than offset the loss of donor money. That would require regular-season media revenue (TV plus streaming plus PPV if they use it) of close to $2 billion/year for a 20-team Big Brand Football League. Add another $500 million/year or more to that if overhead is increased by paying every player in the league a "real job" salary, and add even more because the big increase in media money would lead to big salary increases for head coaches and assistants.

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the answer to the question is no. It doesn’t make financial sense for the SEC or Big Ten to add anyone other than Notre Dame at this point. The big fish have been landed. It’s the same result no matter how many football divisions they have.

You are too focused on what was, and no longer is. This isn't about conferences. It's about product placement and the segregation of product into similarly priced groups and aligned to maximize national audiences. It's business, not sports as we've known it, and values are determined by metrics alien to those once used by conferences.

It is business, and it is about profit, and they don't profit by adding schools to which TV attaches a lower value than the current SEC and Big Ten TV value averages. There's no one the Big Ten or SEC could add, other than Notre Dame, that has enough TV value to belong in their current similarly priced groups. Cable has one foot in the grave, and going forward cable can't justify adding a Rutgers to grab cable boxes.

I'm not talking cable boxes. USC may not be accretive to B1G payouts based on their own numbers recently, but would more people watch USC/Michigan, USC/Ohio State, USC/Penn State, USC/Wisconsin than would watch USC/Oregon? You bet! Synergism exists as an economic dynamic when you can garner many more brand-on-brand games. The same would be true for Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and likely Stanford vs the Big 10 stalwarts.

Clemson and FSU aren't accretive on paper because they play few games of prominence within the ACC. Do they add to the SEC? You bet! The nation will tune in for Alabama vs FSU because of their history. Clemson vs the SEC East is a strong regional set of games. Put them against the SEC West and it's national.

So, Wedge there is much more value than ND to be had, and we haven't even scratched hoops potential.

Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

Be honest Dawg, when is the last time that you actually sat down and watched ANY game the involved a PAC or a B1G team?
I would imagine that most SEC fans would watch their team first and then other SEC games before they would venture out to another conference, I know I do.

I don't know about "most" FSU or Clemson fans no caring about an ACC slate, but I will tell you this: when either team plays Carolina, there are always a lot of them that show up.
Also when I travel down I-40/I-85 from Greensboro to get to Chapel Hill and either FSU or Clemson are playing Duke or NC State, there are always a lot of those same fans traveling to get to Raleigh and even Durham.

(02-01-2022 06:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You are too focused on what was, and no longer is. This isn't about conferences. It's about product placement and the segregation of product into similarly priced groups and aligned to maximize national audiences. It's business, not sports as we've known it, and values are determined by metrics alien to those once used by conferences.

It is business, and it is about profit, and they don't profit by adding schools to which TV attaches a lower value than the current SEC and Big Ten TV value averages. There's no one the Big Ten or SEC could add, other than Notre Dame, that has enough TV value to belong in their current similarly priced groups. Cable has one foot in the grave, and going forward cable can't justify adding a Rutgers to grab cable boxes.

I'm not talking cable boxes. USC may not be accretive to B1G payouts based on their own numbers recently, but would more people watch USC/Michigan, USC/Ohio State, USC/Penn State, USC/Wisconsin than would watch USC/Oregon? You bet! Synergism exists as an economic dynamic when you can garner many more brand-on-brand games. The same would be true for Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and likely Stanford vs the Big 10 stalwarts.

Clemson and FSU aren't accretive on paper because they play few games of prominence within the ACC. Do they add to the SEC? You bet! The nation will tune in for Alabama vs FSU because of their history. Clemson vs the SEC East is a strong regional set of games. Put them against the SEC West and it's national.

So, Wedge there is much more value than ND to be had, and we haven't even scratched hoops potential.

Think of it this way Wedge, which would you rather watch, Cal vs Washington State, or Cal vs Penn State??

Plus, Clemson and FSU were both considered for SEC membership in the past. In addition, most Clemson fans and FSU fans will tell you that they really only care about South Carolina, Florida, Miami (FL) and playing each other. The rest of the ACC slate to them is meh.

Be honest Dawg, when is the last time that you actually sat down and watched ANY game the involved a PAC or a B1G team?
I would imagine that most SEC fans would watch their team first and then other SEC games before they would venture out to another conference, I know I do.

I don't know about "most" FSU or Clemson fans no caring about an ACC slate, but I will tell you this: when either team plays Carolina, there are always a lot of them that show up.
Also when I travel down I-40/I-85 from Greensboro to get to Chapel Hill and either FSU or Clemson are playing Duke or NC State, there are always a lot of those same fans traveling to get to Raleigh and even Durham.

Last time I watched a PAC 12 game was last year (2021-Oregon@Washington) about midseason. B1G was last year too, incidentally(2021-Oregon@Ohio State). In fairness X, I am probably the last SEC fan you want to ask about this, because I like Oregon as well, and have family there. If you asked this same question to JR, AllTideUp, or Gamenole, you would probably get a response closer to the one you are looking for, but then again, I could be wrong.

(01-28-2022 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 01:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the answer to the question is no. It doesn’t make financial sense for the SEC or Big Ten to add anyone other than Notre Dame at this point. The big fish have been landed. It’s the same result no matter how many football divisions they have.

You are too focused on what was, and no longer is. This isn't about conferences. It's about product placement and the segregation of product into similarly priced groups and aligned to maximize national audiences. It's business, not sports as we've known it, and values are determined by metrics alien to those once used by conferences.

You are so right JR.
We've been looking at things all wrong.
What's the biggest hurdle for Carolina to overcome in the SEC? The 30,000 to 50,000 differential in seating capacity for football. That's an average of about $5 million income deficit per home game (when you add in concessions, parking etc.) even if all other income sources were equal.
Now if you added Clemson and Florida State to the SEC and moved Missouri, Kentucky and Vanderbilt into the ACC, both groups would be more competitive because all of the schools would be more aligned based on stadium size.
30 schools (ACC/SEC) but broken down into two 15 team divisions. While I'm not sure that division-less is the way to go with 15 (or 16) teams, at least those divisions would be more equitable from a dollars and cents standpoint which would provide more competitive matchups in the future.

Extra Large for the SEC then:

West - ND, Nebraska, OU, Texas, TAMU, LSU
Gulf - Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, Auburn, Georgia
East - Penn State, Tennessee, SC, Clemson, Florida, FSU

Large for the ACC then:

West - Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Mizzou, ISU
Limestone - Vandy, Louisville, Kentucky, Cincy, Pitt
Appalachian - BC, Syracuse, UVa, VT, WF
East - Duke, UNC, NCSU, GT, Miami

(01-31-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 05:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:17 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-30-2022 11:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes. But it would be necessary for that third conference to form (choice) in order to permit a natural winnowing (again choice). Not every school can afford this level of play, but some need time to figure that out. Then the 2 conferences absorb the survivors, and the process avoids legal entanglements. Choice has to be a delineator in addition to the cost. What people also fail to recognize is that the reduction in redundant overhead (# of conferences, conference properties, personnel, etc.) by consolidation and the gains in leverage, also yield strength and dividends. Inevitably both permit greater equity when dealing with the corporate network overlords.

What you will see is that one conference will disappear and only four will remain. Why not three?
Three would be a good solution if the strength was located on the coasts instead of the core of the country. By having the weakest product on the wings it makes it necessary to keep four conferences.
ESPN's grand experiment failed when they found the east coast didn't flow north to south like the west coast did.
Another reason to leave the number at 4 is that the infrastructure is already present in that each of the surviving conferences already having linear networks up and running.

I think that assumes that those linear networks are successful and are something that the conferences media partners want to keep going though. The PAC network struggles and best I can tell, we don't have enough information yet to call the ACC network a success or a failure at this point. So I think it is possible that ESPN or others may seek a way out of continuing those networks, one solution being their absorption like the failed Longhorn network will be absorbed into the successful SEC network.

The ACCN is tied directly to the Conference's contract with ESPN.

Longhorn network failed? Not as far as Texas is concerned. Texas was going to receive an average of $15 Million per year whether the network made a profit for ESPN or not.

"That grew LHN's reach to some 7.5 million subscribers, according to Kagan. So, despite a losing football team, Kagan projects the network will achieve its first profit in 2016, at roughly $2 million on net revenue of $32 million."

Definitely, the Longhorn network is a wonderful thing in every way - for Texas. Not so sure ESPN feels that way about it and they may well be relieved to get out of the contract via Texas' move to the SEC. And the same may apply to the ACC network, sure the schools are happy to get that extra $ and have some added exposure. There are fans who wanted to watch games like UVA-William & Mary and NC State-Furman that wouldn't have been widely available otherwise. But it remains to be seen if it will be a profitable endeavor for ESPN, or just a contractual requirement to keep throwing good money after bad that they would like to find a way out of.

I think the ACC put all their eggs in the basket of a network in order to appear to be a big boy conference like the B1G and SEC, unfortunately for those of you who want the ACC to survive, the golden age of conference networks passed before the channel ever launched. It's too soon to know, but it may end up hastening the inevitable demise of the ACC if ESPN ends up wishing they weren't locked into the deal. If there is no more ACC then there is no more obligation to televise an ACC network.

Man, I have been hearing the same line for ten years...