(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 08:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  I just can't see that many schools being worth it to the Big 10, SEC or the networks. Its the big games that generate big money. Who do you think that would be:
Last 55 years, based on 2024 members, MNCs/top3/top5
SEC 25/61/99
B10 13/55/92
FSU&Clemson 6/16/23
Miami&ND 8/17/24
Big 12 2/10/23
Remaining ACC 1/6/11
All others 0/0/3 (Boise and Oregon St.)

There are 4 that could bring in SEC/Big 10 level of money. And a handful of candidates who might be filler to get each to 20.

Network inventory needs will dictate the size of the conference 20 is possible, but too is 24. It just depends upon whether the network needs 10 games a week or 12. And remember that to keep a reasonable win/loss ratio you need some schools which won't be that competitive in football, and some in the middle. So how do you maximize that? You find your major hoops brands to prop up winter value knowing they won't be so ferocious in the Fall. In going to 24 you can add Winter value without hurting the football balance.

They have the Big 12 and ACC. And at a lower price. Duke in the Big 10 or SEC still has no more value. There's just no logic to 24 for anyone, not the networks, not the conferences, not the individual members of the conference who will play who they want less often. No more money, less exposure, fewer desirable opponents.

As for breaking the GOR, the SEC can wait. They waited 3 years for Texas and OU who are more valuable than FSU/Clemson/Miami.

I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

(10-04-2023 09:56 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 06:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For me, the ideal set up would have been, at the dawn of the BCS agreement, if part of signing on was was an explicit prohibition on raiding each other—you’re free to add any independent or anyone outside the 6 leagues, but no harming each other.

Frank will jump on here and scream that what I’m describing is an illegal cartel, blah, blah, blah. But I’ll ask you this, would you rather have 6 relatively equal strength leagues that see it in their best interest and the best interest of the sport to not harm each other and keep the regional rivalries that built it intact, or this mess we have now, where the financial interests of the networks motivate leagues to poach and ravage each other, destroying long established relationships in the process?

LOL! I’m sorry that pointing out when a proposed solution is per se illegal (and as clear of an antitrust violation that you’ll ever get), it means that you can’t implement that solution. It doesn’t matter how much you like the outcome if the path to get there is straight up illegal.

I mean, they could do it, but they'd need an anti-trust exemption. Which shouldn't be that controversial, as long as everybody wins. Politicians love supporting their state U. Perhaps once the ACC situation gets sorted there will be an opportunity for something like that, though now that NIL is letting kids get paid, I'm not sure that Congress has any appetite to touch College Athletics. Or, really, anything these days, as they're so dysfunctional that they can't even hold onto a Speaker for an entire calendar year.

Sure - the way to make something legal is to get the government to declare that it’s not illegal. (It’s like “The Amendment to Be” Schoolhouse Rock parody from The Simpsons - all you have to do to make an unconstitutional law into a constitutional one is to “just” change the Constitution!)

To your point, though, I read the tea leaves of the politicians very differently. If anything, the one thing in this world (where less than a dozen lawmakers can throw out a speaker from their own party) that seems to get bipartisan support is to absolutely *hammer* the colleges on every issue right now: the left side of the aisle gets to say that they’re compensating student-athletes (and hopefully unionize) and the right side gets to stick it to those elitists in academia. Not only do I not expect the government to intervene on behalf of the colleges, but to the extent that the government gets involved at all, it’s going to be *worse* for the colleges.

(10-04-2023 10:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 09:56 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 06:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For me, the ideal set up would have been, at the dawn of the BCS agreement, if part of signing on was was an explicit prohibition on raiding each other—you’re free to add any independent or anyone outside the 6 leagues, but no harming each other.

Frank will jump on here and scream that what I’m describing is an illegal cartel, blah, blah, blah. But I’ll ask you this, would you rather have 6 relatively equal strength leagues that see it in their best interest and the best interest of the sport to not harm each other and keep the regional rivalries that built it intact, or this mess we have now, where the financial interests of the networks motivate leagues to poach and ravage each other, destroying long established relationships in the process?

LOL! I’m sorry that pointing out when a proposed solution is per se illegal (and as clear of an antitrust violation that you’ll ever get), it means that you can’t implement that solution. It doesn’t matter how much you like the outcome if the path to get there is straight up illegal.

I mean, they could do it, but they'd need an anti-trust exemption. Which shouldn't be that controversial, as long as everybody wins. Politicians love supporting their state U. Perhaps once the ACC situation gets sorted there will be an opportunity for something like that, though now that NIL is letting kids get paid, I'm not sure that Congress has any appetite to touch College Athletics. Or, really, anything these days, as they're so dysfunctional that they can't even hold onto a Speaker for an entire calendar year.

Sure - the way to make something legal is to get the government to declare that it’s not illegal. (It’s like “The Amendment to Be” Schoolhouse Rock parody from The Simpsons - all you have to do to make an unconstitutional law into a constitutional one is to “just” change the Constitution!)

To your point, though, I read the tea leaves of the politicians very differently. If anything, the one thing in this world (where less than a dozen lawmakers can throw out a speaker from their own party) that seems to get bipartisan support is to absolutely *hammer* the colleges on every issue right now: the left side of the aisle gets to say that they’re compensating student-athletes (and hopefully unionize) and the right side gets to stick it to those elitists in academia. Not only do I not expect the government to intervene on behalf of the colleges, but to the extent that the government gets involved at all, it’s going to be *worse* for the colleges.

Frank you are channeling your inner Ronald Reagan, The most frightening 10 words you can ever hear spoken are, "I am from the Government and I'm here to help."

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Network inventory needs will dictate the size of the conference 20 is possible, but too is 24. It just depends upon whether the network needs 10 games a week or 12. And remember that to keep a reasonable win/loss ratio you need some schools which won't be that competitive in football, and some in the middle. So how do you maximize that? You find your major hoops brands to prop up winter value knowing they won't be so ferocious in the Fall. In going to 24 you can add Winter value without hurting the football balance.

They have the Big 12 and ACC. And at a lower price. Duke in the Big 10 or SEC still has no more value. There's just no logic to 24 for anyone, not the networks, not the conferences, not the individual members of the conference who will play who they want less often. No more money, less exposure, fewer desirable opponents.

As for breaking the GOR, the SEC can wait. They waited 3 years for Texas and OU who are more valuable than FSU/Clemson/Miami.

I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitely is.

(10-04-2023 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  They have the Big 12 and ACC. And at a lower price. Duke in the Big 10 or SEC still has no more value. There's just no logic to 24 for anyone, not the networks, not the conferences, not the individual members of the conference who will play who they want less often. No more money, less exposure, fewer desirable opponents.

As for breaking the GOR, the SEC can wait. They waited 3 years for Texas and OU who are more valuable than FSU/Clemson/Miami.

I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitley is.

With the risk of being incredibly wrong, I would venture to say a basic Saturday game vs Charleston Southern would be a good indicator of their national fanbase. Clemson—or any team playing in the playoffs or in a CCG which leads there—has huge numbers because of important games of national interest. My argument is Clemson has filled a slot which would be popular no matter what.

You’re right on the money regarding Oregon. They became a “cool team” with Nike money and uniforms that would make Digger Phelps smile.

I used to think the ACC network would play a role in favor of the ACC surviving.

Now I see how easily ESPN shuttered the Longhorn network, and I am not so sure about the statement above.

(10-04-2023 12:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I used to think the ACC network would play a role in favor of the ACC surviving.

Now I see how easily ESPN shuttered the Longhorn network, and I am not so sure about the statement above.

It's pretty simple math. If ESPN can bundle the schools whose rights they want 100% of into the SEC and get most of the remaining ACC placed (think 5 schools) and Notre Dame is freed, they can close two sets of network overhead and show everything they wanted to show on one conference network, while improving the average quality of the competition both on the grass and the pine. If you think of it as merchandising for traffic it makes sense. Product placement of brands in proximity to one another in a store spikes sales as one commonly sought brand attracts the purchase of another. In football or basketball if you have two recognizable names playing the viewership goes up because even casual fans want to watch. If you look at it just legally you miss the motive.

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Network inventory needs will dictate the size of the conference 20 is possible, but too is 24. It just depends upon whether the network needs 10 games a week or 12. And remember that to keep a reasonable win/loss ratio you need some schools which won't be that competitive in football, and some in the middle. So how do you maximize that? You find your major hoops brands to prop up winter value knowing they won't be so ferocious in the Fall. In going to 24 you can add Winter value without hurting the football balance.

They have the Big 12 and ACC. And at a lower price. Duke in the Big 10 or SEC still has no more value. There's just no logic to 24 for anyone, not the networks, not the conferences, not the individual members of the conference who will play who they want less often. No more money, less exposure, fewer desirable opponents.

As for breaking the GOR, the SEC can wait. They waited 3 years for Texas and OU who are more valuable than FSU/Clemson/Miami.

I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

"Fan Enthusiasm" to me (and network execs) is a combination of Brand, tv ratings, and, yes, game day attendance, though attendance is more of a function of everything else in most places. Someone like Oregon or UCLA can get away with smaller home attendance b/c they matter in CFB or when NCAAT time rolls around, and they draw great TV ratings. Ditto for Miami. If it was just about attendance then we'd be talking about Clemson, FSU, VT and nobody else.

(10-04-2023 11:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitley is.

With the risk of being incredibly wrong, I would venture to say a basic Saturday game vs Charleston Southern would be a good indicator of their national fanbase. Clemson—or any team playing in the playoffs or in a CCG which leads there—has huge numbers because of important games of national interest. My argument is Clemson has filled a slot which would be popular no matter what.

You’re right on the money regarding Oregon. They became a “cool team” with Nike money and uniforms that would make Digger Phelps smile.

Clemson's star has faded a bit over the past couple of years, yet they're still drawing big numbers. It's not unlike FSU or Miami in their down periods, or any strong brand for that matter. They draw huge numbers at their peak (like 10m watching Clemson-ND in 2020) and they still get a bunch of 4-5m games when they finish ranked in the teens a few years later (or 7m against FSU the other day for that matter). Even mighty Alabama draws more eyeballs when they play A&M than when they Ms St, and Clemson will draw the eyeballs against Alabama like we do, or Tennessee, or Florida, etc etc. One of the SEC's great strengths in fact is that there are so many strong brands (with 2 more coming next year) that every week is a threat to have a couple Big Games. You could argue that the very top of the B1G is stronger, but with only 3 of them (until next year) it's hard for them to have as many big games from week to week (and thus harder for them to keep all their media partners fed).

Hmmmm, thinking about the above, it seems like the SEC would benefit much more from splitting out our contract than the B1G has. With Bama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, A&M, OU, UT, the other UT, plus other solid brands with interesting stories/coaches like Kentucky and Ole' Miss, and dare I say FSU and Clemson down the road...there's every reason to expect that we'll have 2-3 games every single week that will draw massive fan interest. No need for NBC to fear getting stuck with an endless litany of Indiana-Rugers or Purdue-Illinois snooze fests and losing the ratings battles to the BTN, but rather it's a feast of Auburn-LSU, A&M-Florida, Bama-Clemson, etc etc etc.

(10-04-2023 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  They have the Big 12 and ACC. And at a lower price. Duke in the Big 10 or SEC still has no more value. There's just no logic to 24 for anyone, not the networks, not the conferences, not the individual members of the conference who will play who they want less often. No more money, less exposure, fewer desirable opponents.

As for breaking the GOR, the SEC can wait. They waited 3 years for Texas and OU who are more valuable than FSU/Clemson/Miami.

I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

"Fan Enthusiasm" to me (and network execs) is a combination of Brand, tv ratings, and, yes, game day attendance, though attendance is more of a function of everything else in most places. Someone like Oregon or UCLA can get away with smaller home attendance b/c they matter in CFB or when NCAAT time rolls around, and they draw great TV ratings. Ditto for Miami. If it was just about attendance then we'd be talking about Clemson, FSU, VT and nobody else.

I think you’ve made my point: if a program is competing for the playoffs then they will draw great TV ratings. Then there are some programs that always draw like the blue bloods. Clemson is not a blue blood. I don’t think they have a shot at the Big Ten whatsoever. SEC? Sure, but the SEC doesn’t need them.

Anyway, as I mentioned in another thread. I’m tapping out of this realignment speculation. It’s boring and actual football is on. Have at it!

(10-03-2023 02:45 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 02:09 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 01:05 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

We don’t actually know the B1G numbers. That huge spread of $7b-$8.4b looks more like $7b with some unlikely every single day. At our current pace, both the SEC and the Pac will beat the B1G’s ratings this year, and the Big 12 could beat the B1G next year if CU continues at this pace. FSU is tearing it up in the ACC, too. NBC has been getting lower ratings than the BTN. Are any of those bonuses tied to ratings, or to ratings relative to other conferences? How hard will NBC and CBS work to pay as little as possible for their low ratings?

I’m predicting now that the SEC contract ends up paying as much as or more than the B1G contract, plus we get the bonus of the 24/7 ESPN hype machine.

Meh, SEC always wins the ratings race; it's nothing new. IMO,the SEC is underpaid compared to the BIG, I've mentioned this before. What do you say we revisit that claim about the PAC ratings when the season is over?

I mean, sure, if you like. I’m anticipating that colorados ratings will decline and Michigan-OSU gets 15m, but the Pac is getting a whole lot of free hype from having so many quality teams, and thus so many games that matter. The other day, I was doing some research and looked back through ratings as far back as 2013, and I didn’t see any 5 week span for any team like CU has had this year. Not the best Urban teams at OSU. Not Peak Saban. Nobody. Deion could be the personification of that celebratizing that Yormark was so keen to talk about last year, in the best possible meaning of the word.

I definitely haven't overlooked the Deion factor. You're right, it's amazing what ratings he has brought in.

I was seeing ads for CU games during other games. Sure helps for ratings when the networks are heavily promoting you and you are given prime slots. I see only 3 games on their schedule where they should be expected to win.

(10-04-2023 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  They have the Big 12 and ACC. And at a lower price. Duke in the Big 10 or SEC still has no more value. There's just no logic to 24 for anyone, not the networks, not the conferences, not the individual members of the conference who will play who they want less often. No more money, less exposure, fewer desirable opponents.

As for breaking the GOR, the SEC can wait. They waited 3 years for Texas and OU who are more valuable than FSU/Clemson/Miami.

I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitely is.

UCLA was ranked for the most part of last year and they were giving tickets away for free. They had one game where they drew more than 45K fans, and that was USC which is actually closer to the Rose Bowl than UCLA is. So far this year they have drawn 43K and 38K in their two home games.

(10-04-2023 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 11:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitley is.

With the risk of being incredibly wrong, I would venture to say a basic Saturday game vs Charleston Southern would be a good indicator of their national fanbase. Clemson—or any team playing in the playoffs or in a CCG which leads there—has huge numbers because of important games of national interest. My argument is Clemson has filled a slot which would be popular no matter what.

You’re right on the money regarding Oregon. They became a “cool team” with Nike money and uniforms that would make Digger Phelps smile.

Clemson's star has faded a bit over the past couple of years, yet they're still drawing big numbers. It's not unlike FSU or Miami in their down periods, or any strong brand for that matter. They draw huge numbers at their peak (like 10m watching Clemson-ND in 2020) and they still get a bunch of 4-5m games when they finish ranked in the teens a few years later (or 7m against FSU the other day for that matter). Even mighty Alabama draws more eyeballs when they play A&M than when they Ms St, and Clemson will draw the eyeballs against Alabama like we do, or Tennessee, or Florida, etc etc. One of the SEC's great strengths in fact is that there are so many strong brands (with 2 more coming next year) that every week is a threat to have a couple Big Games. You could argue that the very top of the B1G is stronger, but with only 3 of them (until next year) it's hard for them to have as many big games from week to week (and thus harder for them to keep all their media partners fed).

Hmmmm, thinking about the above, it seems like the SEC would benefit much more from splitting out our contract than the B1G has. With Bama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, A&M, OU, UT, the other UT, plus other solid brands with interesting stories/coaches like Kentucky and Ole' Miss, and dare I say FSU and Clemson down the road...there's every reason to expect that we'll have 2-3 games every single week that will draw massive fan interest. No need for NBC to fear getting stuck with an endless litany of Indiana-Rugers or Purdue-Illinois snooze fests and losing the ratings battles to the BTN, but rather it's a feast of Auburn-LSU, A&M-Florida, Bama-Clemson, etc etc etc.

I see we've reached agreement, the SEC's deal with ESPN/ABC is below what it should be in both money and exposure. Holding that grudge against CBS for not paying more for the game of the week (and yes, $55M a year was absurdly low) before the contract expired really opened a big opportunity for the B1G.

But also, NBC knew what they were getting into with the B1G's 2023 schedule. There were a ton of quotes about how NBC wasn't that interested in the B1G until UCLA/USC were going to join, likely because they could simulate schedules for a 14 team B1G and see they were snooze fests. NBC is now a huge beneficiary from UO/UW joining in 2024, so it worked out well for them.

(10-04-2023 06:17 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 11:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitley is.

With the risk of being incredibly wrong, I would venture to say a basic Saturday game vs Charleston Southern would be a good indicator of their national fanbase. Clemson—or any team playing in the playoffs or in a CCG which leads there—has huge numbers because of important games of national interest. My argument is Clemson has filled a slot which would be popular no matter what.

You’re right on the money regarding Oregon. They became a “cool team” with Nike money and uniforms that would make Digger Phelps smile.

Clemson's star has faded a bit over the past couple of years, yet they're still drawing big numbers. It's not unlike FSU or Miami in their down periods, or any strong brand for that matter. They draw huge numbers at their peak (like 10m watching Clemson-ND in 2020) and they still get a bunch of 4-5m games when they finish ranked in the teens a few years later (or 7m against FSU the other day for that matter). Even mighty Alabama draws more eyeballs when they play A&M than when they Ms St, and Clemson will draw the eyeballs against Alabama like we do, or Tennessee, or Florida, etc etc. One of the SEC's great strengths in fact is that there are so many strong brands (with 2 more coming next year) that every week is a threat to have a couple Big Games. You could argue that the very top of the B1G is stronger, but with only 3 of them (until next year) it's hard for them to have as many big games from week to week (and thus harder for them to keep all their media partners fed).

Hmmmm, thinking about the above, it seems like the SEC would benefit much more from splitting out our contract than the B1G has. With Bama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, A&M, OU, UT, the other UT, plus other solid brands with interesting stories/coaches like Kentucky and Ole' Miss, and dare I say FSU and Clemson down the road...there's every reason to expect that we'll have 2-3 games every single week that will draw massive fan interest. No need for NBC to fear getting stuck with an endless litany of Indiana-Rugers or Purdue-Illinois snooze fests and losing the ratings battles to the BTN, but rather it's a feast of Auburn-LSU, A&M-Florida, Bama-Clemson, etc etc etc.

I see we've reached agreement, the SEC's deal with ESPN/ABC is below what it should be in both money and exposure. Holding that grudge against CBS for not paying more for the game of the week (and yes, $55M a year was absurdly low) before the contract expired really opened a big opportunity for the B1G.

But also, NBC knew what they were getting into with the B1G's 2023 schedule. There were a ton of quotes about how NBC wasn't that interested in the B1G until UCLA/USC were going to join, likely because they could simulate schedules for a 14 team B1G and see they were snooze fests. NBC is now a huge beneficiary from UO/UW joining in 2024, so it worked out well for them.

Going all in with ESPN in a contract that is yet to be revealed, helped the SEC land Oklahoma and Texas, and soon enough it will help the SEC get what they want from the ACC. The problem with CBS was not only their refusal to adjust for A&M and Missouri's audience share, but because their announcers were universally despised in by SEC fans.

Your slinging a lot of crap against the wall not to have any hard numbers from which to do it. The proof will be in the pudding!

(10-04-2023 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 06:17 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 11:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people underrate Clemson because of their pre-Dabo slump. They are a pretty solid brand in the same way LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are.

As for UCLA, when they aren't pathetic, they draw 60s and 70s. They were pretty consistently in that area until the last 6 or 7 years. Oregon has a small stadium, but they have been enormously successful and so are a TV draw.

Attendance in and of itself doesn't matter, but it is a major indicator of fan interest. Kentucky and South Carolina aren't good TV draws, but Clemson definitley is.

With the risk of being incredibly wrong, I would venture to say a basic Saturday game vs Charleston Southern would be a good indicator of their national fanbase. Clemson—or any team playing in the playoffs or in a CCG which leads there—has huge numbers because of important games of national interest. My argument is Clemson has filled a slot which would be popular no matter what.

You’re right on the money regarding Oregon. They became a “cool team” with Nike money and uniforms that would make Digger Phelps smile.

Clemson's star has faded a bit over the past couple of years, yet they're still drawing big numbers. It's not unlike FSU or Miami in their down periods, or any strong brand for that matter. They draw huge numbers at their peak (like 10m watching Clemson-ND in 2020) and they still get a bunch of 4-5m games when they finish ranked in the teens a few years later (or 7m against FSU the other day for that matter). Even mighty Alabama draws more eyeballs when they play A&M than when they Ms St, and Clemson will draw the eyeballs against Alabama like we do, or Tennessee, or Florida, etc etc. One of the SEC's great strengths in fact is that there are so many strong brands (with 2 more coming next year) that every week is a threat to have a couple Big Games. You could argue that the very top of the B1G is stronger, but with only 3 of them (until next year) it's hard for them to have as many big games from week to week (and thus harder for them to keep all their media partners fed).

Hmmmm, thinking about the above, it seems like the SEC would benefit much more from splitting out our contract than the B1G has. With Bama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, A&M, OU, UT, the other UT, plus other solid brands with interesting stories/coaches like Kentucky and Ole' Miss, and dare I say FSU and Clemson down the road...there's every reason to expect that we'll have 2-3 games every single week that will draw massive fan interest. No need for NBC to fear getting stuck with an endless litany of Indiana-Rugers or Purdue-Illinois snooze fests and losing the ratings battles to the BTN, but rather it's a feast of Auburn-LSU, A&M-Florida, Bama-Clemson, etc etc etc.

I see we've reached agreement, the SEC's deal with ESPN/ABC is below what it should be in both money and exposure. Holding that grudge against CBS for not paying more for the game of the week (and yes, $55M a year was absurdly low) before the contract expired really opened a big opportunity for the B1G.

But also, NBC knew what they were getting into with the B1G's 2023 schedule. There were a ton of quotes about how NBC wasn't that interested in the B1G until UCLA/USC were going to join, likely because they could simulate schedules for a 14 team B1G and see they were snooze fests. NBC is now a huge beneficiary from UO/UW joining in 2024, so it worked out well for them.

Going all in with ESPN in a contract that is yet to be revealed, helped the SEC land Oklahoma and Texas, and soon enough it will help the SEC get what they want from the ACC. The problem with CBS was not only their refusal to adjust for A&M and Missouri's audience share, but because their announcers were universally despised in by SEC fans.

Your slinging a lot of crap against the wall not to have any hard numbers from which to do it. The proof will be in the pudding!

I think Verne and Gary are just universally despised, period.

I don't think it's all crap against the wall. I mean, saying that the money is below value is kind of crap against the wall, because we don't conclusively know that yet since the full contract isn't revealed yet as you note. Though I am inclined to believe that if we're at the point where it seems on the table that UGA/Auburn won't play every year, something's funky in moneyland. As for exposure, the B1G has 3 guaranteed OTA slots every week, the SEC likely has somewhere between 2 and 3 (even if it's closer to 3) because of ESPN/ABC deals with ACC & Big XII.

(10-04-2023 06:37 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 06:17 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 11:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  With the risk of being incredibly wrong, I would venture to say a basic Saturday game vs Charleston Southern would be a good indicator of their national fanbase. Clemson—or any team playing in the playoffs or in a CCG which leads there—has huge numbers because of important games of national interest. My argument is Clemson has filled a slot which would be popular no matter what.

You’re right on the money regarding Oregon. They became a “cool team” with Nike money and uniforms that would make Digger Phelps smile.

Clemson's star has faded a bit over the past couple of years, yet they're still drawing big numbers. It's not unlike FSU or Miami in their down periods, or any strong brand for that matter. They draw huge numbers at their peak (like 10m watching Clemson-ND in 2020) and they still get a bunch of 4-5m games when they finish ranked in the teens a few years later (or 7m against FSU the other day for that matter). Even mighty Alabama draws more eyeballs when they play A&M than when they Ms St, and Clemson will draw the eyeballs against Alabama like we do, or Tennessee, or Florida, etc etc. One of the SEC's great strengths in fact is that there are so many strong brands (with 2 more coming next year) that every week is a threat to have a couple Big Games. You could argue that the very top of the B1G is stronger, but with only 3 of them (until next year) it's hard for them to have as many big games from week to week (and thus harder for them to keep all their media partners fed).

Hmmmm, thinking about the above, it seems like the SEC would benefit much more from splitting out our contract than the B1G has. With Bama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, A&M, OU, UT, the other UT, plus other solid brands with interesting stories/coaches like Kentucky and Ole' Miss, and dare I say FSU and Clemson down the road...there's every reason to expect that we'll have 2-3 games every single week that will draw massive fan interest. No need for NBC to fear getting stuck with an endless litany of Indiana-Rugers or Purdue-Illinois snooze fests and losing the ratings battles to the BTN, but rather it's a feast of Auburn-LSU, A&M-Florida, Bama-Clemson, etc etc etc.

I see we've reached agreement, the SEC's deal with ESPN/ABC is below what it should be in both money and exposure. Holding that grudge against CBS for not paying more for the game of the week (and yes, $55M a year was absurdly low) before the contract expired really opened a big opportunity for the B1G.

But also, NBC knew what they were getting into with the B1G's 2023 schedule. There were a ton of quotes about how NBC wasn't that interested in the B1G until UCLA/USC were going to join, likely because they could simulate schedules for a 14 team B1G and see they were snooze fests. NBC is now a huge beneficiary from UO/UW joining in 2024, so it worked out well for them.

Going all in with ESPN in a contract that is yet to be revealed, helped the SEC land Oklahoma and Texas, and soon enough it will help the SEC get what they want from the ACC. The problem with CBS was not only their refusal to adjust for A&M and Missouri's audience share, but because their announcers were universally despised in by SEC fans.

Your slinging a lot of crap against the wall not to have any hard numbers from which to do it. The proof will be in the pudding!

I think Verne and Gary are just universally despised, period.

I don't think it's all crap against the wall. I mean, saying that the money is below value is kind of crap against the wall, because we don't conclusively know that yet since the full contract isn't revealed yet as you note. Though I am inclined to believe that if we're at the point where it seems on the table that UGA/Auburn won't play every year, something's funky in moneyland. As for exposure, the B1G has 3 guaranteed OTA slots every week, the SEC likely has somewhere between 2 and 3 (even if it's closer to 3) because of ESPN/ABC deals with ACC & Big XII.

Auburn vs UGa and Alabama vs UTen are just leverage to push the network and the presidents into 9 or 10 conference games. Hugh Freeze mentioned it after the game Saturday and has been walking that one back every since. I think if Sankey wanted to move from respected like Slive to hated that would be the way to go. It also allows for pressure on the ADs when it comes to their rigidity in scheduling.

When we move to 20 or 24 schools in the Big 10 and SEC you will see a return to 6 team regional divisions likely with 2 protected rivals from other divisions and and a rotation of the rest completed within 4 years. Think 10 games minimum. If there is a breakaway we'll be moving to an all P game schedule possibly with no OOC games and we'll have a preseason game instead of a Spring Game and it will be an actual game against a local FCS or G5 state school who needs the payday. It will represent the 7th home ticket in the season book and likely be played the 3rd week of August.

The threat against these rival games are almost always a threat to get a concession.

(10-04-2023 05:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 10:08 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 07:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  I tend to agree here. Inventory is definitely not a problem for ESPN, FOX, and now NBC. Inventory will not be a problem for years to come.

I also think Miami is a bit overrated here. Clemson is definitely overrated (by themselves mainly), but Miami was happy as a clam to vote for expansion. Same with UVa.

ESPN doesn’t care which conference these schools are in so long as they are ESPN properties. The only way they voluntarily pay schools more is if they allocate money they’re already paying elsewhere. The slim possibility of that happening just went out the window with ACC expansion, which was lead by Notre Dame—no coincidence there.

Consolidation only really makes sense for ESPN after the current ACC contract is up, which is now looking more like the original duration.

I’d be interested to know how the Big Ten’s cable model works. It’s looking like the last hurrah, so I wonder if they could milk it by offering temporary membership to South Florida and Rice at partial shares and just reap the subs for the rest of the decade. They wouldn’t be distributing a pro-rata share (see UO and UW), but getting a bargain bin deal. The subs in FLA and Texas would have to be worth it though.

Clemson has more fan enthusiasm than any non-P2 (counting all the future adds). FSU is the only one that's even close. Miami is a strong 3rd. Colorado is making a run today, though there's no way to know right now how they'll look in a couple years. Everyone else, including UNC, is basically interchangeable for the P2. I mean, I'd like VT b/c they're so much like my Aggies, but Louisville or Ok St would probably be just as good to most of the SEC. NC St? TCU? Texas Tech? UVA? They're all various levels of "pretty good". The P2 just reeled in 6 BRANDS.

If the ACC had 6 schools on the level of USCLA, UW, UO, FSU and Clemson then they'd be looking at P2 money down the road instead of Big 12 money. Hence my conclusion that the Big 3 get in, with a strong preference for ND as the 4th but a realistic expectation that it will be someone else like Miami, CU, UVA, or VT, and also a possibility that one of the P2 just sits at 19 for awhile. It's not that weird, the ACC is at 17 football schools right now and they seem mostly fine with it.

Fan enthusiasm? A network exec is not using your numbers lol. The Big Ten just added a program that has a 54k seat stadium and another that averaged 41.5k last year; UCLA ranked behind an abysmal CU program (and Pitt, and ASU, and Carolina).

They don't care about attendance, they care about brands. Clemson is a regional brand, even after last decade. Most casual fans couldn't even tell you which town Clemson is in!

"Fan Enthusiasm" to me (and network execs) is a combination of Brand, tv ratings, and, yes, game day attendance, though attendance is more of a function of everything else in most places. Someone like Oregon or UCLA can get away with smaller home attendance b/c they matter in CFB or when NCAAT time rolls around, and they draw great TV ratings. Ditto for Miami. If it was just about attendance then we'd be talking about Clemson, FSU, VT and nobody else.

I think you’ve made my point: if a program is competing for the playoffs then they will draw great TV ratings. Then there are some programs that always draw like the blue bloods. Clemson is not a blue blood. I don’t think they have a shot at the Big Ten whatsoever. SEC? Sure, but the SEC doesn’t need them.

Anyway, as I mentioned in another thread. I’m tapping out of this realignment speculation. It’s boring and actual football is on. Have at it!

49 days of football in a row! We can argue about this some more in a couple of months.

(10-03-2023 04:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Magnificent 7 (ACC version) going to the SEC as a unit is an interesting notion. Do they have the kind of leverage to get the SEC to take them all? I’d imagine they’d be taking reduced shares for some time as part of their buy in.

The leaked Magnificent Seven list implies a certain shared intention.

(10-04-2023 12:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I used to think the ACC network would play a role in favor of the ACC surviving.

Now I see how easily ESPN shuttered the Longhorn network, and I am not so sure about the statement above.

Closing a one school network, with limited range is not exactly the same thing as shuttering a 17 school network that spans the country is it?

(10-05-2023 07:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 12:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I used to think the ACC network would play a role in favor of the ACC surviving.

Now I see how easily ESPN shuttered the Longhorn network, and I am not so sure about the statement above.

Closing a one school network, with limited range is not exactly the same thing as shuttering a 17 school network that spans the country is it?

The Pac 12 regional networks have 2 schools, not one.
The Longhorn network is available around the country. I get it in Georgia.