(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. The SEC wanted a larger presence in the state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

Something G5 fans often overlook. That said, while almost every P5 schools self generates more income than G5 schools--media income is a MUCH larger percentage of the revenue picture when you move away from from the "king pin" P5 schools.

Still--the take away by G5 fans should be that any G5 school is in complete control of a larger potential pot of revenue than they realize. Build your fan base and you dont need a Big TV deal to increase your athletic budget.

(01-14-2018 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. The SEC wanted a larger presence in the state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

Something G5 fans often overlook. That said, while almost every P5 schools self generates more income than G5 schools--media income is a MUCH larger percentage of the revenue picture when you move away from from the "king pin" P5 schools.

Still--the take away by G5 fans should be that any G5 school is in complete control of a larger potential pot of revenue than they realize. Build your fan base and you dont need a Big TV deal to increase your athletic budget.

Actually, not really.

Tulane draws a revenue of about $51-52 m/year (UH is in a similar ballpark). The AAC TV deal is 2m/year.

I know that most AAC schools do not rely on TV money to fund anything they decide to do.

(01-14-2018 02:15 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. The SEC wanted a larger presence in the state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

Something G5 fans often overlook. That said, while almost every P5 schools self generates more income than G5 schools--media income is a MUCH larger percentage of the revenue picture when you move away from from the "king pin" P5 schools.

Still--the take away by G5 fans should be that any G5 school is in complete control of a larger potential pot of revenue than they realize. Build your fan base and you dont need a Big TV deal to increase your athletic budget.

Actually, not really.

Tulane draws a revenue of about $51-52 m/year (UH is in a similar ballpark). The AAC TV deal is 2m/year.

I know that most AAC schools do not rely on TV money to fund anything they decide to do.

Actually so, or at least likely so. If Tulane is like USF or Houston, the way it gets to that $50m "revenue" amount is by soaking its students with mandatory fees for about half of it.

Schools like LSU get to their figure without soaking their students that way. So really, Houston and USF actually have around $25m in real athletic revenue.

Is media a big part of that? No. But if they grew their fan bases, they could generate tens of millions of dollars more even with their bad $2m a year TV deal.

The problem Houston and USF (and Tulane?) have is that they don't have fans willing to pay thousands and thousands a year each for season tickets, personal seat licenses, RV parking, etc.. If they built up those fan bases, money would pour in.

It’s next to impossible to build up those type of fan bases when we don’t have access to a national championship
Houston was on the way to this when they had Tom Herman got everybody in Houston really excited and looked like a b12 invite was more than likely and we started the season beating up on #3 Oklahoma
Then ..., ...we’ll...” ....”, I could use a beer about now

(01-14-2018 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

Not exactly. Would LSU be making nearly $100m a year from local revenue - tickets, parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc. - if they were in the Sun Belt and playing Troy, Georgia State, and FIU instead of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida?

Maybe, but probably not. Even if ESPN wasn't willing to pay more for Texas A/M, they help fill up the seats in Tiger Stadium, as do all the other SEC teams. Those are the teams Tiger alums and fans want to see their school competing against, so you think about that.

I don't think the SEC votes to take in FIU even if ESPN promises them $2m more a school in media money for them because it will better-penetrate greater Miami or something. The stands would be half-empty and lots of fan goodwill and cash would be lost as a result.

IMO, you are largely correct, but too much of media-determinist. You take a correct point a bit too far.

This hits the nail on the head. The media deal is great but ticket sales are roughly comparable. I don't have time to look up actual figures right now but if a school has attendance of 80,000 and an average ticket price of $50 (not including concessions and parking) for seven games, that is $28 million which is almost on par with the media deal. If a Texas A&M, Florida State, and/or Clemson replaces a Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Mississippi State on the schedule then they could charge more for the premium opponents and make more revenue.

While I don't consider Twitter to be a solid "source", it often delivers food for thought nuggets.

I saw one where the poster asked the question "where are schools like OU & TX more valuable to the networks, in the XII or somewhere else?"

The reason I still believe the networks will drive the next round of realignment is that several conferences made out REALLY WELL at the last contract negotiations. The SEC & B1G made that kind of money because the networks (ESPN/Fox) thought they were good investments. When the next round comes up in 4-5 years, the networks and the conferences will have to decide if expansion will be valuable on BOTH sides, meaning is there enough value added in taking an OU to increase the money they get and the ratings they get.

The pie is only so big. The SEC & B1G consume that most of the pie is it appears that ESPN is willing to allow the ACC to take it's share as well. Since the PAC is pretty much an island unto itself, that leaves the XII as the proverbial odd man out. I still believe when the fat lady is singing, OU and TX (and probably KU) will be calling somewhere else home.

(01-15-2018 07:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

Not exactly. Would LSU be making nearly $100m a year from local revenue - tickets, parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc. - if they were in the Sun Belt and playing Troy, Georgia State, and FIU instead of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida?

Maybe, but probably not. Even if ESPN wasn't willing to pay more for Texas A/M, they help fill up the seats in Tiger Stadium, as do all the other SEC teams. Those are the teams Tiger alums and fans want to see their school competing against, so you think about that.

I don't think the SEC votes to take in FIU even if ESPN promises them $2m more a school in media money for them because it will better-penetrate greater Miami or something. The stands would be half-empty and lots of fan goodwill and cash would be lost as a result.

IMO, you are largely correct, but too much of media-determinist. You take a correct point a bit too far.

This hits the nail on the head. The media deal is great but ticket sales are roughly comparable. I don't have time to look up actual figures right now but if a school has attendance of 80,000 and an average ticket price of $50 (not including concessions and parking) for seven games, that is $28 million which is almost on par with the media deal. If a Texas A&M, Florida State, and/or Clemson replaces a Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Mississippi State on the schedule then they could charge more for the premium opponents and make more revenue.

SEC games are roughly $80 per ticket now. P5 OOC games are the same. G5 oppenents are about $70 bucks a ticket and FCS schools about $60. But no, that isn't the next biggest source of revenue. That would be the $800 you had to give to be able to purchase a pair of season books that averaged around $600 dollars each for end zone seats. The $1200 you had to give to purchase the same pair of tickets from the goal line to the 20 in the lower stands or buy tickets in the upper deck. The $2500 you had to give to get lower deck tickets between the 20 & the 40, the $5000 you had to give to get those same seats under the overhang of the upper decks so the sun and weather didn't bother you. The half scholarships you had to give to be in the theater seat section or between the 40's, and the full scholarships you had to give to be in the boxed seats between the 40's and under the overhang, and the 100,000 that had to be given for a skybox, those are the big money makers. And remember the SEC averages 77,500 per football game and that average is only that low because Vanderbilt's stadium doesn't seat 50,000 and Missouri's doesn't seat 75,000 and Missouri didn't sell out last year.

And this doesn't bolster your argument about taking schools the networks won't pay us to take an Iota's worth.

Under Mike Slive 1 rule was adopted after the last expansion that took A&M and Missouri. In the future 1 school to a state would no longer be enforced since the markets clause had been satisfied. The only restriction moving forward to SEC expansion was the candidates had to add to our bottom line. And the only bottom line not in the hands of the schools is the media contract. So if the networks don't add to the bottom line of the media contract nobody is added, period, ever.

The same is true for the Big 10, the ACC, the Big 12 and the PAC.

That's why none of the G5 that were interviewed last year were added to the B12. They even went to a Chicago accounting firm to verify what the networks had told them and no, not even Cincinnati added to their bottom line. There was only 1 school that would have, B.Y.U. but there were other issues there.

Nobody adds a school, any school, that the networks don't agree will increase the bottom line for a conference.

The SEC out earns the Big 10 regardless of whether they have a larger media contract or not because of the donations for ticket sales, and not just the cost of tickets alone.

This year when the Big 10 earns 5 million more than the SEC in per school payouts for media rights thanks to their new contract, the SEC will still out earn the Big 10 in total revenue by an average of 12 million dollars per school. Ticket prices and donations are the reason why, and of course a larger average attendance by 11,500 people per event.

Schools are not added for what they make and keep on their own. They are added because of what they can add to the other schools bottom line and the only area in which that applies is the media contract. The media contract, bowl revenue and tourney creds (both of which pale in comparison) and are also considered media revenue is all that they share. Visiting ticket sales is pretty much a wash. What people donate to L.S.U. or spend on tickets doesn't add a penny to any other conference school's revenue. Only the number of eyes a school can put on an event via the tube matters to the networks.

If you want to use metrics to assess expansion candidates then you need to look at those metrics that indicate their relative fit to a particular conference. Last year the SEC averaged 131 million per school in gross revenue. Take out the difference in the average for media deals between the candidate and their conference media contract and that of the SEC and compare those numbers. If they generate at or above the SEC mean in gross revenue then they likely will add add value to the SEC's media contract. Then compare the stadium capacities. If the roughly average 77,500 per game then there is no variance there to indicate that their ticket prices would lead to a decline in attendance if they join provided their donation levels run about the same. One of the biggest missed evaluations regarding Missouri was that their ticket prices almost doubled in the SEC and that shock helped with their low attendance figures. It certainly wasn't the sole cause as they plummeted after their players threatened a boycott over the Missouri police issue a couple of years ago.

So revenue, capacity/tickets/donations/ and athletic endowment are all looked at prior to getting a media evaluation. Under the market model the SEC had relatively few schools it could add and increase its bottom line: For markets they were Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C.State, and U.N.C.. By brand and national eyeballs they were Texas, Oklahoma, and just barely Florida State. That's it. Of those only Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina could bring enough alone to justify taking as their companion another school not listed here, and even then that school had better at least be earning in the 90 million range in total revenue to be considered and have a strong regional following.

I enjoy these grandiose realignment scenarios like most folks around here and I generate some threads to them. But the list of schools that could feasibly be added to the Big 10 and SEC are fewer than half a dozen and even those would be separated by a wide degree of profitability. Now should the PAC ever become vulnerable conceivably the Big 10 could have about 6 more to consider. But that's about it. I suppose you could add Notre Dame to the list of schools that would be profitable to add to the Big 10 or SEC but I really don't see them being a legitimate target for the SEC.

For the SEC the most likely expansion targets are Texas and Oklahoma and should they not come together, a companion for one of them that at least when combined with the brand doesn't detract from the bottom line. Not coincidentally those are also the Big 10's only viable candidates at the time. Kansas only gets into the Big 10 if they accompany either Texas or Oklahoma.

The PAC is really not a consideration simply because Texas earns almost 22 million more than any PAC school in media revenue and Oklahoma earns about 11 million more. And since the PAC is a media revenue sharing conference I can't conceive of a way that Texas and Oklahoma could earn the PAC enough revenue to give every school in the PAC a 22 million dollar raise to give Oklahoma a nice bump and to keep Texas on par, or why Texas and Oklahoma would choose that when obviously the PAC can't afford for them to bring traveling companions.

If Texas or Oklahoma move at all it will be either to the SEC or Big 10. If the Horns can keep their sweet LHN deal and move like an independent then the ACC might be a possibility.

That's about it. No conference is taking a school that lowers the existing members media payouts. The Big 12 is the most vulnerable and their GOR expires first and they voted to not extend it last year. And of those schools Texas and Oklahoma are the only two that move the needle up for the Big 10 and SEC and of the schools in the Big 12 that qualify to be a traveling companion the list is not long: T.C.U.: markets & total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Kansas: national brand in hoops, total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Oklahoma State: total gross revenue in the 90 million range and may be the SEC's best play to get Oklahoma, West Virginia: total gross revenue in the 100 million range, and a decent regional draw. The only other Big 12 school with gross revenue within an acceptable range is Baylor in the 90 million range, but right now they are toxic.

Unfortunately for Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech they lag too far behind to be able to move with Oklahoma. But any of them could make the cut if paired with Texas. My money would be that Texas would insist on Tech.

(01-14-2018 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 02:15 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. The SEC wanted a larger presence in the state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

Something G5 fans often overlook. That said, while almost every P5 schools self generates more income than G5 schools--media income is a MUCH larger percentage of the revenue picture when you move away from from the "king pin" P5 schools.

Still--the take away by G5 fans should be that any G5 school is in complete control of a larger potential pot of revenue than they realize. Build your fan base and you dont need a Big TV deal to increase your athletic budget.

Actually, not really.

Tulane draws a revenue of about $51-52 m/year (UH is in a similar ballpark). The AAC TV deal is 2m/year.

I know that most AAC schools do not rely on TV money to fund anything they decide to do.

Actually so, or at least likely so. If Tulane is like USF or Houston, the way it gets to that $50m "revenue" amount is by soaking its students with mandatory fees for about half of it.

Schools like LSU get to their figure without soaking their students that way. So really, Houston and USF actually have around $25m in real athletic revenue.

Is media a big part of that? No. But if they grew their fan bases, they could generate tens of millions of dollars more even with their bad $2m a year TV deal.

The problem Houston and USF (and Tulane?) have is that they don't have fans willing to pay thousands and thousands a year each for season tickets, personal seat licenses, RV parking, etc.. If they built up those fan bases, money would pour in.

LSU is a bad example of a university that is financially doing well (even if the football is solvent - which it is).

Also, we don't have full figures on Tulane as they are a private institution and can move money around as they see fit. Tulane's athletic fees weren't that high when I was in school (late 2000s).

(01-15-2018 01:41 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 02:15 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

Something G5 fans often overlook. That said, while almost every P5 schools self generates more income than G5 schools--media income is a MUCH larger percentage of the revenue picture when you move away from from the "king pin" P5 schools.

Still--the take away by G5 fans should be that any G5 school is in complete control of a larger potential pot of revenue than they realize. Build your fan base and you dont need a Big TV deal to increase your athletic budget.

Actually, not really.

Tulane draws a revenue of about $51-52 m/year (UH is in a similar ballpark). The AAC TV deal is 2m/year.

I know that most AAC schools do not rely on TV money to fund anything they decide to do.

Actually so, or at least likely so. If Tulane is like USF or Houston, the way it gets to that $50m "revenue" amount is by soaking its students with mandatory fees for about half of it.

Schools like LSU get to their figure without soaking their students that way. So really, Houston and USF actually have around $25m in real athletic revenue.

Is media a big part of that? No. But if they grew their fan bases, they could generate tens of millions of dollars more even with their bad $2m a year TV deal.

The problem Houston and USF (and Tulane?) have is that they don't have fans willing to pay thousands and thousands a year each for season tickets, personal seat licenses, RV parking, etc.. If they built up those fan bases, money would pour in.

LSU is a bad example of a university that is financially doing well (even if the football is solvent - which it is).

Also, we don't have full figures on Tulane as they are a private institution and can move money around as they see fit. Tulane's athletic fees weren't that high when I was in school (late 2000s).

I referred to LSU finances only in terms of athletic revenue.

Beyond that, Tulane aside, the point about student fees is an important one for G5s. They rob Peter to pay Paul.

(01-15-2018 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 07:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

Not exactly. Would LSU be making nearly $100m a year from local revenue - tickets, parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc. - if they were in the Sun Belt and playing Troy, Georgia State, and FIU instead of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida?

Maybe, but probably not. Even if ESPN wasn't willing to pay more for Texas A/M, they help fill up the seats in Tiger Stadium, as do all the other SEC teams. Those are the teams Tiger alums and fans want to see their school competing against, so you think about that.

I don't think the SEC votes to take in FIU even if ESPN promises them $2m more a school in media money for them because it will better-penetrate greater Miami or something. The stands would be half-empty and lots of fan goodwill and cash would be lost as a result.

IMO, you are largely correct, but too much of media-determinist. You take a correct point a bit too far.

This hits the nail on the head. The media deal is great but ticket sales are roughly comparable. I don't have time to look up actual figures right now but if a school has attendance of 80,000 and an average ticket price of $50 (not including concessions and parking) for seven games, that is $28 million which is almost on par with the media deal. If a Texas A&M, Florida State, and/or Clemson replaces a Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Mississippi State on the schedule then they could charge more for the premium opponents and make more revenue.

SEC games are roughly $80 per ticket now. P5 OOC games are the same. G5 oppenents are about $70 bucks a ticket and FCS schools about $60. But no, that isn't the next biggest source of revenue. That would be the $800 you had to give to be able to purchase a pair of season books that averaged around $600 dollars each for end zone seats. The $1200 you had to give to purchase the same pair of tickets from the goal line to the 20 in the lower stands or buy tickets in the upper deck. The $2500 you had to give to get lower deck tickets between the 20 & the 40, the $5000 you had to give to get those same seats under the overhang of the upper decks so the sun and weather didn't bother you. The half scholarships you had to give to be in the theater seat section or between the 40's, and the full scholarships you had to give to be in the boxed seats between the 40's and under the overhang, and the 100,000 that had to be given for a skybox, those are the big money makers. And remember the SEC averages 77,500 per football game and that average is only that low because Vanderbilt's stadium doesn't seat 50,000 and Missouri's doesn't seat 75,000 and Missouri didn't sell out last year.

And this doesn't bolster your argument about taking schools the networks won't pay us to take an Iota's worth.

Under Mike Slive 1 rule was adopted after the last expansion that took A&M and Missouri. In the future 1 school to a state would no longer be enforced since the markets clause had been satisfied. The only restriction moving forward to SEC expansion was the candidates had to add to our bottom line. And the only bottom line not in the hands of the schools is the media contract. So if the networks don't add to the bottom line of the media contract nobody is added, period, ever.

The same is true for the Big 10, the ACC, the Big 12 and the PAC.

That's why none of the G5 that were interviewed last year were added to the B12. They even went to a Chicago accounting firm to verify what the networks had told them and no, not even Cincinnati added to their bottom line. There was only 1 school that would have, B.Y.U. but there were other issues there.

Nobody adds a school, any school, that the networks don't agree will increase the bottom line for a conference.

The SEC out earns the Big 10 regardless of whether they have a larger media contract or not because of the donations for ticket sales, and not just the cost of tickets alone.

This year when the Big 10 earns 5 million more than the SEC in per school payouts for media rights thanks to their new contract, the SEC will still out earn the Big 10 in total revenue by an average of 12 million dollars per school. Ticket prices and donations are the reason why, and of course a larger average attendance by 11,500 people per event.

Schools are not added for what they make and keep on their own. They are added because of what they can add to the other schools bottom line and the only area in which that applies is the media contract. The media contract, bowl revenue and tourney creds (both of which pale in comparison) and are also considered media revenue is all that they share. Visiting ticket sales is pretty much a wash. What people donate to L.S.U. or spend on tickets doesn't add a penny to any other conference school's revenue. Only the number of eyes a school can put on an event via the tube matters to the networks.

If you want to use metrics to assess expansion candidates then you need to look at those metrics that indicate their relative fit to a particular conference. Last year the SEC averaged 131 million per school in gross revenue. Take out the difference in the average for media deals between the candidate and their conference media contract and that of the SEC and compare those numbers. If they generate at or above the SEC mean in gross revenue then they likely will add add value to the SEC's media contract. Then compare the stadium capacities. If the roughly average 77,500 per game then there is no variance there to indicate that their ticket prices would lead to a decline in attendance if they join provided their donation levels run about the same. One of the biggest missed evaluations regarding Missouri was that their ticket prices almost doubled in the SEC and that shock helped with their low attendance figures. It certainly wasn't the sole cause as they plummeted after their players threatened a boycott over the Missouri police issue a couple of years ago.

So revenue, capacity/tickets/donations/ and athletic endowment are all looked at prior to getting a media evaluation. Under the market model the SEC had relatively few schools it could add and increase its bottom line: For markets they were Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C.State, and U.N.C.. By brand and national eyeballs they were Texas, Oklahoma, and just barely Florida State. That's it. Of those only Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina could bring enough alone to justify taking as their companion another school not listed here, and even then that school had better at least be earning in the 90 million range in total revenue to be considered and have a strong regional following.

I enjoy these grandiose realignment scenarios like most folks around here and I generate some threads to them. But the list of schools that could feasibly be added to the Big 10 and SEC are fewer than half a dozen and even those would be separated by a wide degree of profitability. Now should the PAC ever become vulnerable conceivably the Big 10 could have about 6 more to consider. But that's about it. I suppose you could add Notre Dame to the list of schools that would be profitable to add to the Big 10 or SEC but I really don't see them being a legitimate target for the SEC.

For the SEC the most likely expansion targets are Texas and Oklahoma and should they not come together, a companion for one of them that at least when combined with the brand doesn't detract from the bottom line. Not coincidentally those are also the Big 10's only viable candidates at the time. Kansas only gets into the Big 10 if they accompany either Texas or Oklahoma.

The PAC is really not a consideration simply because Texas earns almost 22 million more than any PAC school in media revenue and Oklahoma earns about 11 million more. And since the PAC is a media revenue sharing conference I can't conceive of a way that Texas and Oklahoma could earn the PAC enough revenue to give every school in the PAC a 22 million dollar raise to give Oklahoma a nice bump and to keep Texas on par, or why Texas and Oklahoma would choose that when obviously the PAC can't afford for them to bring traveling companions.

If Texas or Oklahoma move at all it will be either to the SEC or Big 10. If the Horns can keep their sweet LHN deal and move like an independent then the ACC might be a possibility.

That's about it. No conference is taking a school that lowers the existing members media payouts. The Big 12 is the most vulnerable and their GOR expires first and they voted to not extend it last year. And of those schools Texas and Oklahoma are the only two that move the needle up for the Big 10 and SEC and of the schools in the Big 12 that qualify to be a traveling companion the list is not long: T.C.U.: markets & total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Kansas: national brand in hoops, total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Oklahoma State: total gross revenue in the 90 million range and may be the SEC's best play to get Oklahoma, West Virginia: total gross revenue in the 100 million range, and a decent regional draw. The only other Big 12 school with gross revenue within an acceptable range is Baylor in the 90 million range, but right now they are toxic.

Unfortunately for Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech they lag too far behind to be able to move with Oklahoma. But any of them could make the cut if paired with Texas. My money would be that Texas would insist on Tech.

I don't know how you can say a school such as Texas A&M (or fill in the blank with whoever you want for the example), a school that would improve the home schedule of any school (in multiple sports too), wouldn't allow the new conference members to raise the prices of individual game tickets, season tickets, the minimum donation in order for the right to buy season tickets, parking, concessions, etc. That adds to the bottom line of the conference's individual members rather than the big pot that gets split however many ways.

I'm of the opinion that a conference would send an invitation to a school if they thought they would have a net increase in revenues even if that wasn't financed by the networks and you're clearly on the other side. I'll be done now and you can stop speaking down to me in your condescending tone. Agree to disagree.

(01-15-2018 04:54 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 07:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

Not exactly. Would LSU be making nearly $100m a year from local revenue - tickets, parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc. - if they were in the Sun Belt and playing Troy, Georgia State, and FIU instead of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida?

Maybe, but probably not. Even if ESPN wasn't willing to pay more for Texas A/M, they help fill up the seats in Tiger Stadium, as do all the other SEC teams. Those are the teams Tiger alums and fans want to see their school competing against, so you think about that.

I don't think the SEC votes to take in FIU even if ESPN promises them $2m more a school in media money for them because it will better-penetrate greater Miami or something. The stands would be half-empty and lots of fan goodwill and cash would be lost as a result.

IMO, you are largely correct, but too much of media-determinist. You take a correct point a bit too far.

This hits the nail on the head. The media deal is great but ticket sales are roughly comparable. I don't have time to look up actual figures right now but if a school has attendance of 80,000 and an average ticket price of $50 (not including concessions and parking) for seven games, that is $28 million which is almost on par with the media deal. If a Texas A&M, Florida State, and/or Clemson replaces a Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Mississippi State on the schedule then they could charge more for the premium opponents and make more revenue.

SEC games are roughly $80 per ticket now. P5 OOC games are the same. G5 oppenents are about $70 bucks a ticket and FCS schools about $60. But no, that isn't the next biggest source of revenue. That would be the $800 you had to give to be able to purchase a pair of season books that averaged around $600 dollars each for end zone seats. The $1200 you had to give to purchase the same pair of tickets from the goal line to the 20 in the lower stands or buy tickets in the upper deck. The $2500 you had to give to get lower deck tickets between the 20 & the 40, the $5000 you had to give to get those same seats under the overhang of the upper decks so the sun and weather didn't bother you. The half scholarships you had to give to be in the theater seat section or between the 40's, and the full scholarships you had to give to be in the boxed seats between the 40's and under the overhang, and the 100,000 that had to be given for a skybox, those are the big money makers. And remember the SEC averages 77,500 per football game and that average is only that low because Vanderbilt's stadium doesn't seat 50,000 and Missouri's doesn't seat 75,000 and Missouri didn't sell out last year.

And this doesn't bolster your argument about taking schools the networks won't pay us to take an Iota's worth.

Under Mike Slive 1 rule was adopted after the last expansion that took A&M and Missouri. In the future 1 school to a state would no longer be enforced since the markets clause had been satisfied. The only restriction moving forward to SEC expansion was the candidates had to add to our bottom line. And the only bottom line not in the hands of the schools is the media contract. So if the networks don't add to the bottom line of the media contract nobody is added, period, ever.

The same is true for the Big 10, the ACC, the Big 12 and the PAC.

That's why none of the G5 that were interviewed last year were added to the B12. They even went to a Chicago accounting firm to verify what the networks had told them and no, not even Cincinnati added to their bottom line. There was only 1 school that would have, B.Y.U. but there were other issues there.

Nobody adds a school, any school, that the networks don't agree will increase the bottom line for a conference.

The SEC out earns the Big 10 regardless of whether they have a larger media contract or not because of the donations for ticket sales, and not just the cost of tickets alone.

This year when the Big 10 earns 5 million more than the SEC in per school payouts for media rights thanks to their new contract, the SEC will still out earn the Big 10 in total revenue by an average of 12 million dollars per school. Ticket prices and donations are the reason why, and of course a larger average attendance by 11,500 people per event.

Schools are not added for what they make and keep on their own. They are added because of what they can add to the other schools bottom line and the only area in which that applies is the media contract. The media contract, bowl revenue and tourney creds (both of which pale in comparison) and are also considered media revenue is all that they share. Visiting ticket sales is pretty much a wash. What people donate to L.S.U. or spend on tickets doesn't add a penny to any other conference school's revenue. Only the number of eyes a school can put on an event via the tube matters to the networks.

If you want to use metrics to assess expansion candidates then you need to look at those metrics that indicate their relative fit to a particular conference. Last year the SEC averaged 131 million per school in gross revenue. Take out the difference in the average for media deals between the candidate and their conference media contract and that of the SEC and compare those numbers. If they generate at or above the SEC mean in gross revenue then they likely will add add value to the SEC's media contract. Then compare the stadium capacities. If the roughly average 77,500 per game then there is no variance there to indicate that their ticket prices would lead to a decline in attendance if they join provided their donation levels run about the same. One of the biggest missed evaluations regarding Missouri was that their ticket prices almost doubled in the SEC and that shock helped with their low attendance figures. It certainly wasn't the sole cause as they plummeted after their players threatened a boycott over the Missouri police issue a couple of years ago.

So revenue, capacity/tickets/donations/ and athletic endowment are all looked at prior to getting a media evaluation. Under the market model the SEC had relatively few schools it could add and increase its bottom line: For markets they were Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C.State, and U.N.C.. By brand and national eyeballs they were Texas, Oklahoma, and just barely Florida State. That's it. Of those only Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina could bring enough alone to justify taking as their companion another school not listed here, and even then that school had better at least be earning in the 90 million range in total revenue to be considered and have a strong regional following.

I enjoy these grandiose realignment scenarios like most folks around here and I generate some threads to them. But the list of schools that could feasibly be added to the Big 10 and SEC are fewer than half a dozen and even those would be separated by a wide degree of profitability. Now should the PAC ever become vulnerable conceivably the Big 10 could have about 6 more to consider. But that's about it. I suppose you could add Notre Dame to the list of schools that would be profitable to add to the Big 10 or SEC but I really don't see them being a legitimate target for the SEC.

For the SEC the most likely expansion targets are Texas and Oklahoma and should they not come together, a companion for one of them that at least when combined with the brand doesn't detract from the bottom line. Not coincidentally those are also the Big 10's only viable candidates at the time. Kansas only gets into the Big 10 if they accompany either Texas or Oklahoma.

The PAC is really not a consideration simply because Texas earns almost 22 million more than any PAC school in media revenue and Oklahoma earns about 11 million more. And since the PAC is a media revenue sharing conference I can't conceive of a way that Texas and Oklahoma could earn the PAC enough revenue to give every school in the PAC a 22 million dollar raise to give Oklahoma a nice bump and to keep Texas on par, or why Texas and Oklahoma would choose that when obviously the PAC can't afford for them to bring traveling companions.

If Texas or Oklahoma move at all it will be either to the SEC or Big 10. If the Horns can keep their sweet LHN deal and move like an independent then the ACC might be a possibility.

That's about it. No conference is taking a school that lowers the existing members media payouts. The Big 12 is the most vulnerable and their GOR expires first and they voted to not extend it last year. And of those schools Texas and Oklahoma are the only two that move the needle up for the Big 10 and SEC and of the schools in the Big 12 that qualify to be a traveling companion the list is not long: T.C.U.: markets & total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Kansas: national brand in hoops, total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Oklahoma State: total gross revenue in the 90 million range and may be the SEC's best play to get Oklahoma, West Virginia: total gross revenue in the 100 million range, and a decent regional draw. The only other Big 12 school with gross revenue within an acceptable range is Baylor in the 90 million range, but right now they are toxic.

Unfortunately for Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech they lag too far behind to be able to move with Oklahoma. But any of them could make the cut if paired with Texas. My money would be that Texas would insist on Tech.

I don't know how you can say a school such as Texas A&M (or fill in the blank with whoever you want for the example), a school that would improve the home schedule of any school (in multiple sports too), wouldn't allow the new conference members to raise the prices of individual game tickets, season tickets, the minimum donation in order for the right to buy season tickets, parking, concessions, etc. That adds to the bottom line of the conference's individual members rather than the big pot that gets split however many ways.

I'm of the opinion that a conference would send an invitation to a school if they thought they would have a net increase in revenues even if that wasn't financed by the networks and you're clearly on the other side. I'll be done now and you can stop speaking down to me in your condescending tone. Agree to disagree.

They aren't condescending tones. You are just wrong, that's all. And being wrong is not a bad thing, nor is being right a good thing. And all of us are one or the other on multiple occasions in life. Ticket prices are set to what the market can stand. A new school introduced into the mix doesn't impact what the market will stand. They might be a wonderful school to have but they don't affect the going rate on the ticket prices. What the consumer is willing to pay sets that price and that may vary a bit from state to state and school to school.

I've had family there when realignment was discussed at the conference level. There is one hurdle that has to be cleared before a school is even considered. Does their valuation lead to a NET increase for the member schools or not. Until that is satisfied there is not even discussion.

My point, and it remains, is that no conference today adds a school because they are a great school in a neighboring state similarly aligned academically and philosophically. It was a great time in our country when that happened and ideally it would be wonderful if it were still so, but sadly it is not.

Back in the day sports were a wonderful sideline of collegiate activity for the students. Now it's a business. A cold, unforgiving, and too frequently an uncaring and inconsiderate one. Coaches and A.D.'s are well rewarded to be disposable for no other purpose than a quick change of direction when it comes to the bottom line. Conferences now reflect that. The SECN is a 4.5 billion dollar entity for ESPN. It rewards us handsomely so ESPN has a lot of control just by the power of their suggestions. We are partners in the SECN so their interests and ours must be aligned to a high degree. The rise in valuation for football media rights has doubled in the last 20 years, and has gone through the roof compared to where they were in the 80's. Because of that business is the sole issue on the agenda of the conferences when it comes to realignment. Only when profitability is established do the school presidents start to consider the other qualities of the applicants. And that's true of all of the P conferences and not just the SEC. So since the networks control valuations, and are partners with us in the business venture everything begins with is it profitable.

What conferences do is set parameters for the kinds of qualities they look for in a member school, and then they try to find schools with those qualities who also could be added for a profit.

For the Big 10 they prefer large state schools, preferably land grant, who are members of the AAU, and who are preferably contiguous with their conference footprint.

For the SEC we prefer large state schools, from a loose interpretation of the South, who preferably are members of the AAU and are contiguous with our conference footprint.

But both of our conferences insist that first they must be able to add to the NET payouts to the member schools.

It's just one of those things that simply is. If my tone sounded condescending it was merely my disbelief that this isn't widely enough understood to avoid this kind of conversation.

Peripherally, if this board grasped the concept they would realize why arbitrarily some schools with solid gross total revenues, decently proportioned athletic endowments, and moderately good attendance are not in the P5 already. And why other schools no matter how competitive they might be on the field or court never will be in a P5 conference.

It is not a segregation by ability. It is a segregation by profit. True some schools have been grandfathered in by being conference members since before the time college sports became a big time business, but most of those schools are still in the top 65 in earnings. Wake Forest and Georgia Tech are the two exceptions.

Connecticut has the misfortune of not fitting the Big 10 profile, not fitting the Southern or contiguous requirement of the SEC, and not being as valuable to the ACC in terms of markets as Boston College and Syracuse and when added to their relatively low attendance in football it simply was the perfect storm against them.

If the Big 12 breaks up Iowa State and Kansas State are in tough spots. They aren't strong national or even regional draws for television values to be very high and they aren't the top brands in their states. But both do quite well with revenue, have loyal fans, and better than average attendance.

The best definition of the G5 is that they are fellow FBS schools who aren't in a P conference because of market valuations. When this gets confused with the ability to compete it leads to all kinds of anger and frustration. Fans take it that way too frequently. There have always been some powerhouse G5 programs capable of beating P5 schools and probably always will be. Because of that their fans take their ire out on the P conferences and their fans. But it is the networks that don't want schools in their playoff that can't draw and hold a large national audiences. But sadly that perception of not being able to carry a national audience also affects some P5 schools as well.

The fights on this board would be better directed toward the networks than at any conference or school. Why are the SEC and Big 10 the darlings of networks like ESPN? We draw higher audience participation numbers which drive advertising profits for the networks. In other words it is the same business decisions that drive realignment, is it profitable. It's not, "is it fair", or "is it just", or "were they the best football team". That's why some here call it a fake championship and in that regard I do not disagree.

My first post on this board still stands. What was a sleepy, beloved, regional, passionate pass time of our nation, college football, was seen after the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA case as a disorganized and undeveloped popular product with an extremely large upside, and if schools were going to, through their conferences, attain their own media contracts, they were in fact an obtainable and exploitable commodity for the networks. So through media deals and network control our favorite sport was the victim of a hostile takeover by profiteers whose acquisition coincided serendipitously with shrinking revenue from the Federal Government and State governments creating the perfect environment through which the leadership of the conferences would listen and go along with whatever it was that paid them more.

What we have today is the fallout from that ongoing event. To understand what profits the networks is to understand where we are all headed with this. To think it is about Big 10 vs SEC or P5 vs G5 is to wholly miss the picture. It's about network profits and there power is exercised by increasing conference profits. So long as it is about profit both the conferences and the networks are aligned.

The real question is who is the 6th vote to kill the Big 12? Texas and Oklahoma can find a place anywhere. Texas Tech and Oklahoma state can leverage their respective legislators to tag along where UT and OU go. Kansas can find a home but probably can't leave without Kansas State. Who takes Kansas State to get Kansas? Or who takes WVU? Seems like WVU or Kansas State would be the logical 6th vote to disband the conference.

(01-16-2018 10:50 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The real question is who is the 6th vote to kill the Big 12? Texas and Oklahoma can find a place anywhere. Texas Tech and Oklahoma state can leverage their respective legislators to tag along where UT and OU go. Kansas can find a home but probably can't leave without Kansas State. Who takes Kansas State to get Kansas? Or who takes WVU? Seems like WVU or Kansas State would be the logical 6th vote to disband the conference.

The Big 12 requires a 3/4's vote to disband. It would take 8 schools. So if Texas and/or Oklahoma ever leave to go anywhere it will likely have to be after the GOR expires or at least announced two years prior. So 2023 for notification and 2025 for movement. West Virginia might well find a home. But Baylor and Kansas State will be hard to place and Iowa State will need some coattails. T.C.U. actually is the best positioned to be included somewhere. Their total gross revenue for the athletic department is in the mid 90 million range and they are in DFW.

(01-15-2018 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 04:54 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 07:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not exactly. Would LSU be making nearly $100m a year from local revenue - tickets, parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc. - if they were in the Sun Belt and playing Troy, Georgia State, and FIU instead of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida?

Maybe, but probably not. Even if ESPN wasn't willing to pay more for Texas A/M, they help fill up the seats in Tiger Stadium, as do all the other SEC teams. Those are the teams Tiger alums and fans want to see their school competing against, so you think about that.

I don't think the SEC votes to take in FIU even if ESPN promises them $2m more a school in media money for them because it will better-penetrate greater Miami or something. The stands would be half-empty and lots of fan goodwill and cash would be lost as a result.

IMO, you are largely correct, but too much of media-determinist. You take a correct point a bit too far.

This hits the nail on the head. The media deal is great but ticket sales are roughly comparable. I don't have time to look up actual figures right now but if a school has attendance of 80,000 and an average ticket price of $50 (not including concessions and parking) for seven games, that is $28 million which is almost on par with the media deal. If a Texas A&M, Florida State, and/or Clemson replaces a Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Mississippi State on the schedule then they could charge more for the premium opponents and make more revenue.

SEC games are roughly $80 per ticket now. P5 OOC games are the same. G5 oppenents are about $70 bucks a ticket and FCS schools about $60. But no, that isn't the next biggest source of revenue. That would be the $800 you had to give to be able to purchase a pair of season books that averaged around $600 dollars each for end zone seats. The $1200 you had to give to purchase the same pair of tickets from the goal line to the 20 in the lower stands or buy tickets in the upper deck. The $2500 you had to give to get lower deck tickets between the 20 & the 40, the $5000 you had to give to get those same seats under the overhang of the upper decks so the sun and weather didn't bother you. The half scholarships you had to give to be in the theater seat section or between the 40's, and the full scholarships you had to give to be in the boxed seats between the 40's and under the overhang, and the 100,000 that had to be given for a skybox, those are the big money makers. And remember the SEC averages 77,500 per football game and that average is only that low because Vanderbilt's stadium doesn't seat 50,000 and Missouri's doesn't seat 75,000 and Missouri didn't sell out last year.

And this doesn't bolster your argument about taking schools the networks won't pay us to take an Iota's worth.

Under Mike Slive 1 rule was adopted after the last expansion that took A&M and Missouri. In the future 1 school to a state would no longer be enforced since the markets clause had been satisfied. The only restriction moving forward to SEC expansion was the candidates had to add to our bottom line. And the only bottom line not in the hands of the schools is the media contract. So if the networks don't add to the bottom line of the media contract nobody is added, period, ever.

The same is true for the Big 10, the ACC, the Big 12 and the PAC.

That's why none of the G5 that were interviewed last year were added to the B12. They even went to a Chicago accounting firm to verify what the networks had told them and no, not even Cincinnati added to their bottom line. There was only 1 school that would have, B.Y.U. but there were other issues there.

Nobody adds a school, any school, that the networks don't agree will increase the bottom line for a conference.

The SEC out earns the Big 10 regardless of whether they have a larger media contract or not because of the donations for ticket sales, and not just the cost of tickets alone.

This year when the Big 10 earns 5 million more than the SEC in per school payouts for media rights thanks to their new contract, the SEC will still out earn the Big 10 in total revenue by an average of 12 million dollars per school. Ticket prices and donations are the reason why, and of course a larger average attendance by 11,500 people per event.

Schools are not added for what they make and keep on their own. They are added because of what they can add to the other schools bottom line and the only area in which that applies is the media contract. The media contract, bowl revenue and tourney creds (both of which pale in comparison) and are also considered media revenue is all that they share. Visiting ticket sales is pretty much a wash. What people donate to L.S.U. or spend on tickets doesn't add a penny to any other conference school's revenue. Only the number of eyes a school can put on an event via the tube matters to the networks.

If you want to use metrics to assess expansion candidates then you need to look at those metrics that indicate their relative fit to a particular conference. Last year the SEC averaged 131 million per school in gross revenue. Take out the difference in the average for media deals between the candidate and their conference media contract and that of the SEC and compare those numbers. If they generate at or above the SEC mean in gross revenue then they likely will add add value to the SEC's media contract. Then compare the stadium capacities. If the roughly average 77,500 per game then there is no variance there to indicate that their ticket prices would lead to a decline in attendance if they join provided their donation levels run about the same. One of the biggest missed evaluations regarding Missouri was that their ticket prices almost doubled in the SEC and that shock helped with their low attendance figures. It certainly wasn't the sole cause as they plummeted after their players threatened a boycott over the Missouri police issue a couple of years ago.

So revenue, capacity/tickets/donations/ and athletic endowment are all looked at prior to getting a media evaluation. Under the market model the SEC had relatively few schools it could add and increase its bottom line: For markets they were Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C.State, and U.N.C.. By brand and national eyeballs they were Texas, Oklahoma, and just barely Florida State. That's it. Of those only Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina could bring enough alone to justify taking as their companion another school not listed here, and even then that school had better at least be earning in the 90 million range in total revenue to be considered and have a strong regional following.

I enjoy these grandiose realignment scenarios like most folks around here and I generate some threads to them. But the list of schools that could feasibly be added to the Big 10 and SEC are fewer than half a dozen and even those would be separated by a wide degree of profitability. Now should the PAC ever become vulnerable conceivably the Big 10 could have about 6 more to consider. But that's about it. I suppose you could add Notre Dame to the list of schools that would be profitable to add to the Big 10 or SEC but I really don't see them being a legitimate target for the SEC.

For the SEC the most likely expansion targets are Texas and Oklahoma and should they not come together, a companion for one of them that at least when combined with the brand doesn't detract from the bottom line. Not coincidentally those are also the Big 10's only viable candidates at the time. Kansas only gets into the Big 10 if they accompany either Texas or Oklahoma.

The PAC is really not a consideration simply because Texas earns almost 22 million more than any PAC school in media revenue and Oklahoma earns about 11 million more. And since the PAC is a media revenue sharing conference I can't conceive of a way that Texas and Oklahoma could earn the PAC enough revenue to give every school in the PAC a 22 million dollar raise to give Oklahoma a nice bump and to keep Texas on par, or why Texas and Oklahoma would choose that when obviously the PAC can't afford for them to bring traveling companions.

If Texas or Oklahoma move at all it will be either to the SEC or Big 10. If the Horns can keep their sweet LHN deal and move like an independent then the ACC might be a possibility.

That's about it. No conference is taking a school that lowers the existing members media payouts. The Big 12 is the most vulnerable and their GOR expires first and they voted to not extend it last year. And of those schools Texas and Oklahoma are the only two that move the needle up for the Big 10 and SEC and of the schools in the Big 12 that qualify to be a traveling companion the list is not long: T.C.U.: markets & total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Kansas: national brand in hoops, total gross revenue in the 90 million range, Oklahoma State: total gross revenue in the 90 million range and may be the SEC's best play to get Oklahoma, West Virginia: total gross revenue in the 100 million range, and a decent regional draw. The only other Big 12 school with gross revenue within an acceptable range is Baylor in the 90 million range, but right now they are toxic.

Unfortunately for Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech they lag too far behind to be able to move with Oklahoma. But any of them could make the cut if paired with Texas. My money would be that Texas would insist on Tech.

I don't know how you can say a school such as Texas A&M (or fill in the blank with whoever you want for the example), a school that would improve the home schedule of any school (in multiple sports too), wouldn't allow the new conference members to raise the prices of individual game tickets, season tickets, the minimum donation in order for the right to buy season tickets, parking, concessions, etc. That adds to the bottom line of the conference's individual members rather than the big pot that gets split however many ways.

I'm of the opinion that a conference would send an invitation to a school if they thought they would have a net increase in revenues even if that wasn't financed by the networks and you're clearly on the other side. I'll be done now and you can stop speaking down to me in your condescending tone. Agree to disagree.

They aren't condescending tones. You are just wrong, that's all. And being wrong is not a bad thing, nor is being right a good thing. And all of us are one or the other on multiple occasions in life. Ticket prices are set to what the market can stand. A new school introduced into the mix doesn't impact what the market will stand. They might be a wonderful school to have but they don't affect the going rate on the ticket prices. What the consumer is willing to pay sets that price and that may vary a bit from state to state and school to school.

I've had family there when realignment was discussed at the conference level. There is one hurdle that has to be cleared before a school is even considered. Does their valuation lead to a NET increase for the member schools or not. Until that is satisfied there is not even discussion.

My point, and it remains, is that no conference today adds a school because they are a great school in a neighboring state similarly aligned academically and philosophically. It was a great time in our country when that happened and ideally it would be wonderful if it were still so, but sadly it is not.

Back in the day sports was a wonderful sideline of collegiate activity for the students. Now it's a business. A cold, unforgiving, and too frequently an uncaring and inconsiderate one. Coaches and A.D.'s are well rewarded to be disposable for no other purpose than a quick change of direction when it comes to the bottom line. Conferences now reflect that. The SECN is a 4.5 billion dollar entity for ESPN. It rewards us handsomely so ESPN has a lot of control just by the power of their suggestions. We are partners in the SECN so their interests and ours must be aligned to a high degree. The rise in valuation for football media rights has doubled in the last 20 years, and has gone through the roof compared to where they were in the 80's. Because of that business is the sole issue on the agenda of the conferences when it comes to realignment. Only when profitability is established do the school presidents start to consider the other qualities of the applicants. And that's true of all of the P conferences and not just the SEC. So since the networks control valuations, and are partners with us in the business venture everything begins with is it profitable.

What conferences do is set parameters for the kinds of qualities they look for in a member school, and then they try to find schools with those qualities who also could be added for a profit.

For the Big 10 they prefer large state schools, preferably land grant, who are members of the AAU, and who are preferably contiguous with their conference footprint.

For the SEC we prefer large state schools, from a loose interpretation of the South, who preferably are members of the AAU and are contiguous with our conference footprint.

But both of our conferences insist that first they must be able to add to the NET payouts to the member schools.

It's just one of those things that simply is. If my tone sounded condescending it was merely my disbelief that this isn't widely enough understood to avoid this kind of conversation.

Peripherally, if this board grasped the concept they would realize why arbitrarily some schools with solid gross total revenues, decently proportioned athletic endowments, and moderately good attendance are not in the P5 already. And why other schools no matter how competitive they might be on the field or court never will be in a P5 conference.

It is not a segregation by ability. It is a segregation by profit. True some schools have been grandfathered in by being conference members since before the time college sports became a big time business, but most of those schools are still in the top 65 in earnings. Wake Forest and Georgia Tech are the two exceptions.

Connecticut has the misfortune of not fitting the Big 10 profile, not fitting the Southern or contiguous requirement of the SEC, and not being as valuable to the ACC in terms of markets as Boston College and Syracuse and when added to their relatively low attendance in football it simply was the perfect storm against them.

If the Big 12 breaks up Iowa State and Kansas State are in tough spots. They aren't strong national or even regional draws for television values to be very high and they aren't the top brands in their states. But both do quite well with revenue, have loyal fans, and better than average attendance.

The best definition of the G5 is that they are fellow FBS schools who aren't in a P conference because of market valuations. When this gets confused with the ability to compete it leads to all kinds of anger and frustration. Fans take it that way too frequently. There have always been some powerhouse G5 programs capable of beating P5 schools and probably always will be. Because of that their fans take their ire out on the P conferences and their fans. But it is the networks that don't want schools in their playoff that can't draw and hold a large national audiences. But sadly that perception of not being able to carry a national audience also affects some P5 schools as well.

The fights on this board would be better directed toward the networks than at any conference or school. Why are the SEC and Big 10 the darlings of networks like ESPN? We draw higher audience participation numbers which drive advertising profits for the networks. In other words it is the same business decisions that drive realignment, is it profitable. It's not, "is it fair", or "is it just", or "were they the best football team". That's why some here call it a fake championship and in that regard I do not disagree.

My first post on this board still stands. What was a sleepy, beloved, regional, passionate pass time of our nation, college football, was seen after the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA case as a disorganized and undeveloped popular product with an extremely large upside, and if schools were going to, through their conferences, attain their own media contracts, they were in fact an obtainable and exploitable commodity for the networks. So through media deals and network control our favorite sport was the victim of a hostile takeover by profiteers whose acquisition coincided serendipitously with shrinking revenue from the Federal Government and State governments creating the perfect environment through which the leadership of the conferences would listen and go along with whatever it was that paid them more.

What we have today is the fallout from that ongoing event. To understand what profits the networks is to understand where we are all headed with this. To think it is about Big 10 vs SEC or P5 vs G5 is to wholly miss the picture. It's about network profits and there power is exercised by increasing conference profits. So long as it is about profit both the conferences and the networks are aligned.

WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

Another 10 page thread 4 "delusional" fans assuming Big 12 folds.

Ask one question:
What situation/realignment scenario benefits Texas the most?

Answer?
Staying put.

I do not care what happens to the Big 12. I'm happy that Louisville is in the ACC. I am sure glad we were not stuck in the Texas train wreck conference.

(01-16-2018 12:46 PM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

Another 10 page thread 4 "delusional" fans assuming Big 12 folds.

Ask one question:
What situation/realignment scenario benefits Texas the most?

Answer?
Staying put.

Unless, of course, OU & KU decide that greener pastures are in the SEC, B1G, or PAC and leave, taking their little brothers with them resulting in WVU bolting as well.

Then staying put will amount to Texas and a bunch of

It's not like that scenario is a complete fantasy either.

At that point in time, somewhere else might be Texas' best option.

(01-16-2018 01:26 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I do not care what happens to the Big 12. I'm happy that Louisville is in the ACC. I am sure glad we were not stuck in the Texas train wreck conference.

Come on. What you're really happy about is that you're not stuck in the AAC. The Big 12 would be heaven by comparison.

(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.
l.

So., what you just said was... you are old Quo?