(05-25-2012 04:12 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 12:51 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  The major thing negative Nancys like Quo is forgetting is POTENTIAL. While many ACC teams pretty much hit their max stride, many nBE teams are barely getting started. ......... This is main reason I just don't see how a new partner pay much less than what the ACC got. They have to protect their investment especially if we are the main college FB they will have in the next 5-10 years.

There is absolutely no basis for thinking nBE teams are "on the rise" with loads of potential whereas ACC teams are "max stride". "Potential" is just an optimistic way of saying "not much present value". And ACC teams can invest in new facilities, etc. as well. Anyone can even Big Four.. E.g., LSU stadium seats 93,000 but they just announced a new $100 million investment to add a bunch of suites, club seats, and 5,000 more regular seats. Anyone can do this.

Might as well argue that ESPN should have been willing to give ACC $23 million a school so they could expand facilities as well, thus protecting ESPN's investment ...

True. But does a 100 million dollar investment to add a bunch of seats and club suits really change the standing of LSU? Now take that same investment and move it to say--Houston. Such a large investment would do far more for a Houston type program than for an LSU--simply because the existing base for LSU is already so high. I think thats all he was trying to say.

Essentially he is simply sayng that the elevated TV income, BCS income, and exposure would help the new programs grow----much as it has clearly helped the past move ups like Louisville an Cinci to become stronger athletic programs.

This is an interesting argument, since it seems to posit a ceiling on how much a football program can grow, a kind of diminishing returns to dollars invested. But, off the top of my head, i imagine LSU plans to make as much money on their new $100m investment as Houston could if they were to make one.

No question, money helps. Cincy and Uconn became much stronger football programs thanks to Big East money. But, they still lag far behind CFB leaders, because those leaders also got better in terms of revenues too.

Maybe there are increasing returns when you start at the bottom: If you have a 20,000 seat stadium and little fan support, basically a IAA program, $100m can boost you to a 50,000 seat stadium and more fan support. Make you rise from the 120th best program to the 40th best program. But, Big East already has loads of programs that have stalled out at between #40 and #60. That's what this kind of investment seems to be able to buy, a quick boost from the cellar to mid-level.

After that, though, rising further is very difficult.

Exhibit A: Boise State

Exhibit A for what? Boise has developed a very good football program without AQ money or support!

(05-25-2012 04:42 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 04:39 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  This isnt bad news to me, its expected news. All of you fans of new BE teams think we're going to get this massive deal are setting yourselves up for a let down. There is no way we'll get a bigger deal than the ACC, we're not worth it. Theres no way we'll get a bigger deal and then add ACC teams, and there's no way that a league will lose TCU, WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse, replacing them with Boise St, Houston, UCF, SDSU, SMU, Temple and Memphis and gain value. The league is a joke now. It's great for the fans of new teams, as you're either in this or "the alliance." But for fans of the old BE, this is a disaster and a massive downgrade and loss to the programs.

I hope theres a big shakeup in the ACC and the remaining 5 BE schools get a life-line out of this mess.

I hope for your sake that you get stuck with us.

lol...+2

(05-24-2012 06:05 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:17 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Okay, I just read through the whole thing. Definitely a difference of opinion. One of them is dead wrong. I obviously prefer the bigger number, but let's try to be objective.

We have people listening to the Fox Sports and NBC presentations, coming out of BE meetings, and estimating $150M a year.

Now we have CBSSports.com quoting former CBS Sports prez Neil Pilson as saying it could surpass last year's offer of $130M a year, OR, using an "unnamed industry source," saying it could be as low as $50M a year. Their arguments for the lower number are:

1) The BE lost 4 teams, and might lose two more. Yeah, we gained 7, too, many of whom are comparable, and account for more inventory, and increased the markets to 32M households, more than twice the next conference, the Pac 12 at 15M households. And we haven't lost the "two more" yet.

2) There have to be eyeballs in those markets to watch. Not necessarily, if rights fees are tagged onto all cable users. Then the market numbers matter. And there is also the chance that new viewers catch on, too. Much better when your markets are that big.

3) ESPN has already spent $8B in programming and mitigated any product losses from last year, so there might not be much more money to spend on the BE now. Yeah, but Fox and NBC money spends, too, and they're both still looking for inventory.

4) There is other CFB programming available of similar quality. Where? The other 5 conferences have locked up deals for the next 5 to 15 years. Is he talking about C-USA and the MWC, where the BE just took 6 teams?

5) How can those schools who just came from the MWC now be worth so much more in the BE? Uh, b/c there are a LOT of other better teams in the BE than in the MWC they just left.

Okay, I'm TRYING to be objective, but those arguments are dumb, IMO. If they weren't, I'd be really concerned. I'll take the estimates coming from conversations with network executives who actually pitched the BE, + the former prez of CBS sports, over "unnamed industry sources" who don't make a single argument that can't be easily debated. JMO.

SMU and Houston don't carry the market in their cities....Otherwise, CUSA would have a greater deal than they do now.

And Memphis and UCF don't carry their TV market in football either. The potential is there but the TV folks are not going to throw billions of dollars at potential.

That's an unfair dig ... LOL. Our fans like winners, they hate thinking small. I think that the NBA Memphis Grizzlies are an excellent example of that ... !!!

I think that you can see that in our UofM football attendance as well. Having a legitimate shot at playing in a Tier 1 Bowl and/or national championship game is huge. I think that you'll see some good things out of Memphis Tiger football in the future ...

(05-25-2012 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 04:12 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There is absolutely no basis for thinking nBE teams are "on the rise" with loads of potential whereas ACC teams are "max stride". "Potential" is just an optimistic way of saying "not much present value". And ACC teams can invest in new facilities, etc. as well. Anyone can even Big Four.. E.g., LSU stadium seats 93,000 but they just announced a new $100 million investment to add a bunch of suites, club seats, and 5,000 more regular seats. Anyone can do this.

Might as well argue that ESPN should have been willing to give ACC $23 million a school so they could expand facilities as well, thus protecting ESPN's investment ...

True. But does a 100 million dollar investment to add a bunch of seats and club suits really change the standing of LSU? Now take that same investment and move it to say--Houston. Such a large investment would do far more for a Houston type program than for an LSU--simply because the existing base for LSU is already so high. I think thats all he was trying to say.

Essentially he is simply sayng that the elevated TV income, BCS income, and exposure would help the new programs grow----much as it has clearly helped the past move ups like Louisville an Cinci to become stronger athletic programs.

This is an interesting argument, since it seems to posit a ceiling on how much a football program can grow, a kind of diminishing returns to dollars invested. But, off the top of my head, i imagine LSU plans to make as much money on their new $100m investment as Houston could if they were to make one.

No question, money helps. Cincy and Uconn became much stronger football programs thanks to Big East money. But, they still lag far behind CFB leaders, because those leaders also got better in terms of revenues too.

Maybe there are increasing returns when you start at the bottom: If you have a 20,000 seat stadium and little fan support, basically a IAA program, $100m can boost you to a 50,000 seat stadium and more fan support. Make you rise from the 120th best program to the 40th best program. But, Big East already has loads of programs that have stalled out at between #40 and #60. That's what this kind of investment seems to be able to buy, a quick boost from the cellar to mid-level.

After that, though, rising further is very difficult.

Exhibit A: Boise State

Exhibit A for what? Boise has developed a very good football program with AQ money or support!

What?

Did you mean "Without?"

Sorry, but I'm confused on the intent of your post.

(05-25-2012 10:42 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 04:12 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  True. But does a 100 million dollar investment to add a bunch of seats and club suits really change the standing of LSU? Now take that same investment and move it to say--Houston. Such a large investment would do far more for a Houston type program than for an LSU--simply because the existing base for LSU is already so high. I think thats all he was trying to say.

Essentially he is simply sayng that the elevated TV income, BCS income, and exposure would help the new programs grow----much as it has clearly helped the past move ups like Louisville an Cinci to become stronger athletic programs.

This is an interesting argument, since it seems to posit a ceiling on how much a football program can grow, a kind of diminishing returns to dollars invested. But, off the top of my head, i imagine LSU plans to make as much money on their new $100m investment as Houston could if they were to make one.

No question, money helps. Cincy and Uconn became much stronger football programs thanks to Big East money. But, they still lag far behind CFB leaders, because those leaders also got better in terms of revenues too.

Maybe there are increasing returns when you start at the bottom: If you have a 20,000 seat stadium and little fan support, basically a IAA program, $100m can boost you to a 50,000 seat stadium and more fan support. Make you rise from the 120th best program to the 40th best program. But, Big East already has loads of programs that have stalled out at between #40 and #60. That's what this kind of investment seems to be able to buy, a quick boost from the cellar to mid-level.

After that, though, rising further is very difficult.

Exhibit A: Boise State

Exhibit A for what? Boise has developed a very good football program with AQ money or support!

What?

Did you mean "Without?"

Sorry, but I'm confused on the intent of your post.

Yes, was a typo, i meant "without".