Damn, Tallgrass's trollings even got Frank to put on the gloves.

LOL... one would certainly have to wonder what bottom line Penn St and Rutgers were looking at.

Just two conferences at different points in time.

The B10 is adding to increase revenue on its own through tv sets... the ACC adding what its tv partner (ESPN) wants. The ACC needs a business plan for creating its own network. Adding a Ky school with a state pop of 4M doesn't exactly add a lot of tv sets if you're looking at a network.

For that matter, even considering Penn St is duplicating the Pa TV market, providing the dynamics of a tv network are the same as the Big 10 and SEC.

I've learned to not say never about anything in life, but...

The ACC isn't getting a cable network of it's own namesake. ESPN will just give them the pay rather than having the much higher expenditure of creating two Conference Networks at the same time considering they would be competing against each other in some States.

Most ACC posters have piped down about the Network, even they have come to realize the sales job ESPN and certain ACC administrators have put upon their ACC flock.

I've never understood people's infatuation with having a conference network. Conferences with networks don't inherently make more money. It worked for the B1G because TV contracts happened to be undervalues at the time, and then sports exploded shortly thereafter. If that growth slows down, the BTN will be a liability. The same is true with the PAC and the SECN.

In fact, the MTN has already folded.

Penn State and Rutgers are where they should be in the Big Ten. Neither is a cultural fit for the ACC.

(12-29-2013 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I've never understood people's infatuation with having a conference network. Conferences with networks don't inherently make more money. It worked for the B1G because TV contracts happened to be undervalues at the time, and then sports exploded shortly thereafter. If that growth slows down, the BTN will be a liability. The same is true with the PAC and the SECN.

In fact, the MTN has already folded.

The MTN's problem was that there weren't enough eyeballs watching to make the network financially viable.

(12-29-2013 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I've never understood people's infatuation with having a conference network. Conferences with networks don't inherently make more money. It worked for the B1G because TV contracts happened to be undervalues at the time, and then sports exploded shortly thereafter. If that growth slows down, the BTN will be a liability. The same is true with the PAC and the SECN.

In fact, the MTN has already folded.

You're correct that conference networks don't inherently make money. Conference networks that have conferences with top tier fan bases like the Big Ten and the SEC, though, make money. It's also how the Yankees (YES) and Red Sox (NESN) and other valuable sports entities make the money if they actually have large and deep fan bases. These networks also provide the backbone infrastructure to distribute games efficiently over the Internet (so the argument that I see a lot lately that declines in basic cable subscriptions would boomerang those without conference networks ahead is completely misguided, as the elements that allowed the BTN to be successful in the first place also translate into the a la carte Internet world).

ACC fans and, to a lesser extent, Big 12 fans (besides Texas) basically have to hope that these networks will fail or else they'll be exponentially further behind the Big Ten, SEC and even the less rabid fan bases of the Pac-12.

Regardless, by any off-the-field metric - 1st and 2 tier TV contracts, 3rd tier networks, bowl tie-ins, attendance, etc. - the Big Ten and SEC are ahead of everyone else. To paraphrase Duke's own AD, anyone that thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

Should I add a Lamborghini AND a Ferrari?
How about a personal jet AND a private island?
(side note: why wasn't I informed that pigs were flying now?)

(12-29-2013 10:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I've never understood people's infatuation with having a conference network. Conferences with networks don't inherently make more money. It worked for the B1G because TV contracts happened to be undervalues at the time, and then sports exploded shortly thereafter. If that growth slows down, the BTN will be a liability. The same is true with the PAC and the SECN.

In fact, the MTN has already folded.

You're correct that conference networks don't inherently make money. Conference networks that have conferences with top tier fan bases like the Big Ten and the SEC, though, make money. It's also how the Yankees (YES) and Red Sox (NESN) and other valuable sports entities make the money if they actually have large and deep fan bases. These networks also provide the backbone infrastructure to distribute games efficiently over the Internet (so the argument that I see a lot lately that declines in basic cable subscriptions would boomerang those without conference networks ahead is completely misguided, as the elements that allowed the BTN to be successful in the first place also translate into the a la carte Internet world).

ACC fans and, to a lesser extent, Big 12 fans (besides Texas) basically have to hope that these networks will fail or else they'll be exponentially further behind the Big Ten, SEC and even the less rabid fan bases of the Pac-12.

Regardless, by any off-the-field metric - 1st and 2 tier TV contracts, 3rd tier networks, bowl tie-ins, attendance, etc. - the Big Ten and SEC are ahead of everyone else. To paraphrase Duke's own AD, anyone that thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

At the end of the day, a conference network can and will only pay the conference what it makes. Similarly, a conference media contract can only pay out a sum equal to how much value the conference provides the channel. And, assuming that there is an efficient market, the TV contract will pay that. So why is it that everyone thinks that the BTN can generate more revenue if it's 51% owned by FOX an 49% owned by the BIG TEN, as opposed to 100% owned by Disney (ESPN and ABC)? I don't think that's the case and I have yet to hear someone tell me a compelling reason to the contrary. However, if someone knows one, then please speak up.

As I understand it, Networks are good at constantly adapting to the market. So, if the market is rising faster than expected, networks will outperform conventional contracts. Otherwise they won't. In fact, they will be worse.

(12-29-2013 09:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 11:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I've never understood people's infatuation with having a conference network. Conferences with networks don't inherently make more money. It worked for the B1G because TV contracts happened to be undervalues at the time, and then sports exploded shortly thereafter. If that growth slows down, the BTN will be a liability. The same is true with the PAC and the SECN.

In fact, the MTN has already folded.

The MTN's problem was that there weren't enough eyeballs watching to make the network financially viable.

My point wasn't that networks can't make money. It was that they don't necessarily outperform conventional contracts.

These "my conference makes more money than your conference" comments are pretty nauseating. The endgame still is winning, not making/spending money. If the ACC or any other "lessor" conference can win while making and spending less money, then more power to it.

I tought it was dump to let MWC channel fold, infrastructure was already in place
somebody could have figured out what to do with it

(12-28-2013 11:00 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Fight fire with fire, I say! The northern division of ACC would pretty much resemble the proposed Eastern football conference years and years ago. I also say forget about Notre Dame ever becoming a full member of ACC. Waiting for that to happen is counter productive to ACC.

Why do Penn State and Rutgers want to travel to Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan....where they have no alumni?

And if Maryland wants back in ACC, bring them back and add UConn.

You still have to wait 23? more years for the B!G GoR to expire. So, PSU's not going any where soon.

If in 23 years the ACC gets strong enough where they can take anyone, I'd say take ND Tex tOSU PSU Fla and Alab and go to 4 5 team divisions with a 10 game conference schedule. And by then there should be 13 conference games and and a new governing NCAA division that will allow conference semi-final championship games.

Southern Division is tough
GT
Alabama
Florida
Florida St.
Miami

(12-28-2013 12:13 PM)bluesox Wrote:  WVU to the big 10 is more likely and that is pretty unlikely. Yet, i don't think WVU to the big 10 is a horrible idea.

E: UM, OSU, IU, PUR, PSU, Rutgers, MAR, WVU

W: MSU, WIS, MIN, IO, NEB, KU, NW, ILL

it would probably only happen if texas 4 pack went to the pac 12 and missouri didn't want to leave the sec.

(12-28-2013 12:17 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:13 PM)bluesox Wrote:  E: UM, OSU, IU, PUR, PSU, Rutgers, MAR, WVU

W: MSU, WIS, MIN, IO, NEB, KU, NW, ILL

it would probably only happen if texas 4 pack went to the pac 12 and missouri didn't want to leave the sec.

Not even then.

Perfect.

(12-30-2013 12:03 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  These "my conference makes more money than your conference" comments are pretty nauseating. The endgame still is winning, not making/spending money. If the ACC or any other "lessor" conference can win while making and spending less money, then more power to it.

wow. this is one of the better and concise posts i've read on this board in a while.

(12-28-2013 12:16 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 12:07 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  No, the ACC cannot add Penn State & Rutgers, because the first step in the water flows uphill universe is for the American to add Penn State & Rutgers! That'll show Syracuse!!!

PSU and Rutgers leaving the B1G Ten for the American will happen light years ahead of the B1G Ten adding WVU.

So I guess I'm saying . . . . . . . . . there's still a chance?

Question: You mean...1 out of 100?

Answer: No, more like 1 out of 1,000,000.

So many BiG fans! So many BiG posts! So little time! Where to start?

Let's do ACC's weak points first. The AAC made the same mistake as the MWC: it signed a tv contract too long in duration and locked themselves in for the short run, diminishing the opportunities to wheel and deal. The second mistake AAC made was not being proactive. Regarding BiG, it isn't a case so much as BiG taking anything away from AAC (Marlyand the excep tion), as ACC's inability to recognize the opportunities afforded by expansion. Then the BiG invite to Maryland was a humongous wake up call to ACC.

Everybody has a filter. My filter is business and in business, when a business moves in and threatens an existing business, the existing business has the choice of watching its rival or taking positive actions on its own. Never say never.

ACC's positives? Let's start with Notre Dame. If the idea of BiG expansion is capturing NYC and Northeast market, ACC has done a great job with its ND affiliation. This affiliation is a trump card ACC can now play.

I see posted on this board that ACC has been invited to have their basketball tournament in NYC....but the BiG wasn't invited???
Hmmmm.....let's think about that. Why did NYC invite ACC and not BiG??? Obviously, ACC has drawing power in the Big Apple. And that's an ACC positive.

A third positive is the B12's tv contract. On Friday, the B12 was dead in the water. On Monday morning, B12 had a reworked tv contract because existing networks did not want to see B12 fold. The networks did not want other conference networks gobble up the broadcasts, thus taking away from the existing network broadcasting opportunities and therefore profit. Existing networks cannot be happy today watching BiG expand its reach and would/will support ACC to counter BiG conference network, just as they did for B12.

ACC, as a conference, does not have to defeat BiG as a conference. Rather, all ACC has to do--if it so chooses--is "pick off" a team or two, again, if it so desires. The example is MWC and Boise State. MWC reworked the distribution of monies within the conference, giving Boise State a larger share and held Boise.

Grant of Rights closes the door on expansion??? Myself, I say wait for the Maryland ruling in the courts. Will the courts rule as they did for Georgia and Oklahoma that taking a school's tv rights is a violation of anti-trust? Is a Grant of Rights permissible or a violation of anti-monopoly laws?

Just about every expansion move we have witnessed was not anticipated by any poster on this board. Just about every conference addition or loss came as a total surprise. Therefore, I think it foolish for a poster to say what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, what is doable and what is not doable.

The lesson to be learned is don't be surprised and everything may/is on the table. Don't be surprised because an over looked possible outcome was missed. If one regards this board as a platform to develop a "consensus" of what will be, they just might be in for a big surprise. And if one regards this board as a platform to develop a "consensus" of what will be, then this board is really without value. As in business, decision makers need to identify all possible outcomes lurking out there....and then maneuver to obtain their desired outcome.

The ACC has strengthened itself with some of its recent business decisions and is a player not to be over looked.

So.....you think AD's use this board as a combination of free think tank and focus group?

OK

(12-29-2013 12:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 11:00 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Fight fire with fire, I say! The northern division of ACC would pretty much resemble the proposed Eastern football conference years and years ago. I also say forget about Notre Dame ever becoming a full member of ACC. Waiting for that to happen is counter productive to ACC.

Why do Penn State and Rutgers want to travel to Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan....where they have no alumni?

And if Maryland wants back in ACC, bring them back and add UConn.

Tallgrass - I don't say this lightly, but this is the single dumbest post in the entire history of this conference realignment board, and that's saying something. The complete and willful ignorance of anything about what constitutes off-the-field conference power (beyond the raw demographic percentage data that you like to overemphasize) is astounding considering that you have over 8000 posts here. It's like you just came over from the bowels of the ESPN.com comment section.

Don't take my word for it. Here's a direct quote from someone that would know better:

"The Big Ten clearly became McDonald’s in our industry, and anyone that would argue with that doesn’t know what they’re talking about... I think unfortunately there was a time 3-4 years ago where, I don’t know who we were. We weren’t Whataburger, but we were between Whataburger and Wendy’s. We had fallen into that position. And I think the SEC was clearly Burger King."

This isn't some Big Ten homer speaking. That's the Duke athletic director talking about the college sports business last month.

I say this as someone that defended the ACC quite a bit over the past year in my arguments that the league was stronger than what many fans gave them credit for: the tide has turned where many ACC fans are waaaaay overvaluing their worth in the marketplace. They are starting to have the same misguided hubris that many Big 12 fans had a year ago in thinking that they could snap their fingers and add Florida State, Clemson and others. Cheating death does NOT equal strength. I understand that there's a certain high that comes from thinking that you've bolstered your ranks on-the-field (as conference realignment has tended to have the more powerful leagues target schools for long-term off-the-field demographic and prestige reasons while the weaker leagues have backfilled with schools with more recent short-term on-the-field success), but that's going to dissipate. (See the Big 12 with TCU and WVU, which had great on-the-field records coming into the league similar to Louisville heading into the ACC yet don't look nearly the same a couple of years later. Ironically, it's the newbies in the vaunted SEC that's supposed to be tougher than any league in America that have fared the best on-the-field.) Big 12 fans are starting to come back to the reality that they don't really have much leverage in conference realignment to become a raider of more powerful leagues (as opposed to being the raidee) and, eventually, ACC fans will do the same.

Think of it this way: if the Big Ten doesn't earn in a single cent more in its new TV contract than it did in its current deal that was signed in 2006 (which is essentially the stone age when looking at sports TV rights values), it would still blow the ACC away in off-the-field revenue. That's how much farther the Big Ten is already ahead of the ACC and they're still on the precipice of signing a brand new monster TV deal... AND they still have their equity in the Big Ten Network on top of that. In terms of conference power, there's the Big Ten and SEC, and then there's everyone else. Just because the Big Ten can't get UNC to bolt doesn't mean that the ACC has ANY leverage with respect to trying to get Big Ten schools. S**t rolls downhill in conference realignment, and the ACC is clearly downhill from the Big Ten.

For the record, in my 8,000+ posts, I don't use words like in your last sentence. Words like this signal that the post was made in emotion and also indicates a validation of the topic at hand.

(12-30-2013 12:44 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 12:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-28-2013 11:00 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Fight fire with fire, I say! The northern division of ACC would pretty much resemble the proposed Eastern football conference years and years ago. I also say forget about Notre Dame ever becoming a full member of ACC. Waiting for that to happen is counter productive to ACC.

Why do Penn State and Rutgers want to travel to Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan....where they have no alumni?

And if Maryland wants back in ACC, bring them back and add UConn.

Tallgrass - I don't say this lightly, but this is the single dumbest post in the entire history of this conference realignment board, and that's saying something. The complete and willful ignorance of anything about what constitutes off-the-field conference power (beyond the raw demographic percentage data that you like to overemphasize) is astounding considering that you have over 8000 posts here. It's like you just came over from the bowels of the ESPN.com comment section.

Don't take my word for it. Here's a direct quote from someone that would know better:

"The Big Ten clearly became McDonald’s in our industry, and anyone that would argue with that doesn’t know what they’re talking about... I think unfortunately there was a time 3-4 years ago where, I don’t know who we were. We weren’t Whataburger, but we were between Whataburger and Wendy’s. We had fallen into that position. And I think the SEC was clearly Burger King."

This isn't some Big Ten homer speaking. That's the Duke athletic director talking about the college sports business last month.

I say this as someone that defended the ACC quite a bit over the past year in my arguments that the league was stronger than what many fans gave them credit for: the tide has turned where many ACC fans are waaaaay overvaluing their worth in the marketplace. They are starting to have the same misguided hubris that many Big 12 fans had a year ago in thinking that they could snap their fingers and add Florida State, Clemson and others. Cheating death does NOT equal strength. I understand that there's a certain high that comes from thinking that you've bolstered your ranks on-the-field (as conference realignment has tended to have the more powerful leagues target schools for long-term off-the-field demographic and prestige reasons while the weaker leagues have backfilled with schools with more recent short-term on-the-field success), but that's going to dissipate. (See the Big 12 with TCU and WVU, which had great on-the-field records coming into the league similar to Louisville heading into the ACC yet don't look nearly the same a couple of years later. Ironically, it's the newbies in the vaunted SEC that's supposed to be tougher than any league in America that have fared the best on-the-field.) Big 12 fans are starting to come back to the reality that they don't really have much leverage in conference realignment to become a raider of more powerful leagues (as opposed to being the raidee) and, eventually, ACC fans will do the same.

Think of it this way: if the Big Ten doesn't earn in a single cent more in its new TV contract than it did in its current deal that was signed in 2006 (which is essentially the stone age when looking at sports TV rights values), it would still blow the ACC away in off-the-field revenue. That's how much farther the Big Ten is already ahead of the ACC and they're still on the precipice of signing a brand new monster TV deal... AND they still have their equity in the Big Ten Network on top of that. In terms of conference power, there's the Big Ten and SEC, and then there's everyone else. Just because the Big Ten can't get UNC to bolt doesn't mean that the ACC has ANY leverage with respect to trying to get Big Ten schools. S**t rolls downhill in conference realignment, and the ACC is clearly downhill from the Big Ten.

For the record, in my 8,000+ posts, I don't use words like in your last sentence. Words like this signal that the post was made in emotion and also indicates a validation of the topic at hand.

"S**t rolls down hill" is a pretty common saying, not an emotional validation of your OP