(04-21-2015 09:13 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 04:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The point isn't whether West Virginia would want the move, or whether the Big XII payout or the ACC payout is $1M/year bigger or smaller. It's that West Virginia would be an average ACC school, much like SLU or Dayton would be average Big East schools, and that adding an average school doesn't increase the value of the conference enough to have the move make sense.

Adding West Virginia (or Kentucky, or Rutgers, or a Maryland reunion) doesn't increase the ACC value from $250M or so a year to around $300M. That's what it would take to go from 14 teams @ $18M to 15 teams @ $20M. Without a conference network, you'd need a school who brings $50M to the table. You need a locomotive, not just a workhorse who pulls its fair share.

Where are you getting an arbitrary $50 million dollars/yr?

ACC is now at $18M per year for 14 schools. 18 x 14 = 252. Notre Dame gets a few million for basketball, but let's just say $250. You expand to increase the per-school payout, so you need say 15 x $20M = $300M. $300M - $250M = $50M.

Quote:Adding WVU would be accretive. I think that even you agree with me there, even if you are substantially downplaying the benefits. By definition of the add being accretive, so long as it doesn't block off a better move, it should be pursued. That fact begs the question of whether adding WVU blocks off a better move? I don't think it does. If anything, it increases the liklihood of adding PSU down the road.

And, FWIW, the ACC makes a min of over $20 million. I don't think that changes the dynamics, though.

I got the $18M number from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...l-annually . Doesn't really change anything--if ACC is getting $20M now, they'd want a bump to $21 or 22M per for expanding. So (22 x 15 = $330M) - (20 x 14 = $280M) is still around $50M.

Most of the big raids have been about more than just the school.

PAC expansion was about the PAC network(s).
Texas A&M to the SEC brought Texas, and led to the SEC Network.
Nebraska to the Big Ten meant a Big Ten championship game, plus the Cornhuskers.
Rutgers and Maryland brought the BTN onto basic cable on the Eastern seaboard.

(And of course, back in the day, the ACC adding Miami got them a CCG and made sure that the Big East wouldn't end up raiding the ACC one day.)

Remember, the ACC didn't get much for adding Syracuse and Pitt--a small per-school bump, and they had to extend for more years. You don't get much mileage out of "accretive" adds.

With the contracts and conferences sized as they are, the only moves that make sense are blockbuster moves.

(04-21-2015 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 09:13 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 04:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The point isn't whether West Virginia would want the move, or whether the Big XII payout or the ACC payout is $1M/year bigger or smaller. It's that West Virginia would be an average ACC school, much like SLU or Dayton would be average Big East schools, and that adding an average school doesn't increase the value of the conference enough to have the move make sense.

Adding West Virginia (or Kentucky, or Rutgers, or a Maryland reunion) doesn't increase the ACC value from $250M or so a year to around $300M. That's what it would take to go from 14 teams @ $18M to 15 teams @ $20M. Without a conference network, you'd need a school who brings $50M to the table. You need a locomotive, not just a workhorse who pulls its fair share.

Where are you getting an arbitrary $50 million dollars/yr?

ACC is now at $18M per year for 14 schools. 18 x 14 = 252. Notre Dame gets a few million for basketball, but let's just say $250. You expand to increase the per-school payout, so you need say 15 x $20M = $300M. $300M - $250M = $50M.

Quote:Adding WVU would be accretive. I think that even you agree with me there, even if you are substantially downplaying the benefits. By definition of the add being accretive, so long as it doesn't block off a better move, it should be pursued. That fact begs the question of whether adding WVU blocks off a better move? I don't think it does. If anything, it increases the liklihood of adding PSU down the road.

And, FWIW, the ACC makes a min of over $20 million. I don't think that changes the dynamics, though.

I got the $18M number from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...l-annually . Doesn't really change anything--if ACC is getting $20M now, they'd want a bump to $21 or 22M per for expanding. So (22 x 15 = $330M) - (20 x 14 = $280M) is still around $50M.

Most of the big raids have been about more than just the school.

PAC expansion was about the PAC network(s).
Texas A&M to the SEC brought Texas, and led to the SEC Network.
Nebraska to the Big Ten meant a Big Ten championship game, plus the Cornhuskers.
Rutgers and Maryland brought the BTN onto basic cable on the Eastern seaboard.

(And of course, back in the day, the ACC adding Miami got them a CCG and made sure that the Big East wouldn't end up raiding the ACC one day.)

Remember, the ACC didn't get much for adding Syracuse and Pitt--a small per-school bump, and they had to extend for more years. You don't get much mileage out of "accretive" adds.

With the contracts and conferences sized as they are, the only moves that make sense are blockbuster moves.

Cuse and Pitt added $2M extra for each existing ACC IIRC

(04-21-2015 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 09:13 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 04:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The point isn't whether West Virginia would want the move, or whether the Big XII payout or the ACC payout is $1M/year bigger or smaller. It's that West Virginia would be an average ACC school, much like SLU or Dayton would be average Big East schools, and that adding an average school doesn't increase the value of the conference enough to have the move make sense.

Adding West Virginia (or Kentucky, or Rutgers, or a Maryland reunion) doesn't increase the ACC value from $250M or so a year to around $300M. That's what it would take to go from 14 teams @ $18M to 15 teams @ $20M. Without a conference network, you'd need a school who brings $50M to the table. You need a locomotive, not just a workhorse who pulls its fair share.

Where are you getting an arbitrary $50 million dollars/yr?

ACC is now at $18M per year for 14 schools. 18 x 14 = 252. Notre Dame gets a few million for basketball, but let's just say $250. You expand to increase the per-school payout, so you need say 15 x $20M = $300M. $300M - $250M = $50M.

Quote:Adding WVU would be accretive. I think that even you agree with me there, even if you are substantially downplaying the benefits. By definition of the add being accretive, so long as it doesn't block off a better move, it should be pursued. That fact begs the question of whether adding WVU blocks off a better move? I don't think it does. If anything, it increases the liklihood of adding PSU down the road.

And, FWIW, the ACC makes a min of over $20 million. I don't think that changes the dynamics, though.

I got the $18M number from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...l-annually . Doesn't really change anything--if ACC is getting $20M now, they'd want a bump to $21 or 22M per for expanding. So (22 x 15 = $330M) - (20 x 14 = $280M) is still around $50M.

Most of the big raids have been about more than just the school.

PAC expansion was about the PAC network(s).
Texas A&M to the SEC brought Texas, and led to the SEC Network.
Nebraska to the Big Ten meant a Big Ten championship game, plus the Cornhuskers.
Rutgers and Maryland brought the BTN onto basic cable on the Eastern seaboard.

(And of course, back in the day, the ACC adding Miami got them a CCG and made sure that the Big East wouldn't end up raiding the ACC one day.)

Remember, the ACC didn't get much for adding Syracuse and Pitt--a small per-school bump, and they had to extend for more years. You don't get much mileage out of "accretive" adds.

With the contracts and conferences sized as they are, the only moves that make sense are blockbuster moves.

It's 18 MM + 2 MM (or a network - which would only happen if it was expected to make + 2 MM)

"Doesn't really change anything--if ACC is getting $20M now, they'd want a bump to $21 or 22M per for expanding. So (22 x 15 = $330M) - (20 x 14 = $280M) is still around $50M."

You still aren't explaining where you are getting your arbitrary $50 million. Specifically, why would the conference randomly turn down an accretive move? You are also ignoring any possible cost savings and other revenue streams.

"You don't get much mileage out of "accretive" adds."

And what are you talking about?! You *only* get mileage out of accretive adds. That's the definition of the word.

"the ACC didn't get much for adding Syracuse and Pitt--a small per-school bump, and they had to extend for more years."

...and the ACC also moved up by $4 million per school per year (i.e. ~30% contract increase). That's largely irrelevant to this conversation. But still, check your facts.