(01-19-2016 10:50 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:27 PM)bluesox Wrote:  "Without losers, where would the winners be?" - Casey Stengel

leagues need the right balances to support the entire system. I don't think you can put OU or FSU into the SEC without serious problems, think the SEC would be better off with NC state and Wake to get to 16.

Call me a homer but NC State and East Carolina would be FAR better for the SEC than NC State and Wake Forest. Both NC State and ECU would be there to take the licks for the SEC while having plenty of viewers. Wake would not be able to bring viewers to the table. Needless to say, the SEC is a pipe dream for both Wake and ECU.

This is the ACC's cross to bear...4 teams within about 100 miles is folly.

(01-20-2016 07:08 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:50 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:27 PM)bluesox Wrote:  "Without losers, where would the winners be?" - Casey Stengel

leagues need the right balances to support the entire system. I don't think you can put OU or FSU into the SEC without serious problems, think the SEC would be better off with NC state and Wake to get to 16.

Call me a homer but NC State and East Carolina would be FAR better for the SEC than NC State and Wake Forest. Both NC State and ECU would be there to take the licks for the SEC while having plenty of viewers. Wake would not be able to bring viewers to the table. Needless to say, the SEC is a pipe dream for both Wake and ECU.

This is the ACC's cross to bear...4 teams within about 100 miles is folly.

Not according to the OP. But the proximity and local interest won't become useful for a while, if JR's prediction comes to fruition.

I don't have a problem with there being four North Carolina schools in the ACC. That's the point of a conference right? To be associated with schools that you actually want to play against, that your fans and alumni want to see you compete with, and that have similar aspirations and limitations as your school. People need to quit giving the ACC grief for their footprint (or lack thereof). Heck, UNC and Wake care so much that they scheduled each other as non-conference football opponents.

this is pretty common sense and shows you how dumb the thinking is with grabbing school's that might be huge markets but don't fit a league. The best leagues would be those that have instate rivals in the same conferences, not trying to be cute and splitting up rivals among different leagues.

(01-20-2016 09:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no requirement that the conference has to be the entity negotiating television contracts and receiving money for distribution.

TV has been an individual school thing, then an NCAA thing, now a conference thing.

Likewise the idea that TV rights are the sole property of the home team is a custom developed within the college athletics industry. The visiting team has a right of publicity and their intellectual property is being used.

There is no leap involved to evolve to a system where each home team negotiates its own deal and then by contract with the visiting team establishes what the visitor receives.

You might see Texas offering AState $2 million to play with AState waiving its rights to a share of the TV revenue. Texas and USC agreeing to play home and home with the home team taking 70% of the TV and agreeing to a 50-50 split of TV with conference members as part of the idea of keeping the league healthy.

A roughly eat what you kill system.

Conferences have evolved.

The first leagues were more powerful than the NCAA which only provided a skeleton framework and the conferences did most of the enforcement work since most of the violations to deal with were violations of the league's more restrictive rules.

In the federated era while TV remained under the NCAA the conference was little more than a compiler of stats, awarding honors, and providing a framework for scheduling (not always doing the actual scheduling).

Today the conference is an economic enterprise controlling media rights and handling the scheduling.

Nothing says today's system is the final word.

The economic clout of a Texas, or Michigan or Ohio State or USC, or Florida State, etc., is such that in a model that is based on viewership, agreeing to cede the rights to the schools may be a valuable tool for survival.

Sports are late to the game. SlingTV, Hulu and a host of others have figured this out quite some time ago. ESPN and a host of others figure out the same.

(01-19-2016 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  From here on out the broadcasting industry will be shifting to adapt to and profit from streaming. As it does so it will eventually move to a model of paying conferences based upon content alone. Why pay for potential viewers or subscribers in a market footprint when you can pay for actual viewers of an event. In a time of cash crunch and model vulnerability I expect to see future contract boosts based upon the number of games that provide a reasonable chance for must see television.

No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market. Since eyes on the tube yields higher advertising revenue, those contests that each conference can consistently produce that garner a significant percentage of viewers will be rewarded. We have so much college football on now that mismatches and games between schools with little following or losing records will be games that produce no additional pay above the base contract. As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay.

Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints. This will happen because the bumps in pay for additions will be much smaller, but the payouts for hitting certain market numbers will become an inducement for better, meaning more competitive scheduling. If a model produces 4 champions who then play for a title the relative strength or weakness of a conference won't matter as far as the champion having access so the networks will be free to reward conferences based upon market share. That means content will be king. But it also means that minor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits.

Targets for additions will shift once again. And the old criteria for membership will change as well.

If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived. Either that or the Big 10 will have to focus on basketball brands where there are many more available candidates who meet their present requirements.

The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding.

The only conference that still may focus on markets might be the PAC which really has exhausted most candidates within an easy grasp and need to expand their boundaries.

Along with this shift expect that the strengths and vulnerabilities of the conferences will change perceptually.

The SEC has the most brands. It's position will remain relatively static. It's payouts have the best chance of remaining static as well.

The Big 10 has the second most brands. It's position will remain relatively static if it can add at least one more football brand. If it isn't Texas it most assuredly will be a school which is not AAU.

The PAC is protected by geography but they need more slots in which to distribute product. The question for them will be how much branding do they need in those additions to make that pay off and I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question yet. I think it is safe to assume they will need some new brands to make an Eastward expansion profitable.

The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands. The question is will there be any available products for them to add and that greatly depends upon the ACC.

Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts. They have the fewest football brands of any conference. And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated. This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones. If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC. If they don't the brands they have will likely reach a level of disparity that encourages their future movement.

So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference. Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional.

I think that is going to create somewhat of a new prospect list. Also keep in mind that if football is the motivation for additional content that other heretofore set in stone norms may be out the window if content is to be enhanced significantly.

1. "No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market."

You're predicting something that was never not the case. I can't say that I disagree with what you say, but it's not really a prediction.

2. "As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay."

I think that it will be a while. What you say makes sense, and I don't disagree with your logic. However, the transaction costs associated with shifting risks in contracts that are as large as NCAA media deals is massive. Viewership would have to be primarily driven by a platform that already has a pay per click paradigm. I think that it will happen, but it will be a while.

3. "Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints."

I doubt it. Kentucky still won't want to elevate Louisville. South Carolina still won't want to lose its one advantage over Clemson. Iowa won't want to lose its advantage over Iowa State. You get the idea. There will stil be a preference for regional games that enhance current members (i.e. drive donations and travel well), but aren't so close as to compete against them too heavily.

4. "...[M]inor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits."

I think that the bigger issue is that salaries will rise. Saban and his staff make Alabama ~$30-40 million per year easy. They get paid a ton, but not THAT much. Over time, the gap between the money that they bring into the university and the money that they bring home will shrink. That will pull money out of Olympic sports. In other words, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I don't disagree with your end result.

5. "If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived."

This has already happened. See Nebraska and Notre Dame. I actually don't think that there was ever a real requirement. There just aren't any major midwestern schools that aren't either AAU or Notre Dame. IMHO, the "requirement" was implemented after the fact.

6. "The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding."

I'm not sure that FSU wants to give up its cake walk to an OB. I also doubt that USCarolina wants to give up its edge on Clemson, just like UK doesn't want to give up its edge on UL.

7. "The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands."

The Big 12's problem is that it has an oversized position in several brands. It's like the London Whale. Since it is overwhelmingly reliant on Texas and OU, it is extremely vulnerable. All ANY other conference has to do is to make Texas (and to a lesser extent OU and KU) a better offer and the Big 12 WILL match it, pretty much no matter what. That's great for Texas and pals, but terrible for TT, TCU, Baylor, KSU, WVU, and ISU.

8. "Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts."

There isn't a shift in emphasis. You're predicting something that always was - at least has been since TV got involved. And, it wasn't built on markets. It was built on NC schools wanting to stick together and intertwining other schools, and then by trying to swing from a basketball conference to a football one. It gets a bad rap, but the conference is a spider web. Look at the divisional realignment threads if you don't believe me. Each school is joined at the hip with 2-3 other schools, and next to none of the schools are attached to the same 2-3 schools.

9. "And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated."

You're assuming an inefficiency in the market that favors the ACC. In the event that an inefficiency exists, not only could it go against the conference, it likely does. The networks have better access to information that the conference. As such, they're probably not the ones losing the negotiation.

10. "This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones."

Yes, but that's no secret. That's why FSU was added. That's why Miami was added. That's why UL was added. That's why BC was added (if nothing else BC gave us a CCG). Arguably, that's why Pitt and SU were added.

11. "If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC."

I wish that this was true, but the ACC isn't going to overtake either the SEC or the B1G in money. The SEC is better situated than we are and that won't change unless northern NFL teams suddenly start pouring south and ACC states start consolidating smaller colleges into ACC universities.

12. "So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference."

AMEN! I've been saying this all along. Some of the theories on this board are astonishingly half-baked.

13. "Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional."

I don't think that this has even not been the case.

(01-21-2016 01:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  From here on out the broadcasting industry will be shifting to adapt to and profit from streaming. As it does so it will eventually move to a model of paying conferences based upon content alone. Why pay for potential viewers or subscribers in a market footprint when you can pay for actual viewers of an event. In a time of cash crunch and model vulnerability I expect to see future contract boosts based upon the number of games that provide a reasonable chance for must see television.

No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market. Since eyes on the tube yields higher advertising revenue, those contests that each conference can consistently produce that garner a significant percentage of viewers will be rewarded. We have so much college football on now that mismatches and games between schools with little following or losing records will be games that produce no additional pay above the base contract. As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay.

Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints. This will happen because the bumps in pay for additions will be much smaller, but the payouts for hitting certain market numbers will become an inducement for better, meaning more competitive scheduling. If a model produces 4 champions who then play for a title the relative strength or weakness of a conference won't matter as far as the champion having access so the networks will be free to reward conferences based upon market share. That means content will be king. But it also means that minor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits.

Targets for additions will shift once again. And the old criteria for membership will change as well.

If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived. Either that or the Big 10 will have to focus on basketball brands where there are many more available candidates who meet their present requirements.

The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding.

The only conference that still may focus on markets might be the PAC which really has exhausted most candidates within an easy grasp and need to expand their boundaries.

Along with this shift expect that the strengths and vulnerabilities of the conferences will change perceptually.

The SEC has the most brands. It's position will remain relatively static. It's payouts have the best chance of remaining static as well.

The Big 10 has the second most brands. It's position will remain relatively static if it can add at least one more football brand. If it isn't Texas it most assuredly will be a school which is not AAU.

The PAC is protected by geography but they need more slots in which to distribute product. The question for them will be how much branding do they need in those additions to make that pay off and I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question yet. I think it is safe to assume they will need some new brands to make an Eastward expansion profitable.

The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands. The question is will there be any available products for them to add and that greatly depends upon the ACC.

Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts. They have the fewest football brands of any conference. And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated. This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones. If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC. If they don't the brands they have will likely reach a level of disparity that encourages their future movement.

So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference. Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional.

I think that is going to create somewhat of a new prospect list. Also keep in mind that if football is the motivation for additional content that other heretofore set in stone norms may be out the window if content is to be enhanced significantly.

1. "No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market."

You're predicting something that was never not the case. I can't say that I disagree with what you say, but it's not really a prediction.

2. "As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay."

I think that it will be a while. What you say makes sense, and I don't disagree with your logic. However, the transaction costs associated with shifting risks in contracts that are as large as NCAA media deals is massive. Viewership would have to be primarily driven by a platform that already has a pay per click paradigm. I think that it will happen, but it will be a while.

3. "Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints."

I doubt it. Kentucky still won't want to elevate Louisville. South Carolina still won't want to lose its one advantage over Clemson. Iowa won't want to lose its advantage over Iowa State. You get the idea. There will stil be a preference for regional games that enhance current members (i.e. drive donations and travel well), but aren't so close as to compete against them too heavily.

4. "...[M]inor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits."

I think that the bigger issue is that salaries will rise. Saban and his staff make Alabama ~$30-40 million per year easy. They get paid a ton, but not THAT much. Over time, the gap between the money that they bring into the university and the money that they bring home will shrink. That will pull money out of Olympic sports. In other words, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I don't disagree with your end result.

5. "If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived."

This has already happened. See Nebraska and Notre Dame. I actually don't think that there was ever a real requirement. There just aren't any major midwestern schools that aren't either AAU or Notre Dame. IMHO, the "requirement" was implemented after the fact.

6. "The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding."

I'm not sure that FSU wants to give up its cake walk to an OB. I also doubt that USCarolina wants to give up its edge on Clemson, just like UK doesn't want to give up its edge on UL.

7. "The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands."

The Big 12's problem is that it has an oversized position in several brands. It's like the London Whale. Since it is overwhelmingly reliant on Texas and OU, it is extremely vulnerable. All ANY other conference has to do is to make Texas (and to a lesser extent OU and KU) a better offer and the Big 12 WILL match it, pretty much no matter what. That's great for Texas and pals, but terrible for TT, TCU, Baylor, KSU, WVU, and ISU.

8. "Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts."

There isn't a shift in emphasis. You're predicting something that always was - at least has been since TV got involved. And, it wasn't built on markets. It was built on NC schools wanting to stick together and intertwining other schools, and then by trying to swing from a basketball conference to a football one. It gets a bad rap, but the conference is a spider web. Look at the divisional realignment threads if you don't believe me. Each school is joined at the hip with 2-3 other schools, and next to none of the schools are attached to the same 2-3 schools.

9. "And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated."

You're assuming an inefficiency in the market that favors the ACC. In the event that an inefficiency exists, not only could it go against the conference, it likely does. The networks have better access to information that the conference. As such, they're probably not the ones losing the negotiation.

10. "This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones."

Yes, but that's no secret. That's why FSU was added. That's why Miami was added. That's why UL was added. That's why BC was added (if nothing else BC gave us a CCG). Arguably, that's why Pitt and SU were added.

11. "If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC."

I wish that this was true, but the ACC isn't going to overtake either the SEC or the B1G in money. The SEC is better situated than we are and that won't change unless northern NFL teams suddenly start pouring south and ACC states start consolidating smaller colleges into ACC universities.

12. "So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference."

AMEN! I've been saying this all along. Some of the theories on this board are astonishingly half-baked.

13. "Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional."

I don't think that this has even not been the case.

Two large differences here.

As to Florida State and Clemson with respect to the SEC. Florida sponsored Florida State in '91 and wanted to again in 2010. South Carolina's Spurrier went on TV stating that he had no objections to Clemson in the SEC. That sentiment was a public acknowledgement of private administration concerns expressed in the SEC meetings. Neither Florida nor South Carolina wanted to lose their rivalries to expansion where OOC games were at too much of a premium with a 9 or 10 game conference schedule in expanded conferences of 16 or more. So both questioned Slive about not permitting nominations of in state schools for the SEC's 13th & 14th positions. The Gentlemen's agreement was the exact opposite of what the internet hacks have made it out to be. Slive requested a "gentlemen's agreement not to add in state rivals" until the renegotiation clause was activated with the addition of two new markets. Slive said after that all major additions (inclusive of in state rivals) would be considered.

Second. As to your statement against the last point I offer you West Virginia which is nowhere near the rest of the Big 12, and the Big 12's present considerations of UConn & still of BYU.

Finally I offer Maryland and Rutgers as clearly market additions that the Big 10 pursued which in the present climate might well have been reconsidered for the brands they now allegedly seek in Kansas and Oklahoma.

So things have changed, they have not been quite as obvious as you seem to believe and the machinations and concerns of SEC schools with regards to their in state rivals remains a mystery to most who read misinformation on the internet.

I concur that Rutgers and Maryland were added so that the BTN could get on the standard tier of an extra 10 million cable/sat subscribers, between those two states (or whatever the number is).

But those schools also did fit the B1G institutional profile. And they both have at least the potential to be good teams, at times. Maryland men's bball is already paying off.

(01-21-2016 08:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  From here on out the broadcasting industry will be shifting to adapt to and profit from streaming. As it does so it will eventually move to a model of paying conferences based upon content alone. Why pay for potential viewers or subscribers in a market footprint when you can pay for actual viewers of an event. In a time of cash crunch and model vulnerability I expect to see future contract boosts based upon the number of games that provide a reasonable chance for must see television.

No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market. Since eyes on the tube yields higher advertising revenue, those contests that each conference can consistently produce that garner a significant percentage of viewers will be rewarded. We have so much college football on now that mismatches and games between schools with little following or losing records will be games that produce no additional pay above the base contract. As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay.

Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints. This will happen because the bumps in pay for additions will be much smaller, but the payouts for hitting certain market numbers will become an inducement for better, meaning more competitive scheduling. If a model produces 4 champions who then play for a title the relative strength or weakness of a conference won't matter as far as the champion having access so the networks will be free to reward conferences based upon market share. That means content will be king. But it also means that minor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits.

Targets for additions will shift once again. And the old criteria for membership will change as well.

If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived. Either that or the Big 10 will have to focus on basketball brands where there are many more available candidates who meet their present requirements.

The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding.

The only conference that still may focus on markets might be the PAC which really has exhausted most candidates within an easy grasp and need to expand their boundaries.

Along with this shift expect that the strengths and vulnerabilities of the conferences will change perceptually.

The SEC has the most brands. It's position will remain relatively static. It's payouts have the best chance of remaining static as well.

The Big 10 has the second most brands. It's position will remain relatively static if it can add at least one more football brand. If it isn't Texas it most assuredly will be a school which is not AAU.

The PAC is protected by geography but they need more slots in which to distribute product. The question for them will be how much branding do they need in those additions to make that pay off and I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question yet. I think it is safe to assume they will need some new brands to make an Eastward expansion profitable.

The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands. The question is will there be any available products for them to add and that greatly depends upon the ACC.

Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts. They have the fewest football brands of any conference. And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated. This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones. If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC. If they don't the brands they have will likely reach a level of disparity that encourages their future movement.

So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference. Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional.

I think that is going to create somewhat of a new prospect list. Also keep in mind that if football is the motivation for additional content that other heretofore set in stone norms may be out the window if content is to be enhanced significantly.

1. "No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market."

You're predicting something that was never not the case. I can't say that I disagree with what you say, but it's not really a prediction.

2. "As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay."

I think that it will be a while. What you say makes sense, and I don't disagree with your logic. However, the transaction costs associated with shifting risks in contracts that are as large as NCAA media deals is massive. Viewership would have to be primarily driven by a platform that already has a pay per click paradigm. I think that it will happen, but it will be a while.

3. "Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints."

I doubt it. Kentucky still won't want to elevate Louisville. South Carolina still won't want to lose its one advantage over Clemson. Iowa won't want to lose its advantage over Iowa State. You get the idea. There will stil be a preference for regional games that enhance current members (i.e. drive donations and travel well), but aren't so close as to compete against them too heavily.

4. "...[M]inor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits."

I think that the bigger issue is that salaries will rise. Saban and his staff make Alabama ~$30-40 million per year easy. They get paid a ton, but not THAT much. Over time, the gap between the money that they bring into the university and the money that they bring home will shrink. That will pull money out of Olympic sports. In other words, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I don't disagree with your end result.

5. "If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived."

This has already happened. See Nebraska and Notre Dame. I actually don't think that there was ever a real requirement. There just aren't any major midwestern schools that aren't either AAU or Notre Dame. IMHO, the "requirement" was implemented after the fact.

6. "The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding."

I'm not sure that FSU wants to give up its cake walk to an OB. I also doubt that USCarolina wants to give up its edge on Clemson, just like UK doesn't want to give up its edge on UL.

7. "The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands."

The Big 12's problem is that it has an oversized position in several brands. It's like the London Whale. Since it is overwhelmingly reliant on Texas and OU, it is extremely vulnerable. All ANY other conference has to do is to make Texas (and to a lesser extent OU and KU) a better offer and the Big 12 WILL match it, pretty much no matter what. That's great for Texas and pals, but terrible for TT, TCU, Baylor, KSU, WVU, and ISU.

8. "Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts."

There isn't a shift in emphasis. You're predicting something that always was - at least has been since TV got involved. And, it wasn't built on markets. It was built on NC schools wanting to stick together and intertwining other schools, and then by trying to swing from a basketball conference to a football one. It gets a bad rap, but the conference is a spider web. Look at the divisional realignment threads if you don't believe me. Each school is joined at the hip with 2-3 other schools, and next to none of the schools are attached to the same 2-3 schools.

9. "And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated."

You're assuming an inefficiency in the market that favors the ACC. In the event that an inefficiency exists, not only could it go against the conference, it likely does. The networks have better access to information that the conference. As such, they're probably not the ones losing the negotiation.

10. "This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones."

Yes, but that's no secret. That's why FSU was added. That's why Miami was added. That's why UL was added. That's why BC was added (if nothing else BC gave us a CCG). Arguably, that's why Pitt and SU were added.

11. "If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC."

I wish that this was true, but the ACC isn't going to overtake either the SEC or the B1G in money. The SEC is better situated than we are and that won't change unless northern NFL teams suddenly start pouring south and ACC states start consolidating smaller colleges into ACC universities.

12. "So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference."

AMEN! I've been saying this all along. Some of the theories on this board are astonishingly half-baked.

13. "Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional."

I don't think that this has even not been the case.

Two large differences here.

As to Florida State and Clemson with respect to the SEC. Florida sponsored Florida State in '91 and wanted to again in 2010. South Carolina's Spurrier went on TV stating that he had no objections to Clemson in the SEC. That sentiment was a public acknowledgement of private administration concerns expressed in the SEC meetings. Neither Florida nor South Carolina wanted to lose their rivalries to expansion where OOC games were at too much of a premium with a 9 or 10 game conference schedule in expanded conferences of 16 or more. So both questioned Slive about not permitting nominations of in state schools for the SEC's 13th & 14th positions. The Gentlemen's agreement was the exact opposite of what the internet hacks have made it out to be. Slive requested a "gentlemen's agreement not to add in state rivals" until the renegotiation clause was activated with the addition of two new markets. Slive said after that all major additions (inclusive of in state rivals) would be considered.

Second. As to your statement against the last point I offer you West Virginia which is nowhere near the rest of the Big 12, and the Big 12's present considerations of UConn & still of BYU.

Finally I offer Maryland and Rutgers as clearly market additions that the Big 10 pursued which in the present climate might well have been reconsidered for the brands they now allegedly seek in Kansas and Oklahoma.

So things have changed, they have not been quite as obvious as you seem to believe and the machinations and concerns of SEC schools with regards to their in state rivals remains a mystery to most who read misinformation on the internet.

The B1G is actively seeking KU and OU?? News to me.

Sounds like message board fodder.

(01-21-2016 01:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts. They have the fewest football brands of any conference. And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated. This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones. If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC. If they don't the brands they have will likely reach a level of disparity that encourages their future movement.

...11. "If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC."
I wish that this was true, but the ACC isn't going to overtake either the SEC or the B1G in money. The SEC is better situated than we are and that won't change unless northern NFL teams suddenly start pouring south and ACC states start consolidating smaller colleges into ACC universities.
...

^^^ THIS ^^^
SEC football competes with the NFL in ONE city directly (Vanderbilt, in Nashville), and only a few are even all that close - Florida/Jacksonville, Georgia/Atlanta, and Texas AM/Houston. However, suppose demographic trends continue, the South continues to grow, and the NFL decides to move franchises to Columbia, SC, Birmingham, AL, and Little Rock, AR...

How would that affect attendance on Saturday if people started buying tickets for a Sunday game? What about TV viewership? Many ACC teams are dealing with that NOW. So is the Pac-12. The Big Ten suffers in Chicago (Northwestern), but their most successful brands are generally NOT located in NFL towns (e.g. Ohio State).

(01-21-2016 08:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  From here on out the broadcasting industry will be shifting to adapt to and profit from streaming. As it does so it will eventually move to a model of paying conferences based upon content alone. Why pay for potential viewers or subscribers in a market footprint when you can pay for actual viewers of an event. In a time of cash crunch and model vulnerability I expect to see future contract boosts based upon the number of games that provide a reasonable chance for must see television.

No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market. Since eyes on the tube yields higher advertising revenue, those contests that each conference can consistently produce that garner a significant percentage of viewers will be rewarded. We have so much college football on now that mismatches and games between schools with little following or losing records will be games that produce no additional pay above the base contract. As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay.

Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints. This will happen because the bumps in pay for additions will be much smaller, but the payouts for hitting certain market numbers will become an inducement for better, meaning more competitive scheduling. If a model produces 4 champions who then play for a title the relative strength or weakness of a conference won't matter as far as the champion having access so the networks will be free to reward conferences based upon market share. That means content will be king. But it also means that minor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits.

Targets for additions will shift once again. And the old criteria for membership will change as well.

If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived. Either that or the Big 10 will have to focus on basketball brands where there are many more available candidates who meet their present requirements.

The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding.

The only conference that still may focus on markets might be the PAC which really has exhausted most candidates within an easy grasp and need to expand their boundaries.

Along with this shift expect that the strengths and vulnerabilities of the conferences will change perceptually.

The SEC has the most brands. It's position will remain relatively static. It's payouts have the best chance of remaining static as well.

The Big 10 has the second most brands. It's position will remain relatively static if it can add at least one more football brand. If it isn't Texas it most assuredly will be a school which is not AAU.

The PAC is protected by geography but they need more slots in which to distribute product. The question for them will be how much branding do they need in those additions to make that pay off and I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question yet. I think it is safe to assume they will need some new brands to make an Eastward expansion profitable.

The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands. The question is will there be any available products for them to add and that greatly depends upon the ACC.

Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts. They have the fewest football brands of any conference. And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated. This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones. If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC. If they don't the brands they have will likely reach a level of disparity that encourages their future movement.

So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference. Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional.

I think that is going to create somewhat of a new prospect list. Also keep in mind that if football is the motivation for additional content that other heretofore set in stone norms may be out the window if content is to be enhanced significantly.

1. "No longer will the Big 10 or SEC need to add new markets, unless they bring with them the following of a major brand. No longer will networks try to encourage conferences to grow by addition of a relatively poor brand in a large market."

You're predicting something that was never not the case. I can't say that I disagree with what you say, but it's not really a prediction.

2. "As advertisers expect certain numbers based upon certain ratings, so too will networks expect certain ratings for certain levels of pay."

I think that it will be a while. What you say makes sense, and I don't disagree with your logic. However, the transaction costs associated with shifting risks in contracts that are as large as NCAA media deals is massive. Viewership would have to be primarily driven by a platform that already has a pay per click paradigm. I think that it will happen, but it will be a while.

3. "Add to this shift the global economic situation and I believe we will see a preference for brand additions within existing market footprints."

I doubt it. Kentucky still won't want to elevate Louisville. South Carolina still won't want to lose its one advantage over Clemson. Iowa won't want to lose its advantage over Iowa State. You get the idea. There will stil be a preference for regional games that enhance current members (i.e. drive donations and travel well), but aren't so close as to compete against them too heavily.

4. "...[M]inor sports will have to be played more regionally to cut the overhead in athletic programs in order to enhance profits."

I think that the bigger issue is that salaries will rise. Saban and his staff make Alabama ~$30-40 million per year easy. They get paid a ton, but not THAT much. Over time, the gap between the money that they bring into the university and the money that they bring home will shrink. That will pull money out of Olympic sports. In other words, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I don't disagree with your end result.

5. "If brands are what are needed and if the Big 10 wants football brands in particular then the AAU requirement for membership will most certainly have to be waived."

This has already happened. See Nebraska and Notre Dame. I actually don't think that there was ever a real requirement. There just aren't any major midwestern schools that aren't either AAU or Notre Dame. IMHO, the "requirement" was implemented after the fact.

6. "The SEC will quit focusing on new markets and will instead focus on regionalism and branding."

I'm not sure that FSU wants to give up its cake walk to an OB. I also doubt that USCarolina wants to give up its edge on Clemson, just like UK doesn't want to give up its edge on UL.

7. "The Big 12 actually changes places with the ACC here. The have two huge top 10 brands."

The Big 12's problem is that it has an oversized position in several brands. It's like the London Whale. Since it is overwhelmingly reliant on Texas and OU, it is extremely vulnerable. All ANY other conference has to do is to make Texas (and to a lesser extent OU and KU) a better offer and the Big 12 WILL match it, pretty much no matter what. That's great for Texas and pals, but terrible for TT, TCU, Baylor, KSU, WVU, and ISU.

8. "Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts."

There isn't a shift in emphasis. You're predicting something that always was - at least has been since TV got involved. And, it wasn't built on markets. It was built on NC schools wanting to stick together and intertwining other schools, and then by trying to swing from a basketball conference to a football one. It gets a bad rap, but the conference is a spider web. Look at the divisional realignment threads if you don't believe me. Each school is joined at the hip with 2-3 other schools, and next to none of the schools are attached to the same 2-3 schools.

9. "And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated."

You're assuming an inefficiency in the market that favors the ACC. In the event that an inefficiency exists, not only could it go against the conference, it likely does. The networks have better access to information that the conference. As such, they're probably not the ones losing the negotiation.

10. "This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones."

Yes, but that's no secret. That's why FSU was added. That's why Miami was added. That's why UL was added. That's why BC was added (if nothing else BC gave us a CCG). Arguably, that's why Pitt and SU were added.

11. "If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC."

I wish that this was true, but the ACC isn't going to overtake either the SEC or the B1G in money. The SEC is better situated than we are and that won't change unless northern NFL teams suddenly start pouring south and ACC states start consolidating smaller colleges into ACC universities.

12. "So I challenge the board to drop their old conceptions about who might be added to this or that conference."

AMEN! I've been saying this all along. Some of the theories on this board are astonishingly half-baked.

13. "Look for brands that add value and can at least somewhat fit geographically with the conference for which you project them to be a candidate. Keep in mind they need to be able to draw the attention of the general public, not just fans and alums, and that they need to be relatively regional."

I don't think that this has even not been the case.

Two large differences here.

As to Florida State and Clemson with respect to the SEC. Florida sponsored Florida State in '91 and wanted to again in 2010. South Carolina's Spurrier went on TV stating that he had no objections to Clemson in the SEC. That sentiment was a public acknowledgement of private administration concerns expressed in the SEC meetings. Neither Florida nor South Carolina wanted to lose their rivalries to expansion where OOC games were at too much of a premium with a 9 or 10 game conference schedule in expanded conferences of 16 or more. So both questioned Slive about not permitting nominations of in state schools for the SEC's 13th & 14th positions. The Gentlemen's agreement was the exact opposite of what the internet hacks have made it out to be. Slive requested a "gentlemen's agreement not to add in state rivals" until the renegotiation clause was activated with the addition of two new markets. Slive said after that all major additions (inclusive of in state rivals) would be considered.

Second. As to your statement against the last point I offer you West Virginia which is nowhere near the rest of the Big 12, and the Big 12's present considerations of UConn & still of BYU.

Finally I offer Maryland and Rutgers as clearly market additions that the Big 10 pursued which in the present climate might well have been reconsidered for the brands they now allegedly seek in Kansas and Oklahoma.

So things have changed, they have not been quite as obvious as you seem to believe and the machinations and concerns of SEC schools with regards to their in state rivals remains a mystery to most who read misinformation on the internet.

1. WVU had the most fan interest out of the available options. The Big XII really, really needed brands and WVU, TCU, and UL were the only ones on the table. I think that WVU football had a bigger name that UL, and TCU was in the region. The Big 12 didn't throw geography out of the window intentionally. I think that they felt that they had no other choices. It was desperation, not design.
2. I'm not sure what your point is with regards to BYU, but I don't think that UConn is in serious consideration for a P5 spot. There are only internet rumors.
3. I feel very strongly that you're very wrong about RU and UMD. Beliefs to the contrary are based on Internet rumors, not logic and trustworthy statements by those in power.
4. I don't actually know enough about SEC politics to argue with you about UF and USCarolina. To the extent that you're right, there is a change. However, that's the extent of changes. Even then, I'd imagine that Clemson is itching to jump. FSU might not be. Winning is worth a lot, and they have a lot of easy wins in the ACC and a walk to a major bowl. Additionally, they are in a position to get special treatment in the ACC that they otherwise wouldn't get.

(01-21-2016 12:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Of all of the conferences that could suffer the most with this shift in emphasis it's the ACC. They were constructed linearly along the coast and were built upon market concepts. They have the fewest football brands of any conference. And if we switch to actual viewers since they are neck and neck with the PAC for the least utilization of a large market footprint then it might be argued that their present payout is inflated. This is the conference that needs to be the most proactive about protecting football brands and seeking to add new ones. If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC. If they don't the brands they have will likely reach a level of disparity that encourages their future movement.

...11. "If they do they will eventually be much more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC."
I wish that this was true, but the ACC isn't going to overtake either the SEC or the B1G in money. The SEC is better situated than we are and that won't change unless northern NFL teams suddenly start pouring south and ACC states start consolidating smaller colleges into ACC universities.
...

^^^ THIS ^^^
SEC football competes with the NFL in ONE city directly (Vanderbilt, in Nashville), and only a few are even all that close - Florida/Jacksonville, Georgia/Atlanta, and Texas AM/Houston. However, suppose demographic trends continue, the South continues to grow, and the NFL decides to move franchises to Columbia, SC, Birmingham, AL, and Little Rock, AR...

How would that affect attendance on Saturday if people started buying tickets for a Sunday game? What about TV viewership? Many ACC teams are dealing with that NOW. So is the Pac-12. The Big Ten suffers in Chicago (Northwestern), but their most successful brands are generally NOT located in NFL towns (e.g. Ohio State).

A. Typical ACC shadenfreude.
B. College football is probably more popular than Church in most of the SEC. And it is a surrogate religion.
C. NFL locations were once synonymous with mill towns. That began to change in the 60's. Now they are with major metropolitan areas. They might make inroads in large Southern cities but it will take a few generations to break the College hold even if then.