They also float the idea of Nebraska returning to The Big 12. As ridiculous as any of that sounds, is this the first salvo in The ACC / ESPN negotiations or just three ESPN commentators looking for off season hype.....

This looks strangely familiar what happened in Big East negotiations with ESPN....
CJ


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...rida-state

(02-20-2016 05:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  They also float the idea of Nebraska returning to The Big 12. As ridiculous as any of that sounds, is this the first salvo in The ACC / ESPN negotiations or just three ESPN commentators looking for off season hype.....

This looks strangely familiar what happened in Big East negotiations with ESPN....
CJ


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...rida-state

One small problem...how would anyone from the ACC get around the GoR and the minimum $31 Million Exit Fee...

(02-20-2016 07:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 05:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  They also float the idea of Nebraska returning to The Big 12. As ridiculous as any of that sounds, is this the first salvo in The ACC / ESPN negotiations or just three ESPN commentators looking for off season hype.....

This looks strangely familiar what happened in Big East negotiations with ESPN....
CJ


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...rida-state

One small problem...how would anyone from the ACC get around the GoR and the minimum $31 Million Exit Fee...

They were talking about the future. IF the Big 12 gets a network & starts making near SEC/B1G money. They also mentioned Arizona & Arizona State. There aren't exactly any original thoughts here.

If the B12 gets a network & the ACC doesn't then I could see 4-6 teams (FSU, Clemson, GT, VT + Miami & Louisville?) move from the ACC to the B12. The question is, how does the B12 get to that point? They will be dependent on 2 G5's additions to make it all happen, a network & being attractive to lure ACC schools in the future.

Finding 2 G5's that can do all of that is a tall order. Cincinnati seems like the best fit here so there's one. Who's the second? BYU would be a brand & help with the network but really wouldn't do much to lure any ACC schools later. UCONN, Colorado State & Temple would bring large markets but not much else. It maybe wise for the B12 to stick with more southern schools. That would put Houston, Memphis, ECU & Tulane in play. That's why the B12 may go to 18 later & split into a 3x6, it would help reduce the pressure on the 2 G5's.

They are stirring brown stuff and throwing on the wall to see if it will stick. They need hits to keep their jobs, with ESPN reducing staff!

(02-20-2016 10:53 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   They are stirring brown stuff and throwing on the wall to see if it will stick. The needs hits to keep their jobs, with ESPN reducing staff!

There is a lot of truth in that Wilkie. But there is another angle to consider as well. Look at who is doing the discussing and the positions they take. Rittenburg acts like the anchor to reality, and the rest really just talk to shoot down the stuff being thrown against the wall. And that serves ESPN.

How does the ACC realign, gain a network, and manages to do so without pissing off UNC by bringing in enough voters to lose their control?

Well for starters you add a basketball brand and a football brand to get to a full 16 members and then you just wait on Notre Dame. If they join fine if they don't fine.

But in order to do that you have to pray that ESPN loses the LHN. So how does that happen?

ESPN needs to invest but in the SEC's expansion Westward. The whole brouhaha between Texas and Oklahoma is just to heighten the expectation that something might happen to the West with the Big 12.

This discussion you linked just shoots down all of it really. Boren's ultimatum is expand, convert the LHN, and play a championship game. The discussion says what we all know but does so for the public: "There are no valuable brands with which to expand." The Nebraska Returns dream isn't happening because the Huskers are about to get close to $40 million a year and have a full share of Big 10 revenues. The Florida State Will Come dream isn't happening for a variety of reasons. There isn't enough money even with them in a Big 12 network because the footprint even with a share of Florida is still not as profitable as those of the other neighboring networks and the cost of minor sports would be a drain. Not to mention ESPN won't destabilize the ACC by sending them anywhere. If Florida State ever leaves it will be to the SEC where their content value multiplies the content value for ESPN and only after something else has caused a disaster in the ACC.

The Arizona's Will Bolt dream is just a water cooler joke.

And the rest of the piece is about how nobody really adds enough value for expansion.

If Oklahoma has a reason to leave and ESPN pays OSU's way for them both to move to the SEC it sets up some interesting possibilities for getting out of this mess. Let Texas pick a team of their choosing to form a 6 member SEC West and then a division that looks like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Missouri sure starts to look like the kind of schedule that appeals to the UT fan base without having to add more lackluster games.

Make that move and the LHN can be converted into the new headquarters of the SECN and Charlotte becomes the ACCN. Connecticut is finally picked up for hoops and West Virginia added for football and the entire footprint of the ACC is reconnected. Then if ND ever wants in full Cincinnati becomes a move to 18.

Now ESPN has 36 schools and the vast majority of the top 20 brands in the nation all under their auspices and they've improved their content value in both conferences. Package the SECN & ACCN together and voila the need to expand into each other's footprint is gone.

With the Big 12 gone as a P conference the ACC partners with the SEC in the Sugar.

But none of that happens or can even be considered unless OU finds a way out.

With Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor or whoever Texas wants, and West Virginia out of the way then if the Big 10 takes Kansas (and has only ISU left as an AAU traveling companion if UConn is off to the ACC) the deed is essentially done. Texas Tech and T.C.U. would bring a lot of eyeballs to the PAC should they decide to move to 14.

So I do think these pieces are filler and hit getters for the off season, but I do see another angle being played and maybe that would be a good one for both of our conferences.

(02-20-2016 05:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  They also float the idea of Nebraska returning to The Big 12. As ridiculous as any of that sounds, is this the first salvo in The ACC / ESPN negotiations or just three ESPN commentators looking for off season hype.....

This looks strangely familiar what happened in Big East negotiations with ESPN....
CJ


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...rida-state

That article was WVU blogger worthy. So the Big 12 network which doesn't exist is going to make $8 Million making it more more successful than the SEC or Big 10 network. Um ok

This was just click bait.

The Big 12 picking off Pac 12 teams? THat's a joke.

Now if the Big 12 does manage to get a network and the ACC is without one, then all bets are off.

That would be humiliating for the ACC especially considering that the Big 12 has to agree to keep giving Texas $15 Million a year. If I'm Oklahoma or FSU in this case I look like a chump agreeing to such a deal.

Interesting to see how things go as the revenue gap continues to grow, the 'exposure' from ESPN is crap, and there is no ACC Network WITH revenue in sight.

Plus Eric Barron isn't at FSU anymore.

(02-20-2016 05:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  They also float the idea of Nebraska returning to The Big 12. As ridiculous as any of that sounds, is this the first salvo in The ACC / ESPN negotiations or just three ESPN commentators looking for off season hype.....

This looks strangely familiar what happened in Big East negotiations with ESPN....
CJ


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...rida-state

You got that right!~

And keep in mind...with all the massive boot-ie licking Espn does of the B-12, esp. during hoops season---they have been making their intentions clear for some time who they favor more.

Add in the fact Espn is in HUGE trouble w/ their massive contracts and a shrinking subscriber base. Really the only way they can bail out is to try to sell off some of their 'properties' and let competitors in on their surplus (Fox).

The ACC is an Enormo floating prize that is worth much more to Espn DEAD than Alive. They WILL try to break this thing up to save their nuts...we will see if the ACC is strong enough to resist the Imperial power play of a Transnational commercial entity...one who does NOT have the best interest of Collegiate Athletics at heart, but only their own aggrandizement--and even survival...

Without wasting time to read the article, I am supposed to believe that FSU is clamoring to play in Iowa, west Texas, Oklahoma and WV when they demand to play GATech because that is the closest school to them? Add to that they will now play in Arizona (which said schools have very little history of playing the Big 12 and will leave their conference of choice for decades) and Nebraska (which coincidentally happens to be clamoring for its glory days in the Big 12). Of a sudden, this will launch a new TV network worth more than the SECN.

I can see where FSU would add FL to a TV deal, but AZ and NE do not add huge states. The ACC still would have a larger footprint and they cannot get the magical TV deal. People seem to forget, UT and OU are the only properties in the Big 12 worth anything. Each of the other conferences possess several schools that a materially substantive to any deal.

If the talking heads are looking for click bait, they found it. Conversely, could this be talk to begin talks where UT and OU make a necessary exit?

Nice article for our "partner" to put out there isn't it?

(02-20-2016 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:53 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   They are stirring brown stuff and throwing on the wall to see if it will stick. The needs hits to keep their jobs, with ESPN reducing staff!

There is a lot of truth in that Wilkie. But there is another angle to consider as well. Look at who is doing the discussing and the positions they take. Rittenburg acts like the anchor to reality, and the rest really just talk to shoot down the stuff being thrown against the wall. And that serves ESPN.

How does the ACC realign, gain a network, and manages to do so without pissing off UNC by bringing in enough voters to lose their control?

Well for starters you add a basketball brand and a football brand to get to a full 16 members and then you just wait on Notre Dame. If they join fine if they don't fine.

But in order to do that you have to pray that ESPN loses the LHN. So how does that happen?

ESPN needs to invest but in the SEC's expansion Westward. The whole brouhaha between Texas and Oklahoma is just to heighten the expectation that something might happen to the West with the Big 12.

This discussion you linked just shoots down all of it really. Boren's ultimatum is expand, convert the LHN, and play a championship game. The discussion says what we all know but does so for the public: "There are no valuable brands with which to expand." The Nebraska Returns dream isn't happening because the Huskers are about to get close to $40 million a year and have a full share of Big 10 revenues. The Florida State Will Come dream isn't happening for a variety of reasons. There isn't enough money even with them in a Big 12 network because the footprint even with a share of Florida is still not as profitable as those of the other neighboring networks and the cost of minor sports would be a drain. Not to mention ESPN won't destabilize the ACC by sending them anywhere. If Florida State ever leaves it will be to the SEC where their content value multiplies the content value for ESPN and only after something else has caused a disaster in the ACC.

The Arizona's Will Bolt dream is just a water cooler joke.

And the rest of the piece is about how nobody really adds enough value for expansion.

If Oklahoma has a reason to leave and ESPN pays OSU's way for them both to move to the SEC it sets up some interesting possibilities for getting out of this mess. Let Texas pick a team of their choosing to form a 6 member SEC West and then a division that looks like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Missouri sure starts to look like the kind of schedule that appeals to the UT fan base without having to add more lackluster games.

Make that move and the LHN can be converted into the new headquarters of the SECN and Charlotte becomes the ACCN. Connecticut is finally picked up for hoops and West Virginia added for football and the entire footprint of the ACC is reconnected. Then if ND ever wants in full Cincinnati becomes a move to 18.

Now ESPN has 36 schools and the vast majority of the top 20 brands in the nation all under their auspices and they've improved their content value in both conferences. Package the SECN & ACCN together and voila the need to expand into each other's footprint is gone.

With the Big 12 gone as a P conference the ACC partners with the SEC in the Sugar.

But none of that happens or can even be considered unless OU finds a way out.

With Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor or whoever Texas wants, and West Virginia out of the way then if the Big 10 takes Kansas (and has only ISU left as an AAU traveling companion if UConn is off to the ACC) the deed is essentially done. Texas Tech and T.C.U. would bring a lot of eyeballs to the PAC should they decide to move to 14.

So I do think these pieces are filler and hit getters for the off season, but I do see another angle being played and maybe that would be a good one for both of our conferences.

This JR is where the SEC plays the Missouri card (after all it's why ESPN had the SEC take Missouri in the first place).
Texas could care less about playing Missouri, so to add them to that western pod serves no purpose. If you made that pod Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech and Arkansas you just might get someone's attention and by offering Missouri to the B1G to pair with Kansas might give Delany enough of a reason to go along. If Delany can't get a perceived "win" out of this entire transaction why would he pick up Kansas and Iowa State just so the transaction with Texas and Oklahoma could take place? But if he could have "taken" a school from the SEC........well that is an ego play. The B1G could always go to 18 with Iowa State and UConn and the ACC with Cincinnati and West Virginia isn't so bad and it leaves Notre Dame as a semi-independent which might squeeze a few more concession out of the Irish.

(02-21-2016 09:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:53 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   They are stirring brown stuff and throwing on the wall to see if it will stick. The needs hits to keep their jobs, with ESPN reducing staff!

There is a lot of truth in that Wilkie. But there is another angle to consider as well. Look at who is doing the discussing and the positions they take. Rittenburg acts like the anchor to reality, and the rest really just talk to shoot down the stuff being thrown against the wall. And that serves ESPN.

How does the ACC realign, gain a network, and manages to do so without pissing off UNC by bringing in enough voters to lose their control?

Well for starters you add a basketball brand and a football brand to get to a full 16 members and then you just wait on Notre Dame. If they join fine if they don't fine.

But in order to do that you have to pray that ESPN loses the LHN. So how does that happen?

ESPN needs to invest but in the SEC's expansion Westward. The whole brouhaha between Texas and Oklahoma is just to heighten the expectation that something might happen to the West with the Big 12.

This discussion you linked just shoots down all of it really. Boren's ultimatum is expand, convert the LHN, and play a championship game. The discussion says what we all know but does so for the public: "There are no valuable brands with which to expand." The Nebraska Returns dream isn't happening because the Huskers are about to get close to $40 million a year and have a full share of Big 10 revenues. The Florida State Will Come dream isn't happening for a variety of reasons. There isn't enough money even with them in a Big 12 network because the footprint even with a share of Florida is still not as profitable as those of the other neighboring networks and the cost of minor sports would be a drain. Not to mention ESPN won't destabilize the ACC by sending them anywhere. If Florida State ever leaves it will be to the SEC where their content value multiplies the content value for ESPN and only after something else has caused a disaster in the ACC.

The Arizona's Will Bolt dream is just a water cooler joke.

And the rest of the piece is about how nobody really adds enough value for expansion.

If Oklahoma has a reason to leave and ESPN pays OSU's way for them both to move to the SEC it sets up some interesting possibilities for getting out of this mess. Let Texas pick a team of their choosing to form a 6 member SEC West and then a division that looks like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Missouri sure starts to look like the kind of schedule that appeals to the UT fan base without having to add more lackluster games.

Make that move and the LHN can be converted into the new headquarters of the SECN and Charlotte becomes the ACCN. Connecticut is finally picked up for hoops and West Virginia added for football and the entire footprint of the ACC is reconnected. Then if ND ever wants in full Cincinnati becomes a move to 18.

Now ESPN has 36 schools and the vast majority of the top 20 brands in the nation all under their auspices and they've improved their content value in both conferences. Package the SECN & ACCN together and voila the need to expand into each other's footprint is gone.

With the Big 12 gone as a P conference the ACC partners with the SEC in the Sugar.

But none of that happens or can even be considered unless OU finds a way out.

With Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor or whoever Texas wants, and West Virginia out of the way then if the Big 10 takes Kansas (and has only ISU left as an AAU traveling companion if UConn is off to the ACC) the deed is essentially done. Texas Tech and T.C.U. would bring a lot of eyeballs to the PAC should they decide to move to 14.

So I do think these pieces are filler and hit getters for the off season, but I do see another angle being played and maybe that would be a good one for both of our conferences.

This JR is where the SEC plays the Missouri card (after all it's why ESPN had the SEC take Missouri in the first place).
Texas could care less about playing Missouri, so to add them to that western pod serves no purpose. If you made that pod Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech and Arkansas you just might get someone's attention and by offering Missouri to the B1G to pair with Kansas might give Delany enough of a reason to go along. If Delany can't get a perceived "win" out of this entire transaction why would he pick up Kansas and Iowa State just so the transaction with Texas and Oklahoma could take place? But if he could have "taken" a school from the SEC........well that is an ego play. The B1G could always go to 18 with Iowa State and UConn and the ACC with Cincinnati and West Virginia isn't so bad and it leaves Notre Dame as a semi-independent which might squeeze a few more concession out of the Irish.

If the B1G were to go for a grand slam by inviting Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas - and then pursuing Missouri, they would get the biggest ego win possible. Anything else that is left for the SEC in the Big 12 would be settling for the B1G's leftovers.

The SEC could respond by inviting UNC, Duke, Virginia, Clemson and Georgia Tech. It's not clear to me that all of them would accept, but at least it would keep that core group together so that it isn't unthinkable any longer. That would not only save face for the SEC, it would also boost the live sports content for the SECN and make them more than respectable in hoops.

That would leave the ACC as little more than Big East II.

Well as of right now the Big XII Schools have a payout that behind the SEC per school payout by an amount of $9.4 Million per school...the grass ain't greener folks:

The Big 12's average payout to its full-sharing members in 2014-15 was $23.3 million, which was $9.4 million less than what SEC schools received from their conference.

The latest Big 12 tax return provided Wednesday to CBS Sports reflects the growing gap between the SEC and Big Ten compared to every other major conference. Not long ago, the SEC and Big 12 provided nearly identical payouts to their schools, past tax records show.

In 2012-13, the Big 12 distributed about $20.9 million to full-sharing members compared to the SEC's $20.8 million payout. The Big 12 distributed slightly more money in 2013-14 ($21.2 million) than the SEC ($21 million). But the first year of the SEC Network and new College Football Playoff deals shows the significant difference between the SEC and Big 12. (The Big Ten's latest financial records won't be released until the spring.)

While the Big 12 had no teams in the inaugural playoff, the SEC had one that was worth $6 million to the conference. In addition, the SEC put two teams into contracted CFP bowls that provided additional revenue.

Also, the SEC Network started printing millions of dollars for the SEC -- a revenue source that the Big 12 as a whole doesn't have. Individual Big 12 schools make additional money through third-tier media rights that aren't reflected in the Big 12 tax form. For instance, Texas reportedly received about $15 million from the Longhorn Network, and Kansas got more than $6 million and Kansas State about $4 million from their third-tier rights.

Even when factoring in these rights, most Big 12 schools are seeing a growing gap with SEC schools in revenue. The SEC pools third-tier TV rights together for the SEC Network. But SEC schools still have their own multi-media rights contracts not factored into their conference payout. For instance, Kentucky gets approximately $14 million per year from JMI Sports, and Alabama receives about $15 to $16 million annually from Learfield Sports.

“We're going to do everything we can to compete,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said about the growing gap. “That would certainly include financially.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...in-2014-15

Here are estimates* of 2017-18 revenue, by conference

Conf. $millions
SEC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (35)
B1G : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (33)
XII : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
Pac : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
ACC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (22)

Clearly for now you have 2 conferences at the top, followed by 3 more, then the rest are well behind those.

As one blogger put it, unless the SEC and B1G intend to grow MUCH larger, this is just the way it's going to be for a while...

* it may not happen this way, but this is how it's looking right now.

(02-21-2016 12:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Here are estimates* of 2017-18 revenue, by conference

Conf. $millions
SEC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (35)
B1G : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (33)
XII : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
Pac : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
ACC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (22)

Clearly for now you have 2 conferences at the top, followed by 3 more, then the rest are well behind those.

As one blogger put it, unless the SEC and B1G intend to grow MUCH larger, this is just the way it's going to be for a while...

* it may not happen this way, but this is how it's looking right now.

I continue to be surprised at the one sided evaluation of revenue without the corresponding element of cost. The cost of competing in football in the ACC is the lowest by far of the P-5. Leave the ACC for the SEC, B10, or B12 and you are in direct financial competition with Alabama, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, and Oklahoma. While it's true that FSU plays Florida every year and true that Clemson plays SC and often another SEC every year, Clemson and FSU are in a state of indirect competition with who they would want to be a peer with in the the other conferences in football.

In the "article", Dinich hints at this but doesn't fully develop the idea.

Clemson football tickets are CHEAP based on their real value. Clemson has never milked it boosters the way some schools have. A move for Clemson into a high rent neighborhood likely means a bit of a cultural change in the way they price tickets that could have a negative effect. Or it could be a wash.

Bottom line - if you peer competitive has a 100K stadium and they sell the tickets and you have an 80K stadium and you sell your tickets, all things being equal you will make $2 million less per home game, and $14 million less over the course of the year.

Maybe if you move you can expand seating and maybe instead of 2-3 premier games a year you have 4, maybe 5.

Carolina, NC State, UVa, and VT have all run these numbers. It doesn't matter the color of the abacus, blue, red, or orange, all 4 athletic departments can up with the same rough result - they need $50 million more a year to compete in the top tier in the B10 and at least $30 million in the SEC.

I'm sure it's less for FSU and Clemson. perhaps as little as half. But it's still the same analogy as moving to a nicer home and a better neighborhood, but having a higher mortgage.

Cost of competition is a real metric. Maryland lost sight of this about 20 years ago as they continued to fund sports that their revenue flow could not support over the long haul. But even that is too harsh a critique. Maryland knew it was going broke, but socially and politically Maryland could not cut back on certain sports. UVA and UNC would have the same problem as both alumni bases fully expect a wide ranging and robust sports program for males and females.

(02-21-2016 12:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 12:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Here are estimates* of 2017-18 revenue, by conference

Conf. $millions
SEC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (35)
B1G : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (33)
XII : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
Pac : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
ACC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (22)

Clearly for now you have 2 conferences at the top, followed by 3 more, then the rest are well behind those.

As one blogger put it, unless the SEC and B1G intend to grow MUCH larger, this is just the way it's going to be for a while...

* it may not happen this way, but this is how it's looking right now.

I continue to be surprised at the one sided evaluation of revenue without the corresponding element of cost. The cost of competing in football in the ACC is the lowest by far of the P-5. Leave the ACC for the SEC, B10, or B12 and you are in direct financial competition with Alabama, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, and Oklahoma. While it's true that FSU plays Florida every year and true that Clemson plays SC and often another SEC every year, Clemson and FSU are in a state of indirect competition with who they would want to be a peer with in the the other conferences in football.

In the "article", Dinich hints at this but doesn't fully develop the idea.

Clemson football tickets are CHEAP based on their real value. Clemson has never milked it boosters the way some schools have. A move for Clemson into a high rent neighborhood likely means a bit of a cultural change in the way they price tickets that could have a negative effect. Or it could be a wash.

Bottom line - if you peer competitive has a 100K stadium and they sell the tickets and you have an 80K stadium and you sell your tickets, all things being equal you will make $2 million less per home game, and $14 million less over the course of the year.

Maybe if you move you can expand seating and maybe instead of 2-3 premier games a year you have 4, maybe 5.

Carolina, NC State, UVa, and VT have all run these numbers. It doesn't matter the color of the abacus, blue, red, or orange, all 4 athletic departments can up with the same rough result - they need $50 million more a year to compete in the top tier in the B10 and at least $30 million in the SEC.

I'm sure it's less for FSU and Clemson. perhaps as little as half. But it's still the same analogy as moving to a nicer home and a better neighborhood, but having a higher mortgage.

Cost of competition is a real metric. Maryland lost sight of this about 20 years ago as they continued to fund sports that their revenue flow could not support over the long haul. But even that is too harsh a critique. Maryland knew it was going broke, but socially and politically Maryland could not cut back on certain sports. UVA and UNC would have the same problem as both alumni bases fully expect a wide ranging and robust sports program for males and females.

You've brought this up before, and I understand how this bears on whether a team can be competitive in a given conference. However, if your goal is to win a NATIONAL championship then ALL schools are your competition. It seems like many of the old ACC school forgot that part many years ago...

(02-21-2016 12:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Clemson football tickets are CHEAP based on their real value. Clemson has never milked it boosters the way some schools have. A move for Clemson into a high rent neighborhood likely means a bit of a cultural change in the way they price tickets that could have a negative effect. Or it could be a wash.

Clemson's ticket prices are on par with both South Carolina and Georgia. The biggest difference is they have a lot more attractive games they can charge higher prices for while we don't. Hard to charge the same price for a game with NC State or Syracuse that they are charging for Texas A&M or LSU.

(02-21-2016 12:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 12:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 12:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Here are estimates* of 2017-18 revenue, by conference

Conf. $millions
SEC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (35)
B1G : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (33)
XII : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
Pac : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
ACC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (22)

Clearly for now you have 2 conferences at the top, followed by 3 more, then the rest are well behind those.

As one blogger put it, unless the SEC and B1G intend to grow MUCH larger, this is just the way it's going to be for a while...

* it may not happen this way, but this is how it's looking right now.

I continue to be surprised at the one sided evaluation of revenue without the corresponding element of cost. The cost of competing in football in the ACC is the lowest by far of the P-5. Leave the ACC for the SEC, B10, or B12 and you are in direct financial competition with Alabama, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, and Oklahoma. While it's true that FSU plays Florida every year and true that Clemson plays SC and often another SEC every year, Clemson and FSU are in a state of indirect competition with who they would want to be a peer with in the the other conferences in football.

In the "article", Dinich hints at this but doesn't fully develop the idea.

Clemson football tickets are CHEAP based on their real value. Clemson has never milked it boosters the way some schools have. A move for Clemson into a high rent neighborhood likely means a bit of a cultural change in the way they price tickets that could have a negative effect. Or it could be a wash.

Bottom line - if you peer competitive has a 100K stadium and they sell the tickets and you have an 80K stadium and you sell your tickets, all things being equal you will make $2 million less per home game, and $14 million less over the course of the year.

Maybe if you move you can expand seating and maybe instead of 2-3 premier games a year you have 4, maybe 5.

Carolina, NC State, UVa, and VT have all run these numbers. It doesn't matter the color of the abacus, blue, red, or orange, all 4 athletic departments can up with the same rough result - they need $50 million more a year to compete in the top tier in the B10 and at least $30 million in the SEC.

I'm sure it's less for FSU and Clemson. perhaps as little as half. But it's still the same analogy as moving to a nicer home and a better neighborhood, but having a higher mortgage.

Cost of competition is a real metric. Maryland lost sight of this about 20 years ago as they continued to fund sports that their revenue flow could not support over the long haul. But even that is too harsh a critique. Maryland knew it was going broke, but socially and politically Maryland could not cut back on certain sports. UVA and UNC would have the same problem as both alumni bases fully expect a wide ranging and robust sports program for males and females.

You've brought this up before, and I understand how this bears on whether a team can be competitive in a given conference. However, if your goal is to win a NATIONAL championship then ALL schools are your competition. It seems like many of the old ACC school forgot that part many years ago...

A few things about the last several posts:
1. Cost differential is extremely difficult to measure because most Athletic Departments of State schools spend their budgets for fear of being cut. So cost vs profit is too blurred to measure. As far as supporting numbers of non revenue sports goes that has to be a conference first and then a university decision. I tend to agree that we support some things that probably will be cut in the future.

2. The Big 10 isn't going to just swoop in and grab Texas. The Horns have seldom played anyone North of Oklahoma who was not in their conference. The West coast teams and Notre Dame excepted here. So no matter what I don't see them leaving for the Big 10.

3. Oklahoma as being acceptable with academic metrics below those of 14th place in the Big 10 Nebraska remains to be seen. Without Texas, Oklahoma makes little sense in the Big 10. Kansas is a different matter.

4. I don't see the SEC or Big 10 who have the most compact footprints doing anything to leave some of their schools new or old on an island. Do they want into North Carolina and Virginia? Sure they do, so does the SEC, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. If I had to guess I'd say that Kansas and possibly Missouri would still be of interest to them if they can't crack Virginia. I could see a move for them to consolidate their presence in the Northeast before I see them trying to traipse off to Texas, Georgia, or Florida. Geographically large dynamic schools aren't going to choose to play minor sports in a conference to which they would be an outlier.

5. I don't think Texas has to go to the ACC for the ACCN to come about out of a Texas move. Like I said before, just convert Dallas to the SECN and Charlotte to the ACCN.

6. Not only do folks forget geographic considerations when projecting possible moves but they also forget the rather lengthy contracts that some of these schools have signed with the networks. Kansas and Oklahoma's T3 rights are up in about 4 years. OU inked with FOX and Kansas with ESPN. The Big 12 requires a two year prior notification before a move can be made. If announcements come prior to the 2017 season and the two years are served in 2019 they could be in new homes.

Yes they have a GOR, but it becomes affordable at 5 years or less to buy it out and the OU contingent seems to think they have a way around it anyway. Remember their GOR isn't like yours. It does not encompass all rights.

So I really don't expect anyone to leave the ACC prior to schools leaving the Big 12.
Should the Big 12 suffer defections and should one of those be Texas, expect to get your network whether Texas heads your way, our way, or possibly West. If you don't get one then you'll all know what's ahead of you. I just don't really believe we are going to come to that anytime soon.

If we move to a P4 and things manage to get more balanced with regard to revenue then I think we are done. If things remain severely unbalanced then we will eventually move to a P3 or possibly even just two conferences. For the purposes of regional advertising and maximization of all regions I think 4 conferences is where the TV folks want to see us go. We'll see.

I posted this on the SEC board but I think this would be a good place for it to following JR post.

I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

The break downs could be something like this:

SEC
Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, UK

ACC
ND, Kansas, Oklahoma State, TCU, Pittsburgh, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, WF, Syracuse

GT, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, BC

New B12
Navy, UCF, UCONN, Temple, ECU, USF

WV, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Kansas State

TT, Baylor, Iowa St, BYU, Air Force, Boise State

(02-21-2016 12:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 12:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Here are estimates* of 2017-18 revenue, by conference

Conf. $millions
SEC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (35)
B1G : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (33)
XII : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
Pac : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (23)
ACC : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (22)

Clearly for now you have 2 conferences at the top, followed by 3 more, then the rest are well behind those.

As one blogger put it, unless the SEC and B1G intend to grow MUCH larger, this is just the way it's going to be for a while...

* it may not happen this way, but this is how it's looking right now.

I continue to be surprised at the one sided evaluation of revenue without the corresponding element of cost. The cost of competing in football in the ACC is the lowest by far of the P-5. Leave the ACC for the SEC, B10, or B12 and you are in direct financial competition with Alabama, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, and Oklahoma. While it's true that FSU plays Florida every year and true that Clemson plays SC and often another SEC every year, Clemson and FSU are in a state of indirect competition with who they would want to be a peer with in the the other conferences in football.

In the "article", Dinich hints at this but doesn't fully develop the idea.

Clemson football tickets are CHEAP based on their real value. Clemson has never milked it boosters the way some schools have. A move for Clemson into a high rent neighborhood likely means a bit of a cultural change in the way they price tickets that could have a negative effect. Or it could be a wash.

Bottom line - if you peer competitive has a 100K stadium and they sell the tickets and you have an 80K stadium and you sell your tickets, all things being equal you will make $2 million less per home game, and $14 million less over the course of the year.

Maybe if you move you can expand seating and maybe instead of 2-3 premier games a year you have 4, maybe 5.

Carolina, NC State, UVa, and VT have all run these numbers. It doesn't matter the color of the abacus, blue, red, or orange, all 4 athletic departments can up with the same rough result - they need $50 million more a year to compete in the top tier in the B10 and at least $30 million in the SEC.

I'm sure it's less for FSU and Clemson. perhaps as little as half. But it's still the same analogy as moving to a nicer home and a better neighborhood, but having a higher mortgage.

Cost of competition is a real metric. Maryland lost sight of this about 20 years ago as they continued to fund sports that their revenue flow could not support over the long haul. But even that is too harsh a critique. Maryland knew it was going broke, but socially and politically Maryland could not cut back on certain sports. UVA and UNC would have the same problem as both alumni bases fully expect a wide ranging and robust sports program for males and females.

In a study done by the athletic department in Chapel Hill, it was determined that Carolina would have to eliminate 7 of their 28 sports in order to be able to be somewhat competitive in the SEC in football.