(03-05-2016 11:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You think that the marginal TV money would offset the UGA losing a massive built-in football advantage over GT?

And you also think that UGA (Tennessee and USC while we're at it) has little control over who the SEC would add?

If so, we disagree. UGA will do that's best for UGA, not you.

It wouldn't be TV revenue, it's be streaming/gate/donor revenue.

And the reason I think it's plausible is it IS in U(sic)GA's interest. Unless you think Vince Dooley is a secret Georgia Tech fan.

(03-05-2016 07:55 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The ACC can't get Texas & Oklahoma? Where would it be cheaper for the networks to park them, the SEC/B1G or the ACC? ESPN could save a lot of money by moving them to the ACC & consolidating the rest. The PAC & the ACC make about the same in TV revenue. So if you were a network executive, would you rather pay Texas & Oklahoma $31 million or $21 million? Now, obviously, whichever conference they go to will also get a bump in TV revenue. By putting them in the ACC, ESPN could also start the ACCN & generate more revenue. So yes, I think it's doable.

What is the streaming model? Who cares what happens to the ACC after FSU & Clemson leaves? You don't think that the networks could sell FSU/Oklahoma or ND/Texas, the games I mentioned, & that they would destroy $? Wow. These question tells me all that I need to know. You have your opinion & I have mine.

"The ACC can't get Texas & Oklahoma? Where would it be cheaper for the networks to park them, the SEC/B1G or the ACC?"
The correct answer is none of the above. The Big XII is the cheapest option, which is why they'll stay there.

"Now, obviously, whichever conference they go to will also get a bump in TV revenue."
Yeah, but probably not a per school bump for the existing members. Texas makes ~$23 million a year from the Big XII and another ~$15 million (I think) per year from the LHN. Unless another conference ponies up ~$38 million per year, they don't have a shot at landing Texas. Add in the fact that Texas currently plays 3(!) other instate teams, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and there is strong evidence that you are going to have to pay more than $38 million to get them to think about moving. So unless the home conference can make more than ~$40-45 million by adding Texas, it isn't going to happen. Anything short of that will cost the existing conference members money.

"What is the streaming model?"
Yes, what's your definition of it. Everyone has different definitions of these and other similar words, and most of the definitions are entirely half-baked. How do you define it? For most people, it involves a departure from a fictitious model in their head of "what is" to an equally wrong model of "what will be." However, I'm not going to accuse you of anything until I hear your view.

"Who cares what happens to the ACC after FSU & Clemson leaves?"
It isn't going to happen, so yeah, who cares? Who cares what happens when the Aliens invade? Who cares what happens when zombies rise from the dead? Who cares what happens when (insert impossible disaster scenario here) happens?

"You don't think that the networks could sell FSU/Oklahoma or ND/Texas..."
Oh, they could. They just couldn't sell the vast majority of the other games in an efficient manner (i.e. more than the opportunity cost). At the end of the day, Wake vs. NCSU and Texas vs. Texas Tech (or insert any school that inherently has a good story line when they play Texas here) is worth more than Wake vs. Texas and NCSU vs. Texas Tech. Therefore, by reducing the Texas vs. Texas Tech games for more Wake vs. Texas games, you are in fact destroying value like crazy. That's why those games aren't played very often. They work as novelty games, not as yearly rivalries.

"ESPN could also start the ACCN"
ESPN already has that. It's called ESPN and the ESPN family of channels. Why is an ACC-only network a good idea? How does it create value?

"These question tells me all that I need to know."
Yuppers. I'm looking beyond the first row of trees.

(03-05-2016 11:31 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 11:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You think that the marginal TV money would offset the UGA losing a massive built-in football advantage over GT?

And you also think that UGA (Tennessee and USC while we're at it) has little control over who the SEC would add?

If so, we disagree. UGA will do that's best for UGA, not you.

It wouldn't be TV revenue, it's be streaming/gate/donor revenue.

And the reason I think it's plausible is it IS in U(sic)GA's interest. Unless you think Vince Dooley is a secret Georgia Tech fan.

UGA and GT already play each other every year. What extra gate revenue would there be? And sub TV revenue for media revenue. How much do you think that the SEC makes off of streaming that isn't already included in TV? (I don't actually know - I'd imagine it's not much, but that was an honest question)

Also, the SEC brand/affiliation mattered a lot less in the 1980's than it does now. I contend that's not a valid example anymore.

(03-05-2016 11:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  [quote='Lenvillecards' pid='13071179' dateline='1457225700']
"Who cares what happens to the ACC after FSU & Clemson leaves?"
It isn't going to happen, so yeah, who cares? Who cares what happens when the Aliens invade? Who cares what happens when zombies rise from the dead? Who cares what happens when (insert impossible disaster scenario here) happens?

I'd like to interject at this point that many of the same folks who call for the demise of the ACC and for FSU to jump to the Big XII also believe in aliens and zombies. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of those people are just waiting for zomboid aliens to attack.
JMO.

I do like me some Walking Dead.

(03-06-2016 07:52 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 11:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  [quote='Lenvillecards' pid='13071179' dateline='1457225700']
"Who cares what happens to the ACC after FSU & Clemson leaves?"
It isn't going to happen, so yeah, who cares? Who cares what happens when the Aliens invade? Who cares what happens when zombies rise from the dead? Who cares what happens when (insert impossible disaster scenario here) happens?

I'd like to interject at this point that many of the same folks who call for the demise of the ACC and for FSU to jump to the Big XII also believe in aliens and zombies. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of those people are just waiting for zomboid aliens to attack.
JMO.

"The truth is out there."

(03-05-2016 11:33 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  UGA and GT already play each other every year. What extra gate revenue would there be? And sub TV revenue for media revenue. How much do you think that the SEC makes off of streaming that isn't already included in TV? (I don't actually know - I'd imagine it's not much, but that was an honest question)

Also, the SEC brand/affiliation mattered a lot less in the 1980's than it does now. I contend that's not a valid example anymore.

In the 1980's GT was just coming out of hitting rock bottom in the 70's as an independent. While SEC might not have mattered much then, GT was also worth quite a bit less.

The gate revenue is by freeing up an OOC slot for an attractive game as well as not playing Mizzou and the SEC West so much.

The streaming revenue operates under the assumption I opened with: Cable TV collapses and conferences get their primary income off streaming. In that case it isn't just a huge market that will make you money -- it is actual eyeball demand. And that means WHO you play matters a lot more. You'd have less Ole Miss vs TN and U(sic)GA vs Mizzou and UF vs Arkansas. And more GT vs TN and U(sic)GA vs Clemson and FSU vs Auburn.

(03-05-2016 11:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 07:55 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The ACC can't get Texas & Oklahoma? Where would it be cheaper for the networks to park them, the SEC/B1G or the ACC? ESPN could save a lot of money by moving them to the ACC & consolidating the rest. The PAC & the ACC make about the same in TV revenue. So if you were a network executive, would you rather pay Texas & Oklahoma $31 million or $21 million? Now, obviously, whichever conference they go to will also get a bump in TV revenue. By putting them in the ACC, ESPN could also start the ACCN & generate more revenue. So yes, I think it's doable.

What is the streaming model? Who cares what happens to the ACC after FSU & Clemson leaves? You don't think that the networks could sell FSU/Oklahoma or ND/Texas, the games I mentioned, & that they would destroy $? Wow. These question tells me all that I need to know. You have your opinion & I have mine.

"The ACC can't get Texas & Oklahoma? Where would it be cheaper for the networks to park them, the SEC/B1G or the ACC?"
The correct answer is none of the above. The Big XII is the cheapest option, which is why they'll stay there.

"Now, obviously, whichever conference they go to will also get a bump in TV revenue."
Yeah, but probably not a per school bump for the existing members. Texas makes ~$23 million a year from the Big XII and another ~$15 million (I think) per year from the LHN. Unless another conference ponies up ~$38 million per year, they don't have a shot at landing Texas. Add in the fact that Texas currently plays 3(!) other instate teams, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and there is strong evidence that you are going to have to pay more than $38 million to get them to think about moving. So unless the home conference can make more than ~$40-45 million by adding Texas, it isn't going to happen. Anything short of that will cost the existing conference members money.

"What is the streaming model?"
Yes, what's your definition of it. Everyone has different definitions of these and other similar words, and most of the definitions are entirely half-baked. How do you define it? For most people, it involves a departure from a fictitious model in their head of "what is" to an equally wrong model of "what will be." However, I'm not going to accuse you of anything until I hear your view.

"Who cares what happens to the ACC after FSU & Clemson leaves?"
It isn't going to happen, so yeah, who cares? Who cares what happens when the Aliens invade? Who cares what happens when zombies rise from the dead? Who cares what happens when (insert impossible disaster scenario here) happens?

"You don't think that the networks could sell FSU/Oklahoma or ND/Texas..."
Oh, they could. They just couldn't sell the vast majority of the other games in an efficient manner (i.e. more than the opportunity cost). At the end of the day, Wake vs. NCSU and Texas vs. Texas Tech (or insert any school that inherently has a good story line when they play Texas here) is worth more than Wake vs. Texas and NCSU vs. Texas Tech. Therefore, by reducing the Texas vs. Texas Tech games for more Wake vs. Texas games, you are in fact destroying value like crazy. That's why those games aren't played very often. They work as novelty games, not as yearly rivalries.

"ESPN could also start the ACCN"
ESPN already has that. It's called ESPN and the ESPN family of channels. Why is an ACC-only network a good idea? How does it create value?

"These question tells me all that I need to know."
Yuppers. I'm looking beyond the first row of trees.

Let's take a look at the numbers of what I am suggesting here. For easy math I rounded off the numbers. Let's first see what it approximately costs the networks for the ACC & the Big 12.

The B12 makes around $25 million per 10 teams for $250 million. The ACC makes around $20 million per 14 teams for $280 million plus another $4 million for Notre Dame, totaling $284 million. For the two conferences combined (B12 $250 + ACC $284) of $534 million.

Now let's say to move Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma St & Kansas, plus ND in fully, ESPN pays each member $27 million. That's a $7 million bump for 14 ACC teams & a $2 million bump for the B12 teams joining. The remaining 5 B12 teams drop to a G5 pay level. So $27 million per 20 teams equals $540 million. So, yes, that's an additional $6 million but ESPN could split some T1 & T2 with Fox.

What would ESPN get for the additional $6 million? How about 18 guaranteed content games a year!

FSU/Miami, FSU/Texas, Clemson/Okl, Clemson/ND, Texas/ND, Okl/VT, GT/VT, GT/Pitt, Miami/Louisville, Texas/Okl, Okl/Okl St, Texas/Baylor or TT, ND/Louisville, ND/Pitt, FSU/Clemson, FSU/GT, Clemson/GT & Miami/VT.

On top of those yearly match ups you can rotate 2 of these games over 5 years.

FSU/Okl, FSU/ND, FSU/VT, Clemson/Texas, Clemson/Miami, Clemson/VT, Texas/Miami, Okl/ND, Okl/Miami & ND/Miami.

I don't understand your claim that 20 content games a year destroys $. Games like these bring in national audiences for high ratings & premium advertising dollars for the networks. I didn't even mention all rivalry games or ones that would have great regional interests, such Duke/NC & Pitt/Syracuse.

Do you really think that a conference that offered 20 marquee match ups a season couldn't have a successful conference network? That would be additional revenue for ESPN & the ACC, in line with the SECN & B1GN. This would more then make up for the additional $6 million difference. I think it would be a safe bet to that the ACC would get the Sugar Bowl as well.

Convincing Texas will be the hard part but with Oklahoma & others leaving the Big 12 & the LHN future in doubt, it's feasible. We are not talking tomorrow but around 2022. The LHN has cost ESPN a lot of $ & just recently made its first profit on the year, how long until ESPN cuts its losses?

If this all can be done with 18 by cutting out 2 of Kansas, Oklahoma St or Baylor/TT then that's even better.

nzmorange, thanks for the input here.

Do you think there is value in the B12 going to 12?

What do you think about this ACC GOR extension story, plausible?

You don't think there will be an ACCN with ESPN do you? (not enough value?)

From what I read on some other boards from people that seem to understand the fundamentals, the ACCN / ESPN ship has sailed. They are talking PPV or subscription over the top ACC network options.

I'm leery of an scenario that involves Texas. They have a reputation for a big ego and being conference killers. The ACC has its share of egos and with 16+ members, Texas power should be limited. Still leery.