(04-22-2016 11:06 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Story I heard is that the SEC actually wanted FSU and maybe Clemson.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/84...sion-teams

The SEC guys at ESPN.com debated this in a column and came up with four potential SEC targets, eliminating Clemson and Florida State.

Greg Ostendorf, who covers Auburn for the website, said the SEC should look to adding Miami and Louisville.

Miami is a no-brainer, he wrote, because it would provide a natural rival for Florida, be “significant for recruiting as local kids would no longer have to leave town to play in the SEC” and create outstanding new games against traditional SEC powers. “… Who wouldn’t want to see Alabama, LSU or Auburn play Miami every couple of years. This should have happened years ago.”
-- ajc.com

WHISTLING DIXIE

(04-22-2016 11:06 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Story I heard is that the SEC actually wanted FSU and maybe Clemson. The objections were from ESPN, who refused to pay them for the move. Enter aTm and Mizzou, both of whom bring new territory and the additional TV money that goes with it.

I would be interested to see a credible link to that hearsay, ren.hoek.
It story makes a lot of assumptions (FSU and Clemson were interested in joining the SEC, ESPN objected to the move ((and wouldn't pay for it)), the SEC and Texas A&M didn't start discussions until after FSU and Clemson weren't available).
The one thing that we know as fact.....Florida State turned down an opportunity for a SEC invitation to join the ACC.

If you were running ESPN and your primary source of revenue was cable subscriptions... and you already have every potential SECN (and ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU for that matter) subscriber in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina locked up anyway... tell me, why would you agree to pay more for the additions of FSU and Clemson?

FSU and Clemson might be valuable to Fox FS/1 and FS/2, NBCSN, or CBSSN if those teams could bring new subscribers to those cable channels... but it's a net zero for ESPN.

Really, the only reason NC and VA schools are valuable to the SEC is because of SECN in-state rates.

(04-22-2016 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:53 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:42 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:27 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door

you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

You are not representing the Florida Bar very well if you are going to claim that alumni and school size have no bearing of the market power of a university.

you concede the argument when resorting to name-calling ...

AD HOMINEM

IMHO, green is right that fans are what really matter. Lumber is right that alumni size and school size are great proxies for fan base size at the P5 level.

Yeah, I say they are both right. Where they would be wrong is if neither can see the others point is correct.

seems I read JRsec posted at some point, although my memory is fuzzy these days (I blame my kids for that). The gist was that there was no gentleman's agreement to not invite teams in current SEC states. Rather, it was ESPN only being interested in new states. I forget where JR heard it, but I would consider him more credible than the garden variety message board material.

(04-22-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 11:06 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Story I heard is that the SEC actually wanted FSU and maybe Clemson. The objections were from ESPN, who refused to pay them for the move. Enter aTm and Mizzou, both of whom bring new territory and the additional TV money that goes with it.

I would be interested to see a credible link to that hearsay, ren.hoek.
It assumes makes a lot of assumptions (FSU and Clemson were interested in joining the SEC, ESPN objected to the move ((and wouldn't pay for it)), the SEC and Texas A&M didn't start discussions until after FSU and Clemson weren't available).
The one thing that we know as fact.....Florida State turned down an opportunity for a SEC invitation to join the ACC.

(04-22-2016 10:19 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 08:28 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:57 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

Pack, the TV revenue disparity has never been $20M per year, as this is a whole new age. I am not saying the we deserve a contract like the B1G, my whole point throughout was that we won't ever catch them or the SEC. I understand the reasons why. I do think if the ACC keeps performing the way they have, that our current contract is undervalued by ESPN. We signed a bad deal at the worst possible time.

What you don't seem to be getting is that eventually, there is a tipping point when the revenues are so lopsided, that teams are going to look elsewhere. They may not even want to, but they will have no choice. JMO.

The ACC does not need to catch the B1G or the SEC (can't be done). All we need to do is stay relatively close.
If we reach that tipping point then the onus is on ESPN to make the ACC viable. That is the upside of going all in with ESPN.

I don't think the assumption that the ACC can't catch the B1G or SEC is entirely accurate. In fact, historically, the ACC has had its fair share as being top dog. The anomaly is the "worth" of football and the "method of distribution".

It's a totally accurate assumption. A bunch of small schools are not going to catch and surpass the revenue generating ability of a bunch of huge schools or a bunch of schools that poured vast millions more into football for the last 55 years.

It's only accurate if every member and every revenue generators remain the same.
Individual "small schools" can out earn individual "huge schools" everyday of the week. Duke comes to mind. ND comes to mind. UofL comes to mind.

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network

Also important to Swofford: The ESPN contract provides "look-ins" in Years 5 and 10 for additional revenue opportunities such as an ACC channel.
-- David Teel 5/9/12

PATIENCE YOUNG GRASSHOPPER

(04-22-2016 12:21 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  seems I read JRsec posted at some point, although my memory is fuzzy these days (I blame my kids for that). The gist was that there was no gentleman's agreement to not invite teams in current SEC states. Rather, it was ESPN only being interested in new states. I forget where JR heard it, but I would consider him more credible than the garden variety message board material.

(04-22-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 11:06 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Story I heard is that the SEC actually wanted FSU and maybe Clemson. The objections were from ESPN, who refused to pay them for the move. Enter aTm and Mizzou, both of whom bring new territory and the additional TV money that goes with it.

I would be interested to see a credible link to that hearsay, ren.hoek.
It assumes makes a lot of assumptions (FSU and Clemson were interested in joining the SEC, ESPN objected to the move ((and wouldn't pay for it)), the SEC and Texas A&M didn't start discussions until after FSU and Clemson weren't available).
The one thing that we know as fact.....Florida State turned down an opportunity for a SEC invitation to join the ACC.

With the number of cord cutters rising yearly there are people who believe that content is going to matter more than potential subscribers. If true then even though the SEC Network already gets in-state rates in South Carolina and Florida Clemson and FSU would be more attractive to the SEC because of the quality of their football programs than the NC and VA programs. Add in the fact of existing rivalries In Clemson/UGA/South Carolina and FSU/UF and potential high level rivalries like Clemson/UT and FSU/UGA and the people who hold those beliefs have made a strong case to support said beliefs. I mean does anybody really think that any of the NC or VA schools, outside of maybe VT, would be capable of building realistic rivalries with any of the above considering the total lack of effort they have put in their football programs over the years?

(04-20-2016 01:29 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Delaney has obviously run circles around him for over a decade, but the presidents and ADs still support him. I find it hard to believe that they are all incompetent morons (a few maybe, all is unlikely). Anyone know why???

Swofford is no Delaney, but neither is the ACC the B10.

There is a pecking order and it it what it is.

(04-22-2016 05:45 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 01:29 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Delaney has obviously run circles around him for over a decade, but the presidents and ADs still support him. I find it hard to believe that they are all incompetent morons (a few maybe, all is unlikely). Anyone know why???

Swofford is no Delaney, but neither is the ACC the B10.

There is a pecking order and it it what it is.

Delaney was put in his place by pedofiles. Swofford has to live with academic misconduct.

(04-22-2016 12:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:53 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:42 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:27 AM)green Wrote:  you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

You are not representing the Florida Bar very well if you are going to claim that alumni and school size have no bearing of the market power of a university.

you concede the argument when resorting to name-calling ...

AD HOMINEM

IMHO, green is right that fans are what really matter. Lumber is right that alumni size and school size are great proxies for fan base size at the P5 level.

Yeah, I say they are both right. Where they would be wrong is if neither can see the others point is correct.

Name calling? Green says he attended UF law school so if calling him a member of the Florida Bar is a name or a pejorative, well that's interesting.

I could use the logical blueprint Green lays out and say that a Law Degree does not necessarily equal a competent attorney, but I suspect that is usually does, even in Florida.

The reality is that it's a foolish argument to present any notion that the size of the Big 10 schools does not substantially contribute to what they are able to earn. While there is an exception for every rule, the exception is not the rule.