Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,827
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #21
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-19-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  An 18 team ACC wouldn't be bad with ND all in with Texas plus one & Cincinnati.

Texas, Houston/TCU, ND, Louisville, Miami & Cincinnati

FSU, Clemson, NC State, Syracuse, BC & WF

VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh & GT

I don't think you are going to get Texas. I sincerely doubt you get them all in unless you offer at least 3 more bids to their buddies.

Taking Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia, and getting N.D. to throw all in is your best ticket for a conference that lands new markets, and keeps it's geographical integrity.

The SEC is in the best position to make a play for 4 Big 12 schools. Our Western boundary is their Eastern boundary, and we have several of their old rivals.

You had best concentrate on landing Oklahoma and quit worrying about the Longhorns and ACC income.
03-19-2017 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,284
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-19-2017 07:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  An 18 team ACC wouldn't be bad with ND all in with Texas plus one & Cincinnati.

Texas, Houston/TCU, ND, Louisville, Miami & Cincinnati

FSU, Clemson, NC State, Syracuse, BC & WF

VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh & GT

I don't think you are going to get Texas. I sincerely doubt you get them all in unless you offer at least 3 more bids to their buddies.

Taking Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia, and getting N.D. to throw all in is your best ticket for a conference that lands new markets, and keeps it's geographical integrity.

The SEC is in the best position to make a play for 4 Big 12 schools. Our Western boundary is their Eastern boundary, and we have several of their old rivals.

You had best concentrate on landing Oklahoma and quit worrying about the Longhorns and ACC income.

I don't worry over other people's pipe dreams and that is all it is.
03-19-2017 08:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,610
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #23
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
I stick to my theory that ESPN will try to push Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the SEC. It might not work, but I think they'll try it.

Considering what Mike Slive said about the "very, very large conferences" being the next step, I could see something like this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia

ACC gets Notre Dame all in and adds TCU, Baylor, Houston, Cincinnati, and UConn

Both leagues grow in money and content, but they also grow in influence because of all the votes they acquire for the purpose of maintaining leverage under autonomy.
03-19-2017 08:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,284
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The number by the school is it's national position. But I have broken them out by P conference / independents / and hopefuls.

ACC
17. Florida State-123,344,314
20. Louisville-112,146,501
27. Virginia-100,632,895
30. Clemson-95,800,326
37. Duke-91,971,836
40. North Carolina-90,969,518
43. Miami-85,615,972
46. Virginia Tech-84,064,779
47. Syracuse-82,676,841
49. N.C. State-80,255,029
60. Pittsburgh-71,314,082
62. Boston College-71,314,082 P5 schools earning below 65th position
66. Georgia Tech-62,260,693
67. Wake Forest-62053,971

ACC Conference Mean: $87,034,205


Big 10
02. Ohio State-169,904,847
05. Michigan-146,219,589
11. Penn State-132,306,528
13. Wisconsin-130,045,544
19. Iowa-117,002,340
22. Nebraska-109,967,175
23. Minnesota-107,705,479
26. Michigan State-100,914,623
32. Maryland-94,101,697
33. Indiana-93,938,599
51. Rutgers-78,845,894
53. Purdue-78,517,673
54. Illinois-78,395,389
57. Northwestern-77,906,464

Big 10 Conference Mean: $108,269,417


Big 12
01. Texas-182,104,126
04. Oklahoma-150,371,578
31. Kansas-94,697,418
34. T.C.U.-93,259,382
39. West Virginia-91,412,352
41. Baylor-90,769,041
42. Oklahoma State-90,049,297
55. Iowa State-78,355,500
56. Kansas State-77,936,660
61. Texas Tech-72,750,020

Big 12 Conference Mean: $102,170,537


PAC
21. Stanford-112,036,255
24. Washington-107,154,560
25. U.S.C.-106,195,078
28. U.C.L.A.-98,913,023
35. Oregon-92,375,046
36. Arizona State-92,146,148
45. California-84,200,594
48. Arizona-81,279,425
58. Oregon State-77,667,685
59. Colorado-77,276,890
63. Washington State-71,285,725
64. Utah-70,346,405

PAC Conference Mean: $89,239,736


SEC
03. Alabama-164,005,589
06. L.S.U.-141,456,764
07. Auburn-140,070,592
08. Tennessee-135,949,847
10. Florida-134,033,664
12. Texas A&M-131,045,544
14. Arkansas-127,316,374
15. Kentucky-124,006,908
16. Georgia-123,841,268
18. South Carolina-122,331,092
29. Mississippi-98,377,760
38. Missouri-91,573,174
44. Mississippi State-84,564,899
52. Vanderbilt-78,793,574

SEC Conference Mean: $121,240,504

Independents and G5 schools in the top 65:

09. Notre Dame-134,211,095
50. Connecticut-79,267,924
65. Brigham Young-62,563279

Best of the G5:
68. Southern Methodist-56,909,280
69. Tulane-53,141,211
70. Central Florida-52,317,442
71. Houston-50,886,777
72. Temple-50,886,490
73. Memphis-49,849,343
74. South Florida-48,405,192
75. San Diego St.-46,683,110
76. Cincinnati-43,367,493
77. East Carolina-43,045,337
78. Hawaii-41,997,257
79. Freson State-41,892,171
80. Tulsa-40,465,787

Everyone else earns below $40,000,000.

Conference Mean Earning Rankings:
1. SEC: $121,240,504
2. Big 10: $108,269,417
3. Big 12: $102,170,537
4. PAC: $89,239,736
5. ACC: $87,034,205

Conference breakdown by School Revenue
100,000,000 plus: SEC-10, Big 10-8, ACC-3, PAC-3, Big 12-2
90,000,000 plus: Big 12-5, ACC-3, PAC-3, SEC-2, Big 10-2
80,000,000 plus: ACC-4, PAC-2, SEC-1, Big 10-0, Big 12-0
70,000,000 plus: PAC-4, Big 10-4, Big 12-3, ACC-2, SEC-1
60,000,000 plus: ACC-2

Some interesting takeaways from this data:

1. Maryland now makes more than 10 of its former ACC mates. They are only behind Florida State, Louisville, Virginia, and Clemson in total revenue.

2. Missouri which is 12th in the SEC in total revenue would be 5th in the ACC.

3. If the current P5 of 65 schools was determined by total revenue two P5 schools would be out and two G5 schools would be in. Wake Forest and Georgia Tech would be out and Connecticut and Brigham Young would be in.

4. The SEC economically speaking only has 3 legitimate expansion candidates:
Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State all of which are above our mean. Oklahoma and another earning in the 90's would still make the mean when averaged. Texas and another earning in the 70's could still make the mean when averaged. So, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State could be added to the SEC and our revenue would remain at its mean value per school.

5. Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State are also among the few regional schools that could exceed the SEC's attendance mean of 77,000 per game. Clemson would be another. I cannot think of another in either the Big 12 or ACC that could do the same.

6. Texas exceeds the SEC's mean in academic standing. Oklahoma is virtually ranked at our mean by some services, above by others. And Florida State which is improving would be close to Oklahoma.

So if you want additions that add to the bottom line, attract fans at the same level as the present SEC schools, and which match or add to the present academic standing of the conference there are only three that check these boxes.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2017 12:23 PM by JRsec.)
03-20-2017 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,511
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #25
2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-19-2017 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 07:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  An 18 team ACC wouldn't be bad with ND all in with Texas plus one & Cincinnati.

Texas, Houston/TCU, ND, Louisville, Miami & Cincinnati

FSU, Clemson, NC State, Syracuse, BC & WF

VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh & GT

I don't think you are going to get Texas. I sincerely doubt you get them all in unless you offer at least 3 more bids to their buddies.

Taking Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia, and getting N.D. to throw all in is your best ticket for a conference that lands new markets, and keeps it's geographical integrity.

The SEC is in the best position to make a play for 4 Big 12 schools. Our Western boundary is their Eastern boundary, and we have several of their old rivals.

You had best concentrate on landing Oklahoma and quit worrying about the Longhorns and ACC income.

I don't worry over other people's pipe dreams and that is all it is.

No doubt JR that the SEC is in a better position than the ACC in landing Texas &/or B12 teams financially & geographically but I'm not sure that it would be in the SEC best interest to do so. Sure it would likely bring in more revenue but it could destabilize the conference in the future. It would depend on the model used.
03-20-2017 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,284
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-20-2017 02:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 07:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  An 18 team ACC wouldn't be bad with ND all in with Texas plus one & Cincinnati.

Texas, Houston/TCU, ND, Louisville, Miami & Cincinnati

FSU, Clemson, NC State, Syracuse, BC & WF

VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh & GT

I don't think you are going to get Texas. I sincerely doubt you get them all in unless you offer at least 3 more bids to their buddies.

Taking Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia, and getting N.D. to throw all in is your best ticket for a conference that lands new markets, and keeps it's geographical integrity.

The SEC is in the best position to make a play for 4 Big 12 schools. Our Western boundary is their Eastern boundary, and we have several of their old rivals.

You had best concentrate on landing Oklahoma and quit worrying about the Longhorns and ACC income.

I don't worry over other people's pipe dreams and that is all it is.

No doubt JR that the SEC is in a better position than the ACC in landing Texas &/or B12 teams financially & geographically but I'm not sure that it would be in the SEC best interest to do so. Sure it would likely bring in more revenue but it could destabilize the conference in the future. It would depend on the model used.

Lenville, geography and money are going to be the only model for expansion from here on out.
03-20-2017 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,511
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #27
2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-20-2017 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 07:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't think you are going to get Texas. I sincerely doubt you get them all in unless you offer at least 3 more bids to their buddies.

Taking Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia, and getting N.D. to throw all in is your best ticket for a conference that lands new markets, and keeps it's geographical integrity.

The SEC is in the best position to make a play for 4 Big 12 schools. Our Western boundary is their Eastern boundary, and we have several of their old rivals.

You had best concentrate on landing Oklahoma and quit worrying about the Longhorns and ACC income.

I don't worry over other people's pipe dreams and that is all it is.

No doubt JR that the SEC is in a better position than the ACC in landing Texas &/or B12 teams financially & geographically but I'm not sure that it would be in the SEC best interest to do so. Sure it would likely bring in more revenue but it could destabilize the conference in the future. It would depend on the model used.

Lenville, geography and money are going to be the only model for expansion from here on out.

My point is though you could have Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, A&M, Texas & Oklahoma vying for 1, maybe 2, playoff spots. Not to mention the rest. That's a lot of brands. By comparison, the other conferences would only have a handful of brands competing for 1 or 2 spots. If the money is relatively close, its possible that some struggling brands could see a move & an easier path to the CFP's as beneficial. Fans & boosters demand championships. Just a possibility.
03-20-2017 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,284
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-20-2017 04:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 07:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  You had best concentrate on landing Oklahoma and quit worrying about the Longhorns and ACC income.

I don't worry over other people's pipe dreams and that is all it is.

No doubt JR that the SEC is in a better position than the ACC in landing Texas &/or B12 teams financially & geographically but I'm not sure that it would be in the SEC best interest to do so. Sure it would likely bring in more revenue but it could destabilize the conference in the future. It would depend on the model used.

Lenville, geography and money are going to be the only model for expansion from here on out.

My point is though you could have Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, A&M, Texas & Oklahoma vying for 1, maybe 2, playoff spots. Not to mention the rest. That's a lot of brands. By comparison, the other conferences would only have a handful of brands competing for 1 or 2 spots. If the money is relatively close, its possible that some struggling brands could see a move & an easier path to the CFP's as beneficial. Fans & boosters demand championships. Just a possibility.

The point is the money would not even be remotely close. Right now the SEC enjoys a nearly 13 million per school advantage over the Big 10 in total revenue. Our advantage over the ACC is 24 million. Add Texas and OU and even their little brothers and the money only goes up. Why?

Content multiplication. The networks will pay even more for top match ups. Add Texas and Oklahoma to the 6 - 8 brands that command national attention that already exist within the SEC and it jumps by a multiple of 12 - 16 extra must see games. That's premium!

If the two divisions become essentially two conferences then the SEC championship game becomes even more valuable. Break it into 3 or 4 divisions and it's worth half again as much (at least and probably more) as the SEC championship game to the sponsors.

The end result is that Texas, Oklahoma, and the SEC brands would be playing essentially what we do now when we add Louisville, Clemson or F.S.U. to our schedule, only now it is in house and we don't have to split the revenue.

Getting at least just Oklahoma locks the SEC into being the top content producer for College Football. Land both OU and UT and the lock shuts out the competition. What's more is the games remain essentially regional. With those two the SEC would hold a lock on 7 of the top 10 revenue producers in the nation and would have 14 of the top 20. Let that sink in.

Add Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to the mix at 18 and you now have a large enough middle and bottom without displacing many of the usual bowl schools.

Then if the SEC ever wanted to go to 24 it would have both the revenue and the power to be able to make that move. But I would strongly suspect that 18 would cap it. We would move to 3 six team divisions and have each divisional champ and 1 at large in the Conference playoffs.

It's the smart business move for the SEC, and for Texas and Oklahoma which when combined would have tremendous leverage moving forward on future contracts. That's why I say it's about money and geography. Geographical proximity saves you on travel for all sports. Regional divisions save even more. And the upside contractually is too great to ignore.

Winning seasons come and go at most schools, are frequent at a few, but it's the bottom line the A.D. looks at. This is a potentially huge bottom line.
03-20-2017 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,511
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #29
2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-20-2017 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 04:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't worry over other people's pipe dreams and that is all it is.

No doubt JR that the SEC is in a better position than the ACC in landing Texas &/or B12 teams financially & geographically but I'm not sure that it would be in the SEC best interest to do so. Sure it would likely bring in more revenue but it could destabilize the conference in the future. It would depend on the model used.

Lenville, geography and money are going to be the only model for expansion from here on out.

My point is though you could have Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, A&M, Texas & Oklahoma vying for 1, maybe 2, playoff spots. Not to mention the rest. That's a lot of brands. By comparison, the other conferences would only have a handful of brands competing for 1 or 2 spots. If the money is relatively close, its possible that some struggling brands could see a move & an easier path to the CFP's as beneficial. Fans & boosters demand championships. Just a possibility.

The point is the money would not even be remotely close. Right now the SEC enjoys a nearly 13 million per school advantage over the Big 10 in total revenue. Our advantage over the ACC is 24 million. Add Texas and OU and even their little brothers and the money only goes up. Why?

Content multiplication. The networks will pay even more for top match ups. Add Texas and Oklahoma to the 6 - 8 brands that command national attention that already exist within the SEC and it jumps by a multiple of 12 - 16 extra must see games. That's premium!

If the two divisions become essentially two conferences then the SEC championship game becomes even more valuable. Break it into 3 or 4 divisions and it's worth half again as much (at least and probably more) as the SEC championship game to the sponsors.

The end result is that Texas, Oklahoma, and the SEC brands would be playing essentially what we do now when we add Louisville, Clemson or F.S.U. to our schedule, only now it is in house and we don't have to split the revenue.

Getting at least just Oklahoma locks the SEC into being the top content producer for College Football. Land both OU and UT and the lock shuts out the competition. What's more is the games remain essentially regional. With those two the SEC would hold a lock on 7 of the top 10 revenue producers in the nation and would have 14 of the top 20. Let that sink in.

Add Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to the mix at 18 and you now have a large enough middle and bottom without displacing many of the usual bowl schools.

Then if the SEC ever wanted to go to 24 it would have both the revenue and the power to be able to make that move. But I would strongly suspect that 18 would cap it. We would move to 3 six team divisions and have each divisional champ and 1 at large in the Conference playoffs.

It's the smart business move for the SEC, and for Texas and Oklahoma which when combined would have tremendous leverage moving forward on future contracts. That's why I say it's about money and geography. Geographical proximity saves you on travel for all sports. Regional divisions save even more. And the upside contractually is too great to ignore.

Winning seasons come and go at most schools, are frequent at a few, but it's the bottom line the A.D. looks at. This is a potentially huge bottom line.

I get all of that JR but fans & boosters won't stop demanding championships. For brands like Texas & Oklahoma they will continue to bring in ticket sales & donations no matter what conference they are in, as long as they are winning. What would be the difference for Texas between the SEC & the ACC? The tv & network $$$. Just because WF doesn't put 100k in the stands & make a huge sum off of ticket $ in the ACC doesn't mean that Texas wouldn't. To your point however, the SEC would offer more regional matchups.

Personally I don't want Texas in the ACC but I realize how much $ they would add. I like the P5, it makes the CFP more interesting since someone has to be left out. I would like to see the B12 add Houston, Cincinnati, UCONN & BYU & keep the status quo.
03-20-2017 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,284
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-20-2017 06:36 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 04:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  No doubt JR that the SEC is in a better position than the ACC in landing Texas &/or B12 teams financially & geographically but I'm not sure that it would be in the SEC best interest to do so. Sure it would likely bring in more revenue but it could destabilize the conference in the future. It would depend on the model used.

Lenville, geography and money are going to be the only model for expansion from here on out.

My point is though you could have Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, A&M, Texas & Oklahoma vying for 1, maybe 2, playoff spots. Not to mention the rest. That's a lot of brands. By comparison, the other conferences would only have a handful of brands competing for 1 or 2 spots. If the money is relatively close, its possible that some struggling brands could see a move & an easier path to the CFP's as beneficial. Fans & boosters demand championships. Just a possibility.

The point is the money would not even be remotely close. Right now the SEC enjoys a nearly 13 million per school advantage over the Big 10 in total revenue. Our advantage over the ACC is 24 million. Add Texas and OU and even their little brothers and the money only goes up. Why?

Content multiplication. The networks will pay even more for top match ups. Add Texas and Oklahoma to the 6 - 8 brands that command national attention that already exist within the SEC and it jumps by a multiple of 12 - 16 extra must see games. That's premium!

If the two divisions become essentially two conferences then the SEC championship game becomes even more valuable. Break it into 3 or 4 divisions and it's worth half again as much (at least and probably more) as the SEC championship game to the sponsors.

The end result is that Texas, Oklahoma, and the SEC brands would be playing essentially what we do now when we add Louisville, Clemson or F.S.U. to our schedule, only now it is in house and we don't have to split the revenue.

Getting at least just Oklahoma locks the SEC into being the top content producer for College Football. Land both OU and UT and the lock shuts out the competition. What's more is the games remain essentially regional. With those two the SEC would hold a lock on 7 of the top 10 revenue producers in the nation and would have 14 of the top 20. Let that sink in.

Add Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to the mix at 18 and you now have a large enough middle and bottom without displacing many of the usual bowl schools.

Then if the SEC ever wanted to go to 24 it would have both the revenue and the power to be able to make that move. But I would strongly suspect that 18 would cap it. We would move to 3 six team divisions and have each divisional champ and 1 at large in the Conference playoffs.

It's the smart business move for the SEC, and for Texas and Oklahoma which when combined would have tremendous leverage moving forward on future contracts. That's why I say it's about money and geography. Geographical proximity saves you on travel for all sports. Regional divisions save even more. And the upside contractually is too great to ignore.

Winning seasons come and go at most schools, are frequent at a few, but it's the bottom line the A.D. looks at. This is a potentially huge bottom line.

I get all of that JR but fans & boosters won't stop demanding championships. For brands like Texas & Oklahoma they will continue to bring in ticket sales & donations no matter what conference they are in, as long as they are winning. What would be the difference for Texas between the SEC & the ACC? The tv & network $$$. Just because WF doesn't put 100k in the stands & make a huge sum off of ticket $ in the ACC doesn't mean that Texas wouldn't. To your point however, the SEC would offer more regional matchups.

Personally I don't want Texas in the ACC but I realize how much $ they would add. I like the P5, it makes the CFP more interesting since someone has to be left out. I would like to see the B12 add Houston, Cincinnati, UCONN & BYU & keep the status quo.

Texas and Oklahoma could win their new division as often as they won their old conference. L.S.U. takes Nebraska's place and everything else is fairly equal.

Then the CCG amounts to the old play in bowl like the Sugar.

I hate a P5. It allows for committees to make decisions instead of players winning it on the field. A P4 or 2 leagues make more sense.
03-20-2017 10:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.