Do you guys have any idea how long it takes to convert a basketball school into a dual sports school? A very long time. While you guys may not think there's any merit to taking both Kansas & K-State, there actually is merit to doing so, IMO. The SEC just has half of the KC market. The Big Ten will have to take both teams in Kansas just to get the KC market for football & basketball. And Oklahoma State is a little known basketball powerhouse, IMO. Likewise, the Big Ten could capture half of the Pittsburgh market by going after WVU. To me, the one Big 12 member that offers nothing is Baylor.

Can't see the B1G ever adding WVU.

Individually they don't offer much value in today's media contract driven conference alignment. They have value but they are not going to be any conferences first choice.

KSU and OSU are the #2 schools in states with relatively small populations. As a group, they have more value but that isn't an issue when big brother is still available.

WVU has a number of issues. The state population is actually decreasing. It has been noted that WVU has a different mission than most universities. However, academics is still an issue. WVU has a long history with the old ACC schools dating back to the SoCon days. The oBE schools are not big on adding WVU either. Most cite the raunchy, sometimes violent fan base.

(07-18-2017 02:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Do you guys have any idea how long it takes to convert a basketball school into a dual sports school? A very long time. While you guys may not think there's any merit to taking both Kansas & K-State, there actually is merit to doing so, IMO. The SEC just has half of the KC market. The Big Ten will have to take both teams in Kansas just to get the KC market for football & basketball. And Oklahoma State is a little known basketball powerhouse, IMO. Likewise, the Big Ten could capture half of the Pittsburgh market by going after WVU. To me, the one Big 12 member that offers nothing is Baylor.

Penn State already gives the Big 10 as much of the Pittsburgh market as WVU could deliver.

Big Ten would take Iowa St long before K-State, OK St, or W Virginia. And that isn't saying much ...

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  They have value but they are not going to be any conferences first choice.

Right. As we discussed in this thread, expanding a P5 conference is only profitable if the new members add enough TV value to increase the per-school payout to each existing member. Simple math says that adding new members that are barely as valuable as a conference's current least-valuable members will decrease, not increase, the average TV value of the conference's members and thus decrease the per-school payouts (as long as that money is equally divided).

(07-18-2017 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  They have value but they are not going to be any conferences first choice.

Right. As we discussed in this thread, expanding a P5 conference is only profitable if the new members add enough TV value to increase the per-school payout to each existing member. Simple math says that adding new members that are barely as valuable as a conference's current least-valuable members will decrease, not increase, the average TV value of the conference's members and thus decrease the per-school payouts (as long as that money is equally divided).

It is very debatable as to whether Kansas could pay their way into the Big 10 or the SEC. The only present conference MEAN that Kansas could improve would be that of the PAC and ACC. They do not even make the MEAN of the Big 12 revenue which is obviously skewed by the revenue totals of Texas and Oklahoma.

There are only 2 Big 12 schools that could improve the revenue mean of each of the other P5 conferences, Texas and Oklahoma. As of the latest totals there are several combinations however that would improve the MEAN of those conferences: Texas when paired with any of these (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, West Virginia, and according to the data of FY2015 for privates since FY2016 remains unavailable for privates: T.C.U. and Baylor although the Bears are probably off of every list.)

Oklahoma when paired with any of these (Texas, Kansas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, or West Virginia for the Big 10 and then only barely: just Texas for the SEC) The current MEAN revenue of the Big 10 is 116 million. The current MEAN revenue for the SEC is 130 million.

Now obviously content values to the networks will be more important than the MEAN revenue totals. So suffice it to say that Kansas in that regard would probably be acceptable as a traveling companion with either Texas or Oklahoma to any of the conferences.

However Texas paired with Texas Tech headed to the SEC would add value but from advertising rates as the SEC would have all of the top state schools in Texas. But that argument only works for the SEC, and even then the total benefit to the conference wouldn't be that great, but it would be greater for ESPN. So I mention it more from the networks' advantage than anything else. This would be especially true if Baylor and T.C.U. wound up in the AAC where ESPN has those rights as well to go along with S.M.U. and Houston.

You mentioned the mean revenue totals JRSec, but would K-State, Ok-State, WVU, etc. add anything to any conference's MEDIAN totals? As you know, the mean is calculated differently from the median because big numbers can throw off aka "skew" a "true" average, whereas the median accurately finds the middle number "true average" every time, and I actually prefer using the median more in statistics than mean anymore, unless I'm wanting to calculate averages quickly.

(07-18-2017 10:40 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 02:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Do you guys have any idea how long it takes to convert a basketball school into a dual sports school? A very long time. While you guys may not think there's any merit to taking both Kansas & K-State, there actually is merit to doing so, IMO. The SEC just has half of the KC market. The Big Ten will have to take both teams in Kansas just to get the KC market for football & basketball. And Oklahoma State is a little known basketball powerhouse, IMO. Likewise, the Big Ten could capture half of the Pittsburgh market by going after WVU. To me, the one Big 12 member that offers nothing is Baylor.

Penn State already gives the Big 10 as much of the Pittsburgh market as WVU could deliver.

Um, I kinda doubt that because Morgantown, WV, is much closer to Pittsburgh(75 miles; 1 hour 25 minutes) than State College (136 miles; 2 hrs 39 minutes) is. Also, WVU would also give a portion of the Washington, DC market too, although it already has a portion of it through the addition of Maryland.

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Individually they don't offer much value in today's media contract driven conference alignment. They have value but they are not going to be any conferences first choice.

KSU and OSU are the #2 schools in states with relatively small populations. As a group, they have more value but that isn't an issue when big brother is still available.

WVU has a number of issues. The state population is actually decreasing. It has been noted that WVU has a different mission than most universities. However, academics is still an issue. WVU has a long history with the old ACC schools dating back to the SoCon days. The oBE schools are not big on adding WVU either. Most cite the raunchy, sometimes violent fan base.

True on the population of the state of West Virginia; however, a lot WV graduates make their homes in Pennsylvania, the metro area of Washington, DC, and even the state of North Carolina and still follow the alma mater closely.

(07-18-2017 03:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  You mentioned the mean revenue totals JRSec, but would K-State, Ok-State, WVU, etc. add anything to any conference's MEDIAN totals? As you know, the mean is calculated differently from the median because big numbers can throw off aka "skew" a "true" average, whereas the median accurately finds the middle number "true average" every time, and I actually prefer using the median more in statistics than mean anymore, unless I'm wanting to calculate averages quickly.

The median income in the SEC is well above 120 million. We have 11 of our 14 schools that earn over 110 million and 10 those are above 120.

T.C.U. and Baylor earned 93 and 90 million respectively in FY2015. For FY2016 WVU earned 105, Oklahoma State 93, and Kansas 90, while TTU earned 82 million.

So on their own none of them (except UT & OU) would make the cut. Together Texas and Texas Tech would be just at the MEAN and probably slightly below the median. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would both be below the median and mean as a pair. Texas and Kansas would be workable as a pair. But Kansas and Oklahoma would be a little below the median and about 5 million below the MEAN. West Virginia would be workable with both Oklahoma and Texas as far as the money goes. The question with WVU would have to do with their potential number of viewers and academics.

If OU and OSU were to be an option ESPN would have to make that happen, as the numbers no longer work on their own. In FY2015 they worked by a little bit, in FY2016 they don't.

(07-18-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 03:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  You mentioned the mean revenue totals JRSec, but would K-State, Ok-State, WVU, etc. add anything to any conference's MEDIAN totals? As you know, the mean is calculated differently from the median because big numbers can throw off aka "skew" a "true" average, whereas the median accurately finds the middle number "true average" every time, and I actually prefer using the median more in statistics than mean anymore, unless I'm wanting to calculate averages quickly.

The median income in the SEC is well above 120 million. We have 11 of our 14 schools that earn over 110 million and 10 those are above 120.

T.C.U. and Baylor earned 93 and 90 million respectively in FY2015. For FY2016 WVU earned 105, Oklahoma State 93, and Kansas 90, while TTU earned 82 million.

So on their own none of them (except UT & OU) would make the cut. Together Texas and Texas Tech would be just at the MEAN and probably slightly below the median. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would both be below the median and mean as a pair. Texas and Kansas would be workable as a pair. But Kansas and Oklahoma would be a little below the median and about 5 million below the MEAN. West Virginia would be workable with both Oklahoma and Texas as far as the money goes. The question with WVU would have to do with their potential number of viewers and academics.

If OU and OSU were to be an option ESPN would have to make that happen, as the numbers no longer work on their own. In FY2015 they worked by a little bit, in FY2016 they don't.

Wouldn't you have to compare the schools by taking into account how much revenue comes from merely being in their current conference? The average non-SEC school is likely to bring in a lot more revenue upon joining the SEC.

(07-18-2017 06:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 03:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  You mentioned the mean revenue totals JRSec, but would K-State, Ok-State, WVU, etc. add anything to any conference's MEDIAN totals? As you know, the mean is calculated differently from the median because big numbers can throw off aka "skew" a "true" average, whereas the median accurately finds the middle number "true average" every time, and I actually prefer using the median more in statistics than mean anymore, unless I'm wanting to calculate averages quickly.

The median income in the SEC is well above 120 million. We have 11 of our 14 schools that earn over 110 million and 10 those are above 120.

T.C.U. and Baylor earned 93 and 90 million respectively in FY2015. For FY2016 WVU earned 105, Oklahoma State 93, and Kansas 90, while TTU earned 82 million.

So on their own none of them (except UT & OU) would make the cut. Together Texas and Texas Tech would be just at the MEAN and probably slightly below the median. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would both be below the median and mean as a pair. Texas and Kansas would be workable as a pair. But Kansas and Oklahoma would be a little below the median and about 5 million below the MEAN. West Virginia would be workable with both Oklahoma and Texas as far as the money goes. The question with WVU would have to do with their potential number of viewers and academics.

If OU and OSU were to be an option ESPN would have to make that happen, as the numbers no longer work on their own. In FY2015 they worked by a little bit, in FY2016 they don't.

Wouldn't you have to compare the schools by taking into account how much revenue comes from merely being in their current conference? The average non-SEC school is likely to bring in a lot more revenue upon joining the SEC.

Well since you have to divide the total pie, the question is "Do they add enough to the pie so that existing shares go up?" ESPN will make that determination when the value of each of those candidates is assessed. So in spite of the abundance of resistance to the notion, once again it comes down to the network. The conferences will all evaluate the 10 schools of the Big 12 and will know beforehand which schools will add to their bottom line and which will not. And those valuations will be specific to the conference inquiring and to the networks providing the valuations.

So if the content value and projected ad revenue from the markets and alumni involved merits a higher valuation than they would have in their present conference then of course the valuation will reflect that. But then that is why brands will be the priority. Their valuations are multiplied by the potential number of brands they will play in the conference of interest. Texas and Oklahoma currently have about 2 games a season (including the RRR) that could merit a national audience. In the Big 10 that would likely double and in the SEC it might even triple. So if a school has extra value that they bring over and above the value the presently have in the Big 12 then it will likely be the brands that add, and the other 8 that will not. Obviously Kansas doesn't bring much in football, but they might in basketball. While OU would likely be worth more in the SEC, Kansas would be worth more in the Big 10. There aren't enough major basketball brands in the SEC to drive the Kansas content value by much. Whereas the Big 10 would multiply that brand 4 to 5 times what it presently brings in the Big 12. The ACC would multiply it even more, but they aren't geographically compatible.

(07-18-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 03:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  You mentioned the mean revenue totals JRSec, but would K-State, Ok-State, WVU, etc. add anything to any conference's MEDIAN totals? As you know, the mean is calculated differently from the median because big numbers can throw off aka "skew" a "true" average, whereas the median accurately finds the middle number "true average" every time, and I actually prefer using the median more in statistics than mean anymore, unless I'm wanting to calculate averages quickly.

The median income in the SEC is well above 120 million. We have 11 of our 14 schools that earn over 110 million and 10 those are above 120.

T.C.U. and Baylor earned 93 and 90 million respectively in FY2015. For FY2016 WVU earned 105, Oklahoma State 93, and Kansas 90, while TTU earned 82 million.

So on their own none of them (except UT & OU) would make the cut. Together Texas and Texas Tech would be just at the MEAN and probably slightly below the median. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would both be below the median and mean as a pair. Texas and Kansas would be workable as a pair. But Kansas and Oklahoma would be a little below the median and about 5 million below the MEAN. West Virginia would be workable with both Oklahoma and Texas as far as the money goes. The question with WVU would have to do with their potential number of viewers and academics.

If OU and OSU were to be an option ESPN would have to make that happen, as the numbers no longer work on their own. In FY2015 they worked by a little bit, in FY2016 they don't.

I'm sure you put a lot of work into that, and for that, I thank you. The median can be hard to calculate and a lot of sports journalists don't put the median into their figures. I am positive that you are correct on the SEC, but I am indeed curious what the numbers look like for the other big P4 conferences. I will have to research that myself when I get a chance. But thank you again for getting me those numbers!!

(07-18-2017 08:20 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 03:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  You mentioned the mean revenue totals JRSec, but would K-State, Ok-State, WVU, etc. add anything to any conference's MEDIAN totals? As you know, the mean is calculated differently from the median because big numbers can throw off aka "skew" a "true" average, whereas the median accurately finds the middle number "true average" every time, and I actually prefer using the median more in statistics than mean anymore, unless I'm wanting to calculate averages quickly.

The median income in the SEC is well above 120 million. We have 11 of our 14 schools that earn over 110 million and 10 those are above 120.

T.C.U. and Baylor earned 93 and 90 million respectively in FY2015. For FY2016 WVU earned 105, Oklahoma State 93, and Kansas 90, while TTU earned 82 million.

So on their own none of them (except UT & OU) would make the cut. Together Texas and Texas Tech would be just at the MEAN and probably slightly below the median. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would both be below the median and mean as a pair. Texas and Kansas would be workable as a pair. But Kansas and Oklahoma would be a little below the median and about 5 million below the MEAN. West Virginia would be workable with both Oklahoma and Texas as far as the money goes. The question with WVU would have to do with their potential number of viewers and academics.

If OU and OSU were to be an option ESPN would have to make that happen, as the numbers no longer work on their own. In FY2015 they worked by a little bit, in FY2016 they don't.

I'm sure you put a lot of work into that, and for that, I thank you. The median can be hard to calculate and a lot of sports journalists don't put the median into their figures. I am positive that you are correct on the SEC, but I am indeed curious what the numbers look like for the other big P4 conferences. I will have to research that myself when I get a chance. But thank you again for getting me those numbers!!

I believe you will find that T.C.U., Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia would all elevate the value of the current ACC and PAC MEAN and Median numbers. Texas Tech would be relatively close to the Median of each of those conferences, but might well provide enough market penetration in Texas to be worthwhile. It's possible that Kansas could add enough BB content to the Big 10 to be worthwhile as a #2 paired with either Texas or Oklahoma, but while WVU might be close to being above the Big 10 median, and is below the Big 10 MEAN, they don't meet the other criteria of the Big 10.

In a content based system Kansas would create value in basketball universally. People will tune in to watch KU vs Mississippi State where they would have ignored MSU vs Auburn

TT and OSU would probably have the opposite effect by taking away from better SEC matchups that would have attracted more audiences

(07-18-2017 08:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe you will find that T.C.U., Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia would all elevate the value of the current ACC and PAC MEAN and Median numbers.

Value added to TV rights is what is important because that's what makes money for existing conference members when the conference expands. An athletic department's budget/revenue is a sign of how well-resourced the department is, and a very good sign, but not directly related to TV value. Donations do not increase a team's value to ESPN and Fox. Boone Pickens' generosity to Ok St athletics is a huge boost to Ok St's bottom line, but by itself that $$$ has no bearing on whether ESPN or Fox would pay huge money to a conference for adding Ok St.

(07-19-2017 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe you will find that T.C.U., Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia would all elevate the value of the current ACC and PAC MEAN and Median numbers.

Value added to TV rights is what is important because that's what makes money for existing conference members when the conference expands. An athletic department's budget/revenue is a sign of how well-resourced the department is, and a very good sign, but not directly related to TV value. Donations do not increase a team's value to ESPN and Fox. Boone Pickens' generosity to Ok St athletics is a huge boost to Ok St's bottom line, but by itself that $$$ has no bearing on whether ESPN or Fox would pay huge money to a conference for adding Ok St.

Wedge Oklahoma State has plenty of value content wise as they are very competitive in all sports. What they have that the PAC doesn't want is an R2 status. So just as West Virginia might add some competitive value to the Big 10 their academic rating precludes their consideration. That's the issue for OSU with regards to the PAC.

(07-19-2017 01:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe you will find that T.C.U., Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia would all elevate the value of the current ACC and PAC MEAN and Median numbers.

Value added to TV rights is what is important because that's what makes money for existing conference members when the conference expands. An athletic department's budget/revenue is a sign of how well-resourced the department is, and a very good sign, but not directly related to TV value. Donations do not increase a team's value to ESPN and Fox. Boone Pickens' generosity to Ok St athletics is a huge boost to Ok St's bottom line, but by itself that $$$ has no bearing on whether ESPN or Fox would pay huge money to a conference for adding Ok St.

Wedge Oklahoma State has plenty of value content wise as they are very competitive in all sports. What they have that the PAC doesn't want is an R2 status. So just as West Virginia might add some competitive value to the Big 10 their academic rating precludes their consideration. That's the issue for OSU with regards to the PAC.

Money talks. The issue is how much ESPN and Fox are willing to pay a conference if that conference adds Oklahoma State. If ESPN and Fox had been willing to give each current Pac-12 school an additional $3-5 million/year in TV money, then OU and Ok St would have been invited in 2011. If there is no "new money" on the table for existing members, then they are not going to vote to issue invitations.

As I said in an earlier thread, ESPN likes two things about the Pac-12: (1) They are the only power conference covering the pacific and mountain time zones, and (2) They are the only power conference that delivers live FB and BB games in west coast prime time. Neither of those benefits is enhanced by adding, say, Oklahoma State to the Pac-12. ESPN and Fox already have an abundance of central time zone teams to choose from if they want to broadcast their games; the TV guys don't need those teams to be in the Pac-12.

Adding UT is different because they are so inherently valuable to TV that they add a lot of TV value to any conference regardless of other factors. That's why I think that the Pac isn't adding anyone from the central time zone unless UT is included -- because, as was proven in 2011, the TV guys will only make it profitable for the Pac if UT is included.

And, that was the whole idea behind the 2010 attempt at a Pac-16. The purpose wasn't to add central time zone teams for the sake of being in the central time zone. The purpose was to land the Longhorns, and to let them bring some local schools along with them if that's what it takes to get the Horns to say yes.

If the Pac were to land UT but not OU, would they allow three more Texas schools to tag along?