Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929


When Discussing Realignment Fans Ignore Statistics That Can Indicate the Value of a Team to a Conference.

The first number is the average football attendance of the conference. This number tends to indicate the impact that those schools can have when visiting your campus. That is why they are important. They aren't a deal maker, but they can be a deal breaker.

The second number is the average gross total revenue earned by a conference school. If a candidate's gross total revenue is at or above the average gross revenue for a conference it generally indicates whether or not the school being added brings enough value for consideration. But in fairness you have to handicap this number by subtracting the total TV revenue of the conference of the candidate from the total of the conference which is looking to add them.

For comparison's sake last year the SEC earned 40.1 million in TV revenue and the Big 10 earned about 43 million for all tiers, the Big 12 35 million plus their T3, the PAC roughly 29 million for all tiers, and the ACC roughly 28 million for all tiers.

The third number is the dollar amount of impact that a school brings to its surrounding markets. This might be the best factor to consider when looking at whether or not a school will pay its own way into another conference. It's also the best way to see whether or not a pair of schools add value.

To make that determination add the total impact value of the pair of schools and divide by 2. If that average is higher than the conference average for the conference they wish to join the answer is yes. If it is lower than that average then the answer is no.

When you've done this you will find that the number of schools which could add value to a particular conference is much smaller than you might think.

Candidates that add to the averages of the SEC:
SEC avgs: 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $ 525,416,428
1. Texas: 97,881 / $182,104,126 / $1,243,124,000
2. Oklahoma: 86,857 / $150,371,878 / $1,001,967,000
3. Notre Dame: 80,795 / $134,211,095 / $ 856,938,000
4. Florida St.: 76,800 / $123,344,314 / $ 385,938,000
5. Clemson: 80,970 / $ 95,800,326 / $328,411,000

No other schools add to any metric for the SEC.

The following schools might be considered for market Additions and Academics:

1. Virginia 39,929 / $100,632,895 / $ 168,534,000
2. Kansas 25,828 / $ 94,697,418 / $ 183,031,000
3. T.C.U. 45,168 / $ 93,259,382 / $ 153,631,000
4. Duke 29,895 / $ 91,971,836 / $ 64,195,000
5. West Va. 57,583 / $ 91,412,352 / $ 72,649,000
6. North Car. 50,250 / $ 90,969,518 / $ 147,179,000
7. Ok. State 53,814 / $ 90,049,297 / $ 285,293,000
8. Miami 58,572 / $ 85,615,972 / $ 254,502,000
9. Va. Tech 63,043 / $ 84,064,779 / $ 269,883,000
10. N.C.St. 57,497 / $ 80,255,029 / $ 191,813,000


You will note the relatively low impact values for Duke and West Virginia. This is a big issue where these two are concerned. It is why both Duke and West Virginia would likely have to be paired with a better addition to gain membership in the SEC, or in Duke's case either the SEC or Big 10. In fact Miami, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State show their strength in being someone's #2 by virtue of the economic impact they have within their states.


For the Big 10 there are only 3 schools that add to all of their metrics:
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame

For the markets and academics compare the following to the Big 10's averages:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia Tech
4. Duke
5. N.C. State
6. Syracuse


So if you are going to propose that certain schools should be placed in any conference my suggestion is to run the numbers and see if it is doable first. In the vast majority of cases it will not be.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 06:58 PM by JRsec.)
01-22-2018 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #2
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
JR, I always enjoy your posts because of the logical approach you take to the business of conference realignment.

What are your thoughts about this:

Should a conference looking to expand also take into to consideration the value an expansion candidate has to their current conference and their value in relation to their possible replacements?

Clemson and Florida St can add the SEC's overall value. Their loss would also be catastrophically detrimental to the ACC because their most likely replacements, UCF and USF bring substantially less value. Now let's say you not only take those two but you take 4 more from that league (UVA, VT, Duke, UNC?)

Same story with the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma are the big fish. Throw in WVU, Texas Tech, Okla St, and Kansas and the value of your new 20 team league is essentially the value of your current 14 plus 100% of the Big 12's value.

Now let's say you somehow convince Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida St, and pick any 2 fillers to buy into your plan. That's got to be adding roughly a third of the ACC's overall value and half of the Big 12's with 6 schools. You've concentrated an enormous amount of college sports content and value into your one organization.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 07:51 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
01-22-2018 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #3
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
I see you look at gross revenue, but wouldn't net revenue be more informative?
01-22-2018 08:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 07:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR, I always enjoy your posts because of the logical approach you take to the business of conference realignment.

What are your thoughts about this:

Should a conference looking to expand also take into to consideration the value an expansion candidate has to their current conference and their value in relation to their possible replacements?

Clemson and Florida St can add the SEC's overall value. Their loss would also be catastrophically detrimental to the ACC because their most likely replacements, UCF and USF bring substantially less value. Now let's say you not only take those two but you take 4 more from that league (UVA, VT, Duke, UNC?)

Same story with the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma are the big fish. Throw in WVU, Texas Tech, Okla St, and Kansas and the value of your new 20 team league is essentially the value of your current 14 plus 100% of the Big 12's value.

Now let's say you somehow convince Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida St, and pick any 2 fillers to buy into your plan. That's got to be adding roughly a third of the ACC's overall value and half of the Big 12's with 6 schools. You've concentrated an enormous amount of college sports content and value into your one organization.


Yes, and no.

Yes the taking of product from another conference does have the devaluation of the competitor at least in the background of the thinking. To take your use of the Big 12 into account, the feeling was that Texas would never leave unless they became insecure within their own confines. Oklahoma is more vulnerable but will stick with Texas until they can't. So when Colorado, Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Missouri left, all four AAU at the time, and all schools that enhanced the Texas portfolio and the footprint, and the competitive valuation of the Big 12 went into decline as a result, it helped to make Texas more insecure within their own creation, which in turn makes Oklahoma antsy. So you see the very thing you propose about Texas and Oklahoma is really only possible in reverse where the Big 12 is concerned. The other conferences had to nibble away at the foundation of the Big 12 in hopes of dislodging its two most valuable products.

In the ACC it is yet to be determined as to what is the best approach. I have suggested that the best approach to poaching the ACC is to simply remove from their path anything that can add value. Then all you have to do is wait. Time, money, and economic disparity will eventually create movement. Sure you might have to wait until the end of their GOR approaches, but in the end it will be the better brands that jump, provided they don't acquire a big name or two to prop them up. Hence the Texas as an independent talk.

But look at their numbers. The only two profiles that are SEC like, or B1G like, belong to Clemson and Florida State. And with the ACC the best academic institutions are the poorest athletic earners with some of the lowest attendance figures. So for that reason unless you truly can get subscription fees for large states when you look at N.C. State and Virginia Tech's impact valuations you begin to realize (especially with their better attendance numbers) that they are the better acquisitions for business, not academics, but for business. Duke on the other hand has little impact for a school whose brand is universally recognized for basketball. So why not take Duke? Because basketball generates only about 15% of the total revenue for a conference.

So when somebody says they will take Duke in order to land U.N.C. it needs to be an academic decision because as an athletic business decision it is weak. Virginia is not so much other than lousy attendance at football.

But for the ACC to fold it's the academic schools that have to want to leave and if every athletics first school did leave they would just stay and have a smaller conference. So the difference in revenue x the number of years the disparity exists, especially if the gap widens will = the kind of pressure it takes for those key academic schools to toss in the towel to overcome the gap, especially if they can join a consortia of schools that approximate their academics.

It is for this reason that I can see a day in which Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame may chart a course for the Big 10. And if they do, Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech will get a call from the SEC. But this only happens if some version of the subscription model still makes it profitable for the SEC and B1G to take them.

So yes what a move does to the total value of the targeted conference is considered, but no that alone is not what produces movement. The motives vary, but their one constant is that they have to be profitable at some level. If it is a sports business model that takes precedent then it has to be profitable period. If it is an academic move, the taking of the school can't hurt the bottom line of the member schools of the interested conference. So for the key schools of the ACC to ever leave there must be two ingredients present: a conference with solid academics has to want them (the B1G checks this box) and that conference has to be able to monetize the markets they are getting in the transaction and the subscription fee model does that nicely. But if we ever move to a pay by the actual viewer model then those key academic schools within the ACC leave a lot to be desired and in that case taking them may be problematic for the Big 10 in my opinion.

Texas and Oklahoma by contrast are two schools one with stellar academics and the other with decent academics, but either of which bring 1 billion in economic impact to their regions with them to their new homes. Texas and Oklahoma are safe bets either way, academics or business. North Carolina and Virginia are not if the subscription fee model goes completely away. So keep that in mind.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 08:51 PM by JRsec.)
01-22-2018 08:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #5
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
It would be unwise for any conference to expand further based on a cable-subscription model, because any school you add will be in your conference a helluva lot longer than the cable model will last, unless your conference breaks up.

The better business decision would be to hold off on any further expansion until the future model of making money from TV/video is solidified. Acquiring UT, OU, or ND should be the only exceptions. Of course, we already have examples to show us that even the wealthiest conferences don't always make the best business decisions.
01-22-2018 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 08:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I see you look at gross revenue, but wouldn't net revenue be more informative?

Absolutely not! NET revenues of state schools are meaningless, especially if they are trying to spend their budget so they can ask for larger appropriations. Gross Revenue can't be fudged in nearly as many ways as NET revenue. Plus Gross Revenue is a measurement of a school's ability to generate money, which is part of its economic power. NET revenue is more of an indicator of their ability to manage the money, or spend it, depending upon their priorities.
01-22-2018 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #7
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
The ACC really doesn't have much value they can add. UConn, Cincy, UCF, or USF aren't going to raise the value. WVU would fall above the league average if they were shopping. Notre Dame as a ful member is about the only major value add out there for them and they won't be dislodged without devaluing the ACC some other way so in this regard the SEC and Big Ten have accomplished all they can on that front.

The academic schools in the league are what is driving down the league average so to me in this regard they are the dead weight that will make it increasingly imperative to find a new, more profitable home if you are a league subsidized like Florida St or Clemson. If they don't get out they will fall farther and farther blind in the arms race.

I also see what you're saying about schools like VT and NC St having more of an upside than their more academically minded rivals. They're certainly more SEC-like in their profiles and have more statewide mass appeal as being the common man's school (look at Cal, a school most Californians can't get into). I also see where it might be in the best interest for a league like the SEC to be willing to take a slight hit by taking the academic schools in a package with Florida St and Clemson because by doing so they would deprive the Big Ten of a pathway into those markets. This is also why they might consider Kansas in a Big 12 death blow move because of the hemming in effect it would have on their chief rival. To me, if you want to orchestrate the ACC-apocalypse you do a little of both--you take 3 academic schools and 3 football schools. Now if you only have room for 4 then by all means VT and NC St are the way to go--the academic trio has a way out via the Big Ten and if the gutting of the ACC Is a joint effort by the Big Ten and SEC it means there will fewer homeless programs remaining to fuss.
01-22-2018 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 09:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It would be unwise for any conference to expand further based on a cable-subscription model, because any school you add will be in your conference a helluva lot longer than the cable model will last, unless your conference breaks up.

The better business decision would be to hold off on any further expansion until the future model of making money from TV/video is solidified. Acquiring UT, OU, or ND should be the only exceptions. Of course, we already have examples to show us that even the wealthiest conferences don't always make the best business decisions.

I agree that any addition predicated upon cable subscription fees is folly. I also totally concur on taking Texas, Oklahoma, or Notre Dame whenever they are willing to move. All 3 are money in the bank. I would however add a few key regional brands to the lists of some conferences, but again branding and fit have more to do with that. But even then the move won't happen unless it adds to the bottom line.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 09:47 PM by JRsec.)
01-22-2018 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #9
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 08:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I see you look at gross revenue, but wouldn't net revenue be more informative?

Absolutely not! NET revenues of state schools are meaningless, especially if they are trying to spend their budget so they can ask for larger appropriations. Gross Revenue can't be fudged in nearly as many ways as NET revenue. Plus Gross Revenue is a measurement of a school's ability to generate money, which is part of its economic power. NET revenue is more of an indicator of their ability to manage the money, or spend it, depending upon their priorities.

I'm in finance and I too firmly believe in looking at the Gross. There are plenty of ways to hide profit be exaggerating expenses.
01-22-2018 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 09:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ACC really doesn't have much value they can add. UConn, Cincy, UCF, or USF aren't going to raise the value. WVU would fall above the league average if they were shopping. Notre Dame as a ful member is about the only major value add out there for them and they won't be dislodged without devaluing the ACC some other way so in this regard the SEC and Big Ten have accomplished all they can on that front.

The academic schools in the league are what is driving down the league average so to me in this regard they are the dead weight that will make it increasingly imperative to find a new, more profitable home if you are a league subsidized like Florida St or Clemson. If they don't get out they will fall farther and farther blind in the arms race.

I also see what you're saying about schools like VT and NC St having more of an upside than their more academically minded rivals. They're certainly more SEC-like in their profiles and have more statewide mass appeal as being the common man's school (look at Cal, a school most Californians can't get into). I also see where it might be in the best interest for a league like the SEC to be willing to take a slight hit by taking the academic schools in a package with Florida St and Clemson because by doing so they would deprive the Big Ten of a pathway into those markets. This is also why they might consider Kansas in a Big 12 death blow move because of the hemming in effect it would have on their chief rival. To me, if you want to orchestrate the ACC-apocalypse you do a little of both--you take 3 academic schools and 3 football schools. Now if you only have room for 4 then by all means VT and NC St are the way to go--the academic trio has a way out via the Big Ten and if the gutting of the ACC Is a joint effort by the Big Ten and SEC it means there will fewer homeless programs remaining to fuss.

Getting a piece or all of Texas would be their most valuable addition outside of N.D. going all in. But you did raise a good point about W.V.U.. They would add from the standpoint of attendance and gross revenue production, but their impact numbers, while in line with many in the ACC, are relatively weak when compared to the top half of the P5.

BTW: You only ever have room for that which adds to the bottom line. It could be 2 or 6 but everyone has to make more.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 09:51 PM by JRsec.)
01-22-2018 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #11
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 09:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It would be unwise for any conference to expand further based on a cable-subscription model, because any school you add will be in your conference a helluva lot longer than the cable model will last, unless your conference breaks up.

The better business decision would be to hold off on any further expansion until the future model of making money from TV/video is solidified. Acquiring UT, OU, or ND should be the only exceptions. Of course, we already have examples to show us that even the wealthiest conferences don't always make the best business decisions.

I think the philosophy for drafting college players of always going for the best available is the same way a conference should approach drafting an expansion school.

I lot of folks in suits in Chicago thought they were geniuses when the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. At the time it made some financial sense because everyone was gushing over the subscriber model but the model shifted with the technology. Now the league is saddled with 2 cellar dwellers in pro sports markets that exhibit an ever decreasing interest in college sports.

If I were the Big Ten back when there was just 11 schools I'd be doing everything I could to haul in the big fish out there with the 5 spots (to 16) I had for leverage--4 of the best Big 12 schools & Notre Dame and then threaten to admit a 5th if the Irish wouldn't play ball.
01-22-2018 10:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #12
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
IMO, Maryland is a decent long-term play for the Big Ten. Rutgers made sense only for the short-term grab of cable revenue. Nebraska was an oops; their football isn't what is was under Devaney and Osborne and won't be that good again, and it's a far too small population base for such a high-revenue conference. The Big Ten would have made more money per member in the long term if they had added no one in 2010 and added Maryland as their 12th member when Maryland became available. They'll make a ton of money regardless, but could have made more per school.
01-22-2018 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #13
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 09:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 08:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I see you look at gross revenue, but wouldn't net revenue be more informative?

Absolutely not! NET revenues of state schools are meaningless, especially if they are trying to spend their budget so they can ask for larger appropriations. Gross Revenue can't be fudged in nearly as many ways as NET revenue. Plus Gross Revenue is a measurement of a school's ability to generate money, which is part of its economic power. NET revenue is more of an indicator of their ability to manage the money, or spend it, depending upon their priorities.

I'm in finance and I too firmly believe in looking at the Gross. There are plenty of ways to hide profit be exaggerating expenses.

Ah, OK. Makes sense.
01-22-2018 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #14
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ACC really doesn't have much value they can add. UConn, Cincy, UCF, or USF aren't going to raise the value. WVU would fall above the league average if they were shopping. Notre Dame as a ful member is about the only major value add out there for them and they won't be dislodged without devaluing the ACC some other way so in this regard the SEC and Big Ten have accomplished all they can on that front.

The academic schools in the league are what is driving down the league average so to me in this regard they are the dead weight that will make it increasingly imperative to find a new, more profitable home if you are a league subsidized like Florida St or Clemson. If they don't get out they will fall farther and farther blind in the arms race.

I also see what you're saying about schools like VT and NC St having more of an upside than their more academically minded rivals. They're certainly more SEC-like in their profiles and have more statewide mass appeal as being the common man's school (look at Cal, a school most Californians can't get into). I also see where it might be in the best interest for a league like the SEC to be willing to take a slight hit by taking the academic schools in a package with Florida St and Clemson because by doing so they would deprive the Big Ten of a pathway into those markets. This is also why they might consider Kansas in a Big 12 death blow move because of the hemming in effect it would have on their chief rival. To me, if you want to orchestrate the ACC-apocalypse you do a little of both--you take 3 academic schools and 3 football schools. Now if you only have room for 4 then by all means VT and NC St are the way to go--the academic trio has a way out via the Big Ten and if the gutting of the ACC Is a joint effort by the Big Ten and SEC it means there will fewer homeless programs remaining to fuss.

Getting a piece or all of Texas would be their most valuable addition outside of N.D. going all in. But you did raise a good point about W.V.U.. They would add from the standpoint of attendance and gross revenue production, but their impact numbers, while in line with many in the ACC, are relatively weak when compared to the top half of the P5.

BTW: You only ever have room for that which adds to the bottom line. It could be 2 or 6 but everyone has to make more.

I assume by Texas you mean UT? That certainly would have the potential to add some value. The struggle I have with a marriage of convenience with Texas is that a huge factor in the value of a program is the allure of the match ups it would bring to your inventory. About 1/3rd of the ACC would create interesting match ups with Texas for tv; 1/3rd of the ACC result in so-so matches, and the other 1/3rd are total snooze fests. Texas vs Tech or Baylor or TCU bring with them the allure of history and local rivalry. The Horns might hold a historic advantage in the series but it's still a match up both sides get excited for and the rest of the country will take notice. No one is going to get excited for Texas playing Duke, Wake, Pitt, 'Cuse, or BC.

I'm with you about only growing to a size that makes financial sense. To me part of that sense is creating a league structure that maximizes revenue by ensuring the schedule preserves as many of the big rivalries as possible. I think for the Big Ten and SEC both there are ways to make 16, 18, 20, or 24 feasible.
01-22-2018 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 10:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ACC really doesn't have much value they can add. UConn, Cincy, UCF, or USF aren't going to raise the value. WVU would fall above the league average if they were shopping. Notre Dame as a ful member is about the only major value add out there for them and they won't be dislodged without devaluing the ACC some other way so in this regard the SEC and Big Ten have accomplished all they can on that front.

The academic schools in the league are what is driving down the league average so to me in this regard they are the dead weight that will make it increasingly imperative to find a new, more profitable home if you are a league subsidized like Florida St or Clemson. If they don't get out they will fall farther and farther blind in the arms race.

I also see what you're saying about schools like VT and NC St having more of an upside than their more academically minded rivals. They're certainly more SEC-like in their profiles and have more statewide mass appeal as being the common man's school (look at Cal, a school most Californians can't get into). I also see where it might be in the best interest for a league like the SEC to be willing to take a slight hit by taking the academic schools in a package with Florida St and Clemson because by doing so they would deprive the Big Ten of a pathway into those markets. This is also why they might consider Kansas in a Big 12 death blow move because of the hemming in effect it would have on their chief rival. To me, if you want to orchestrate the ACC-apocalypse you do a little of both--you take 3 academic schools and 3 football schools. Now if you only have room for 4 then by all means VT and NC St are the way to go--the academic trio has a way out via the Big Ten and if the gutting of the ACC Is a joint effort by the Big Ten and SEC it means there will fewer homeless programs remaining to fuss.

Getting a piece or all of Texas would be their most valuable addition outside of N.D. going all in. But you did raise a good point about W.V.U.. They would add from the standpoint of attendance and gross revenue production, but their impact numbers, while in line with many in the ACC, are relatively weak when compared to the top half of the P5.

BTW: You only ever have room for that which adds to the bottom line. It could be 2 or 6 but everyone has to make more.

I assume by Texas you mean UT? That certainly would have the potential to add some value. The struggle I have with a marriage of convenience with Texas is that a huge factor in the value of a program is the allure of the match ups it would bring to your inventory. About 1/3rd of the ACC would create interesting match ups with Texas for tv; 1/3rd of the ACC result in so-so matches, and the other 1/3rd are total snooze fests. Texas vs Tech or Baylor or TCU bring with them the allure of history and local rivalry. The Horns might hold a historic advantage in the series but it's still a match up both sides get excited for and the rest of the country will take notice. No one is going to get excited for Texas playing Duke, Wake, Pitt, 'Cuse, or BC.

I'm with you about only growing to a size that makes financial sense. To me part of that sense is creating a league structure that maximizes revenue by ensuring the schedule preserves as many of the big rivalries as possible. I think for the Big Ten and SEC both there are ways to make 16, 18, 20, or 24 feasible.

That's true. But the ACC has been stabilized to some degree with just 5 games from Notre Dame. Most of these ACC scenarios have just Texas coming on board, but also as a partial member, and also with just 5 games which leaves Texas 7 games with which to schedule other brands.

Still, if they want to make a serious play for Texas they'll need to build a division around them. And since Texas likes buddies I think a 6 school division of which the Horns are one would be the best approach. But it is also a massive move to make. Besides UNC will do what is necessary to maintain their voting block control over the ACC so it isn't likely. They'll favor the partial approach as it is safer for their control.
01-22-2018 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929


When Discussing Realignment Fans Ignore Statistics That Can Indicate the Value of a Team to a Conference.

The first number is the average football attendance of the conference. This number tends to indicate the impact that those schools can have when visiting your campus. That is why they are important. They aren't a deal maker, but they can be a deal breaker.

The second number is the average gross total revenue earned by a conference school. If a candidate's gross total revenue is at or above the average gross revenue for a conference it generally indicates whether or not the school being added brings enough value for consideration. But in fairness you have to handicap this number by subtracting the total TV revenue of the conference of the candidate from the total of the conference which is looking to add them.

For comparison's sake last year the SEC earned 40.1 million in TV revenue and the Big 10 earned about 43 million for all tiers, the Big 12 35 million plus their T3, the PAC roughly 29 million for all tiers, and the ACC roughly 28 million for all tiers.

The third number is the dollar amount of impact that a school brings to its surrounding markets. This might be the best factor to consider when looking at whether or not a school will pay its own way into another conference. It's also the best way to see whether or not a pair of schools add value.

To make that determination add the total impact value of the pair of schools and divide by 2. If that average is higher than the conference average for the conference they wish to join the answer is yes. If it is lower than that average then the answer is no.

When you've done this you will find that the number of schools which could add value to a particular conference is much smaller than you might think.

Candidates that add to the averages of the SEC:
SEC avgs: 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $ 525,416,428
1. Texas: 97,881 / $182,104,126 / $1,243,124,000
2. Oklahoma: 86,857 / $150,371,878 / $1,001,967,000
3. Notre Dame: 80,795 / $134,211,095 / $ 856,938,000
4. Florida St.: 76,800 / $123,344,314 / $ 385,938,000
5. Clemson: 80,970 / $ 95,800,326 / $328,411,000

No other schools add to any metric for the SEC.

The following schools might be considered for market Additions and Academics:

1. Virginia 39,929 / $100,632,895 / $ 168,534,000
2. Kansas 25,828 / $ 94,697,418 / $ 183,031,000
3. T.C.U. 45,168 / $ 93,259,382 / $ 153,631,000
4. Duke 29,895 / $ 91,971,836 / $ 64,195,000
5. West Va. 57,583 / $ 91,412,352 / $ 72,649,000
6. North Car. 50,250 / $ 90,969,518 / $ 147,179,000
7. Ok. State 53,814 / $ 90,049,297 / $ 285,293,000
8. Miami 58,572 / $ 85,615,972 / $ 254,502,000
9. Va. Tech 63,043 / $ 84,064,779 / $ 269,883,000
10. N.C.St. 57,497 / $ 80,255,029 / $ 191,813,000


You will note the relatively low impact values for Duke and West Virginia. This is a big issue where these two are concerned. It is why both Duke and West Virginia would likely have to be paired with a better addition to gain membership in the SEC, or in Duke's case either the SEC or Big 10. In fact Miami, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State show their strength in being someone's #2 by virtue of the economic impact they have within their states.


For the Big 10 there are only 3 schools that add to all of their metrics:
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame

For the markets and academics compare the following to the Big 10's averages:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia Tech
4. Duke
5. N.C. State
6. Syracuse


So if you are going to propose that certain schools should be placed in any conference my suggestion is to run the numbers and see if it is doable first. In the vast majority of cases it will not be.

Perhaps the way forward is to split the differences when it comes to desired properties from the XII/ACC. Any deviation from this set-up may complicate it too much:

Kansas
Texas
Nebraska
Iowa
Northwestern

Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana

Michigan State
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers

Maryland
Notre Dame
Virginia
Duke
North Carolina

Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU

Missouri
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech

Alabama
Auburn
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Florida State

Clemson
South Carolina
North Carolina State
Georgia
Florida

The idea here is to create divisions surrounding at least one known football program. Notre Dame gets shuffled to the east to avoid having to play Michigan and Ohio State every year or have too regional of a schedule. UT would have a visit to Chicago every two years and no later than the end of October. Inevitably, a couple of divisions would be Murderer's Row almost every season but these divisions make plenty of sense regionally, with UT and ND being major exceptions.
01-23-2018 05:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #17
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-22-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 10:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ACC really doesn't have much value they can add. UConn, Cincy, UCF, or USF aren't going to raise the value. WVU would fall above the league average if they were shopping. Notre Dame as a ful member is about the only major value add out there for them and they won't be dislodged without devaluing the ACC some other way so in this regard the SEC and Big Ten have accomplished all they can on that front.

The academic schools in the league are what is driving down the league average so to me in this regard they are the dead weight that will make it increasingly imperative to find a new, more profitable home if you are a league subsidized like Florida St or Clemson. If they don't get out they will fall farther and farther blind in the arms race.

I also see what you're saying about schools like VT and NC St having more of an upside than their more academically minded rivals. They're certainly more SEC-like in their profiles and have more statewide mass appeal as being the common man's school (look at Cal, a school most Californians can't get into). I also see where it might be in the best interest for a league like the SEC to be willing to take a slight hit by taking the academic schools in a package with Florida St and Clemson because by doing so they would deprive the Big Ten of a pathway into those markets. This is also why they might consider Kansas in a Big 12 death blow move because of the hemming in effect it would have on their chief rival. To me, if you want to orchestrate the ACC-apocalypse you do a little of both--you take 3 academic schools and 3 football schools. Now if you only have room for 4 then by all means VT and NC St are the way to go--the academic trio has a way out via the Big Ten and if the gutting of the ACC Is a joint effort by the Big Ten and SEC it means there will fewer homeless programs remaining to fuss.

Getting a piece or all of Texas would be their most valuable addition outside of N.D. going all in. But you did raise a good point about W.V.U.. They would add from the standpoint of attendance and gross revenue production, but their impact numbers, while in line with many in the ACC, are relatively weak when compared to the top half of the P5.

BTW: You only ever have room for that which adds to the bottom line. It could be 2 or 6 but everyone has to make more.

I assume by Texas you mean UT? That certainly would have the potential to add some value. The struggle I have with a marriage of convenience with Texas is that a huge factor in the value of a program is the allure of the match ups it would bring to your inventory. About 1/3rd of the ACC would create interesting match ups with Texas for tv; 1/3rd of the ACC result in so-so matches, and the other 1/3rd are total snooze fests. Texas vs Tech or Baylor or TCU bring with them the allure of history and local rivalry. The Horns might hold a historic advantage in the series but it's still a match up both sides get excited for and the rest of the country will take notice. No one is going to get excited for Texas playing Duke, Wake, Pitt, 'Cuse, or BC.

I'm with you about only growing to a size that makes financial sense. To me part of that sense is creating a league structure that maximizes revenue by ensuring the schedule preserves as many of the big rivalries as possible. I think for the Big Ten and SEC both there are ways to make 16, 18, 20, or 24 feasible.

That's true. But the ACC has been stabilized to some degree with just 5 games from Notre Dame. Most of these ACC scenarios have just Texas coming on board, but also as a partial member, and also with just 5 games which leaves Texas 7 games with which to schedule other brands.

Still, if they want to make a serious play for Texas they'll need to build a division around them. And since Texas likes buddies I think a 6 school division of which the Horns are one would be the best approach. But it is also a massive move to make. Besides UNC will do what is necessary to maintain their voting block control over the ACC so it isn't likely. They'll favor the partial approach as it is safer for their control.

JR....................I know it plays well in your scenarios but I will remind you again, Carolina does not swing the "big Stick" in the ACC....Duke does.
01-23-2018 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
What are the numbers for Georgia Tech? They would be a candidate for B1G southern expansion based on academics, location, and fit - especially with other potential other ACC expansion targets.
01-23-2018 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,334
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #19
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-23-2018 10:55 AM)YNot Wrote:  What are the numbers for Georgia Tech? They would be a candidate for B1G southern expansion based on academics, location, and fit - especially with other potential other ACC expansion targets.

IIRC, Tech is at or near the bottom of the ACC in revenues. Not sure of their impact on their larger market.

From what I am reading here, it would seem that the SEC could benefit greatly by adding Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and NC State, and wouldn't need to add either Texas or Oklahoma if those two wouldn't come by themselves.

The B1G could solidify its position as the academic elite without doing much financial damage if they could persuade Notre Dame to come along with UNC, Virginia and Duke. But ND's animus toward the B1G would be a big stumbling block. I'm not certain that the Irish would move even with those other three.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume both those scenarios happen, bringing both the SEC and B1G to 18 teams. Almost surely they would then insist on having a 4 team conference championship playoff they don't have to share with the rest of the P5.

And, unless UT and OU have a change of heart about going to the PAC (which would benefit the PAC more than it would UT and OU), then there isn't much incentive for anybody else in the B12 to do anything. Despite the geography and rivalries, West Virginia can't afford to go to the ACC if asked.

So, the only question left in my mind would be how would the ACC respond to losing 8 members (including Notre Dame)? They could add Cincinnati, USF and UCF for a decent 10 team league. That would hurt, but not kill, the AAC. But would that be enough for them to still be considered a power conference? I doubt it.

Would the new status quo mean realignment peace in our time? How would the CFP change?
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 12:58 PM by ken d.)
01-23-2018 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,334
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #20
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?
01-23-2018 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.