Of course, different schools would have a different number, but look at it this way, does anyone really thing that if any school was offered $50 million more per year they would not take it?
$40 million?
$35 million?
$30 million?
$25 million?
$20 million?
Now consider how much money a school could lose if they are one of the schools left behind. Now also consider no one knows the other schools' numbers.
EDIT:
What is the number for UNC? UVA? GT? VT?
What is the number for each if FSU leaves? Clemson? What if one of the above leaves?
I believe the SEC's conference network announcement in April is going to be very interesting in this regard.
Lurker Above
SEC network won't make that kind of money right away. The have to build up a subscriber base first. That generally takes a couple of years.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. A decade ago, the ACC was the highest earning conference. To assume everything stays the same is faulty logic. There's a significant question as to how profitable these conference networks will ultimately be. The big 10 has succeeded, but cable subscriptions are dropping. can a conference network maintain profitability if the cable structure changes? As to the SEC in general, people seem to assume the network will make money hand over fist. Yet no one seems to answer the question "for who?". Unlike the Big 10, which kept its Tier 2 and 3 rights to form a network, the SEC has sold all their rights (Tier 2 to ESPN and Tier 3 individually by the schools to various providers). Why the SEC is going to get paid huge money for content they don't own on a network they don't run is a mystery to me (Yes, I suspect the SEC will try to by back their Tier 3 deals to sell back to ESPN. But Tier 3 SEC sports are not exactly very in demand except baseball).
(03-17-2013 11:14 AM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, different schools would have a different number, but look at it this way, does anyone really thing that if any school was offered $50 million more per year they would not take it?
$40 million?
$35 million?
$30 million?
$25 million?
$20 million?
Now consider how much money a school could lose if they are one of the schools left behind. Now also consider no one knows the other schools' numbers.
I believe the SEC's conference network announcement in April is going to be very interesting in this regard.
Lurker Above
True regarding the new SEC deal. I found it interesting that the ACC championship game is being carried on ESPN, while the SEC game is on ABC.
Let's assume the Big 10's present projection of between 42-43 million is correct and that the SEC will start between 32-35 million. The question then becomes which network has the most upside potential. The Big 10 will have to keep adding teams to grow a revenue stream, the question for the SEC is will they be able to overtake the 8 to 10 million dollar lead the Big 10 has once their subscriber base is up? Given that the SEC which occupies a lesser market size yields a much higher percentage of viewers within their footprint than the Big 10 does, and that they carry more individual households nationally for major events and good match ups, and I would have to believe that 5 years out the SECN would push past the BTN. Delany believes this too or he wouldn't be interested in Southern expansion.
(03-17-2013 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Let's assume the Big 10's present projection of between 42-43 million is correct and that the SEC will start between 32-35 million. The question then becomes which network has the most upside potential. The Big 10 will have to keep adding teams to grow a revenue stream, the question for the SEC is will they be able to overtake the 8 to 10 million dollar lead the Big 10 has once their subscriber base is up? Given that the SEC which occupies a lesser market size yields a much higher percentage of viewers within their footprint than the Big 10 does, and that they carry more individual households nationally for major events and good match ups, and I would have to believe that 5 years out the SECN would push past the BTN. Delany believes this too or he wouldn't be interested in Southern expansion.
I completely agree.
I think the money in the future is going to be even more eye opening than we can realize right now.
I do think that it will be dependent upon bringing together the power as the Duke Vice President spoke of.
The real bait for realignment, in my opinion, doesn't even exist yet except in theory. I think plenty of these folks in charge know it must happen, its just coming down to which schools will end up having to move and which will be welcoming others to their group. There is a lot of pride involved in that and that is probably the biggest hurdle.
The problem with this whole discussion is most of you fail to consider the laws of Supple and Demand and Price Easticity of Demand. In the near future this laws are going to bite NCAA College Football on its greed little @ss! Write it down and take it to the Bank.
(03-17-2013 12:09 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this whole discussion is most of you fail to consider the laws of Supple and Demand and Price Easticity of Demand. In the near future this laws are going to bite NCAA College Football on its greed little @ss! Write it down and take it to the Bank.
Wow, you really attempted to sound smart with this. Anyone can just state what you stated but you fail to state how it matters.
The Networks are trying to create more demand and right now their manner of doing that is by an overall merging in order to create stronger match up's. In the past programs have played less strong teams and scheduled more weak match ups out of tradition. That works counter-intuitively to what the Networks know creates more "Demand". Therefore the current realignment situation is all about creating more demand.
The Big Ten took two brands that have had a hard time creating demand in their current set ups and instead is going to have them in a conference that gets much more attention on the top end Networks. That is an obvious approval by the Networks to try and create more Demand in some major markets.
You see...the above is a more full attempt to explain things that are going on rather than your very empty attempt to sound like you know what the F you are talking about. You don't.
(03-17-2013 12:09 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this whole discussion is most of you fail to consider the laws of Supple and Demand and Price Easticity of Demand. In the near future this laws are going to bite NCAA College Football on its greed little @ss! Write it down and take it to the Bank.
I haven't failed to consider it. Cable demand will go up precisely because NCAA football is getting greedy. Where the conference greed is going to continue to bite them is in ticket sales. In the SEC at my school 1 season ticket book in the cruddiest section of the stadium is $475, plus $20 shipping and handling (required even if you could pick up your danged ticket) and you have to give a donation to the Athletic Fund of at least $600 for the right to purchase what is in essence a $500 ticket. Because the limit for the donation is 2 books everyone's initial outlay is $1600 whether they then resell the second book or not. It's a lot higher for better seats.
Each year the price is nudged up. A stadium coke is now $4, a stadium seat rental is $5, hot dogs are $4 a piece, a program is $5, and you get the picture. So if a family of 4 wants to attend 1 game it is cheaper by far to pay $100 a ticket for scalped tickets to a bad game to entertain your children at your alma mater than it is to buy 4 season ticket books and give a $1200 donation for the right to do so. Many fans are now opting for the scalped tickets. My wife and I hang on to our season seats, but even we, with the advent of HD television and almost every game on the tube in the comfort of our living room and within easy walking distance of a clean restroom and a well stocked kitchen, are beginning to seriously question whether we want to keep going to the games or not. And we've been season ticket holders who have sat with essentially the same people for 40 years.
The decline in attendance everywhere is not an accident. It is even discernible in the SEC. So Wilkie I think you are correct, but you need to calculate in that television subscribers and therefore subscription fees have not yet begun to peak, but the signs of the decline you predict are already underway at the stadiums.
(03-17-2013 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 12:09 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this whole discussion is most of you fail to consider the laws of Supple and Demand and Price Easticity of Demand. In the near future this laws are going to bite NCAA College Football on its greed little @ss! Write it down and take it to the Bank.
I haven't failed to consider it. Cable demand will go up precisely because NCAA football is getting greedy. Where the conference greed is going to continue to bite them is in ticket sales. In the SEC at my school 1 season ticket book in the cruddiest section of the stadium is $475, plus $20 shipping and handling (required even if you could pick up your danged ticket) and you have to give a donation to the Athletic Fund of at least $600 for the right to purchase what is in essence a $500 ticket. Because the limit for the donation is 2 books everyone's initial outlay is $1600 whether they then resell the second book or not. It's a lot higher for better seats.
Each year the price is nudged up. A stadium coke is now $4, a stadium seat rental is $5, hot dogs are $4 a piece, a program is $5, and you get the picture. So if a family of 4 wants to attend 1 game it is cheaper by far to pay $100 a ticket for scalped tickets to a bad game to entertain your children at your alma mater than it is to buy 4 season ticket books and give a $1200 donation for the right to do so. Many fans are now opting for the scalped tickets. My wife and I hang on to our season seats, but even we, with the advent of HD television and almost every game on the tube in the comfort of our living room and within easy walking distance of a clean restroom and a well stocked kitchen, are beginning to seriously question whether we want to keep going to the games or not. And we've been season ticket holders who have sat with essentially the same people for 40 years.
The decline in attendance everywhere is not an accident. It is even discernible in the SEC. So Wilkie I think you are correct, but you need to calculate in that television subscribers and therefore subscription fees have not yet begun to peak, but the signs of the decline you predict are already underway at the stadiums.
You've heard Maryland and Georgia both express concerns about the decline in student attendance. Bowlsby, in a conference that has had rising attendance, has expressed concern. The bowls are already getting seriously hit.
The same situation impacts cable. What used to be $40-$50 a month is $100 +. Cable subscriptions are dropping. Some younger people are quite happy never subscribing. There's no certainty with regards to these conference networks long term. If they aren't getting the fixed subscriptions and aren't getting ratings driving ad fees, they aren't going to be worth much. The Pac 12 really made a strategic mistake taking 100% ownership. They should have shared the risk like the Big 10 did if they wanted to take risk. Texas took the opposite approach and has an equity kicker if the LHN meets certain standards, but mostly is just getting a fixed rate.
Decline in tickets sold can easily be countered by switching over to a model that is proven to be effective. The population is trending away from giving a damn about "Tradition". The old bastards in charge are having to learn that the hard way because they are so resistant to change.
The old concept of college football rivalries is antiquated. The idea of a rivalry between a school like Tennessee and Florida/Alabama is an old antique. It's time is limited because a true rivalry is about the competition and Tennessee just can't keep up. It needs new rivals in a competition sense. Creating new divisions that are based around modern concepts rather than traditions that are failing is what College Football will have to do. That means some realignment is absolutely necessary.
College football seasons as they are now are only truly exciting to the hard core college football fans. To the lukewarm college football fans, there are more and more distractions to turn attention to instead of watching every game every week. College football as a whole needs to realize the Century we exist in and they need to embrace change.
(03-17-2013 11:20 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]SEC network won't make that kind of money right away. The have to build up a subscriber base first. That generally takes a couple of years.
So? What is "a couple of years" if a school can make tens of millions of dollars more per year?
The more money a conference makes with its existing members, the smaller the pool of possible additions to that league.
The SEC, for example, might eventually distribute $40-50 million/year to each member, but that doesn't mean they could increase that payout by simply adding 4 or 6 schools who are popular on Twitter and the message boards. Once the payouts get this high, it's more likely that a mistaken addition would decrease the payout and add another underperforming member to the league.
The CEOs in the top conferences want to add more schools only if it makes each of the current schools a lot more money. They don't want to add for the sake of adding and they don't want to add more mouths to feed who aren't pulling their weight in the money department.
So don't ask, "Who wouldn't want $40 million a year?"
Instead, ask, "Who is valuable enough to increase the per-school payout of a conference that already pays each member $40 million a year?"
(03-17-2013 01:06 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 11:20 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]SEC network won't make that kind of money right away. The have to build up a subscriber base first. That generally takes a couple of years.
So? What is "a couple of years" if a school can make tens of millions of dollars more per year?
I don't know why it would take a couple of years. In the SEC footprint, any provider that doesn't carry the SECN would likely be in serious risk of injury.
![[Image: angry-mob.jpeg_thumb.jpg]](http://files.myopera.com/WilliamBurnett/albums/999631/thumbs/angry-mob.jpeg_thumb.jpg)
(03-17-2013 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 12:09 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this whole discussion is most of you fail to consider the laws of Supple and Demand and Price Easticity of Demand. In the near future this laws are going to bite NCAA College Football on its greed little @ss! Write it down and take it to the Bank.
I haven't failed to consider it. Cable demand will go up precisely because NCAA football is getting greedy. Where the conference greed is going to continue to bite them is in ticket sales. In the SEC at my school 1 season ticket book in the cruddiest section of the stadium is $475, plus $20 shipping and handling (required even if you could pick up your danged ticket) and you have to give a donation to the Athletic Fund of at least $600 for the right to purchase what is in essence a $500 ticket. Because the limit for the donation is 2 books everyone's initial outlay is $1600 whether they then resell the second book or not. It's a lot higher for better seats.
Each year the price is nudged up. A stadium coke is now $4, a stadium seat rental is $5, hot dogs are $4 a piece, a program is $5, and you get the picture. So if a family of 4 wants to attend 1 game it is cheaper by far to pay $100 a ticket for scalped tickets to a bad game to entertain your children at your alma mater than it is to buy 4 season ticket books and give a $1200 donation for the right to do so. Many fans are now opting for the scalped tickets. My wife and I hang on to our season seats, but even we, with the advent of HD television and almost every game on the tube in the comfort of our living room and within easy walking distance of a clean restroom and a well stocked kitchen, are beginning to seriously question whether we want to keep going to the games or not. And we've been season ticket holders who have sat with essentially the same people for 40 years.
The decline in attendance everywhere is not an accident. It is even discernible in the SEC. So Wilkie I think you are correct, but you need to calculate in that television subscribers and therefore subscription fees have not yet begun to peak, but the signs of the decline you predict are already underway at the stadiums.
You've heard Maryland and Georgia both express concerns about the decline in student attendance. Bowlsby, in a conference that has had rising attendance, has expressed concern. The bowls are already getting seriously hit.
The same situation impacts cable. What used to be $40-$50 a month is $100 +. Cable subscriptions are dropping. Some younger people are quite happy never subscribing. There's no certainty with regards to these conference networks long term. If they aren't getting the fixed subscriptions and aren't getting ratings driving ad fees, they aren't going to be worth much. The Pac 12 really made a strategic mistake taking 100% ownership. They should have shared the risk like the Big 10 did if they wanted to take risk. Texas took the opposite approach and has an equity kicker if the LHN meets certain standards, but mostly is just getting a fixed rate.
Bowlsby was interviewed on a KC radio show last week, and during talk about realignment he brought up the whole go to a game versus watching it on TV topic. He mentioned many of the same factors regarding cost and convenience. He is definitely aware of TV's competitive advantages to the current stadium experience.
(03-17-2013 01:36 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 01:06 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 11:20 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]SEC network won't make that kind of money right away. The have to build up a subscriber base first. That generally takes a couple of years.
So? What is "a couple of years" if a school can make tens of millions of dollars more per year?
I don't know why it would take a couple of years. In the SEC footprint, any provider that doesn't carry the SECN would likely be in serious risk of injury.
It's more the model than anything. Cable companies can carry it but then it depends on people to subscribe as well. I surmise if would take about 2 years to get to where the Big 10 is.
(03-17-2013 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The more money a conference makes with its existing members, the smaller the pool of possible additions to that league.
The SEC, for example, might eventually distribute $40-50 million/year to each member, but that doesn't mean they could increase that payout by simply adding 4 or 6 schools who are popular on Twitter and the message boards. Once the payouts get this high, it's more likely that a mistaken addition would decrease the payout and add another underperforming member to the league.
The CEOs in the top conferences want to add more schools only if it makes each of the current schools a lot more money. They don't want to add for the sake of adding and they don't want to add more mouths to feed who aren't pulling their weight in the money department.
So don't ask, "Who wouldn't want $40 million a year?"
Instead, ask, "Who is valuable enough to increase the per-school payout of a conference that already pays each member $40 million a year?"
I actually think there are a lot of them.
The New Market Schools:
VT and/or UVA to get the State of Virginia
UNC and/or Duke to get the State of North Carolina, plus 2 bb kings
or NCS with UNC or by themselves if neither UNC or Duke come
Oklahoma. New state and top 5 fb brand
Kansas. New state and bb king
The Brand Market Schools:
Texas. The SEC has A&M but UT is a very big draw on tiers 1 and 2
FSU. Like Texas but with more potential close regional rivalries
Clemson. Like FSU with games against UGA, TN and others being huge draws.
That is 9 candidates right there. Does the SEC want any of them? Could they get any of them? Those really are the bigger questions, imo.
(03-17-2013 05:46 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The more money a conference makes with its existing members, the smaller the pool of possible additions to that league.
The SEC, for example, might eventually distribute $40-50 million/year to each member, but that doesn't mean they could increase that payout by simply adding 4 or 6 schools who are popular on Twitter and the message boards. Once the payouts get this high, it's more likely that a mistaken addition would decrease the payout and add another underperforming member to the league.
The CEOs in the top conferences want to add more schools only if it makes each of the current schools a lot more money. They don't want to add for the sake of adding and they don't want to add more mouths to feed who aren't pulling their weight in the money department.
So don't ask, "Who wouldn't want $40 million a year?"
Instead, ask, "Who is valuable enough to increase the per-school payout of a conference that already pays each member $40 million a year?"
I actually think there are a lot of them.
The New Market Schools:
VT and/or UVA to get the State of Virginia
UNC and/or Duke to get the State of North Carolina, plus 2 bb kings
or NCS with UNC or by themselves if neither UNC or Duke come
Oklahoma. New state and top 5 fb brand
Kansas. New state and bb king
The Brand Market Schools:
Texas. The SEC has A&M but UT is a very big draw on tiers 1 and 2
FSU. Like Texas but with more potential close regional rivalries
Clemson. Like FSU with games against UGA, TN and others being huge draws.
That is 9 candidates right there. Does the SEC want any of them? Could they get any of them? Those really are the bigger questions, imo.
Actually there are a few more, but whether they make us money depends upon the order in which they are added. For instance to get to 16 profit could be found in a Dallas / Ft. Worth team, but not if Texas was an addition, and probably not if we have added 2 highly profitable teams already. Pitt could be very profitable as well, just not what Southerners would find to be a comfortable addition.
I've considered: Virginia/Va Tech, Duke, North Carolina/N.C.State, Clemson, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas/Kansas St., Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Texas, Baylor/T.C.U., Colorado State (if we had Kansas).
Now no doubt there are high priority targets and targets that would just be profitable for the markets, but depending on the order, and who was left, and in what position they are taken, and whether or not a linking state has made them available, then any of these could be considered. The wildest one is Colorado State, but consider the Denver market. Obviously they would be the least acceptable for the SEC, but should the Big 12 ever decide to expand surely they would look at this market.
(03-17-2013 11:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 05:46 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2013 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The more money a conference makes with its existing members, the smaller the pool of possible additions to that league.
The SEC, for example, might eventually distribute $40-50 million/year to each member, but that doesn't mean they could increase that payout by simply adding 4 or 6 schools who are popular on Twitter and the message boards. Once the payouts get this high, it's more likely that a mistaken addition would decrease the payout and add another underperforming member to the league.
The CEOs in the top conferences want to add more schools only if it makes each of the current schools a lot more money. They don't want to add for the sake of adding and they don't want to add more mouths to feed who aren't pulling their weight in the money department.
So don't ask, "Who wouldn't want $40 million a year?"
Instead, ask, "Who is valuable enough to increase the per-school payout of a conference that already pays each member $40 million a year?"
I actually think there are a lot of them.
The New Market Schools:
VT and/or UVA to get the State of Virginia
UNC and/or Duke to get the State of North Carolina, plus 2 bb kings
or NCS with UNC or by themselves if neither UNC or Duke come
Oklahoma. New state and top 5 fb brand
Kansas. New state and bb king
The Brand Market Schools:
Texas. The SEC has A&M but UT is a very big draw on tiers 1 and 2
FSU. Like Texas but with more potential close regional rivalries
Clemson. Like FSU with games against UGA, TN and others being huge draws.
That is 9 candidates right there. Does the SEC want any of them? Could they get any of them? Those really are the bigger questions, imo.
Actually there are a few more, but whether they make us money depends upon the order in which they are added. For instance to get to 16 profit could be found in a Dallas / Ft. Worth team, but not if Texas was an addition, and probably not if we have added 2 highly profitable teams already. Pitt could be very profitable as well, just not what Southerners would find to be a comfortable addition.
I've considered: Virginia/Va Tech, Duke, North Carolina/N.C.State, Clemson, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas/Kansas St., Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Texas, Baylor/T.C.U., Colorado State (if we had Kansas).
Now no doubt there are high priority targets and targets that would just be profitable for the markets, but depending on the order, and who was left, and in what position they are taken, and whether or not a linking state has made them available, then any of these could be considered. The wildest one is Colorado State, but consider the Denver market. Obviously they would be the least acceptable for the SEC, but should the Big 12 ever decide to expand surely they would look at this market.
So this is where I disagree with the two of you. You see about 20 schools out there that would be gold mines, while I look at the same group of 20 and see about 3 gold mines and 17 that would just be filler in a big-money league like the SEC.