The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
(04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
(04-18-2015 07:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
I'm not sure either are good comparisons. TAMU and Mizzou are both fully comprehensive universities while VT and NCSU are both STEMs that are limited by their State's as to their offerings on the non-technical side, especially their professional schools. As far as TAMU blowing up - I must have missed that. It seems to me they just had a really good QB for a few years. TAMU has not overtaken Bama, LSU, Auburn, or Georgia.
VT and NC State are really more akin to little B10 type schools than they are like SEC schools. Their curriculums and research focus are more like the B10. Their actual students are for the most part Southern, but VT in particular has been pulling in kids from PA, NJ and MD for a number of years. Only the broad fanbases of the two schools are "Southern".
For NC State to move, the UNC Board of Governors has to approve the move as well as the NC State Board of Trustees. Even then the North Carolina General Assembly will have to be on board with the move. I just don't see the political situation in North Carolina allowing UNC and NC State to separate unless the ACC itself goes away.
Also keep in mind that WF has enough political pull in NC to prevail upon the General Assembly to prevail upon the UNC BOG to ensure that whatever happens, WF is taken care of to WF's satisfaction.
(04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
LP both the Big 10 and SEC would likely front loans for any kind of expansion and not loans at interest, but loans against future earnings far enough out into the future to make the move profitable. 20 million each payable 2 million against annual revenues for a decade. They would hope that the other 10 would come from corporate and private sponsors within the two schools home states. Missouri did much the same. The move for them was expensive but it is now beginning to pay off in year three. Why loan at no interest? Because the other schools and the conference net more because of the market increases and any content value. Another way some repay is by foregoing their share of bowl revenues instead. But if you are projected to earn, with all revenue streams for broadcasting and merchandising, approximately 37 to 42 million then 2 million a year doesn't put you at a disadvantage in war chest within the conference. I look for Rutgers to become relatively potent within a couple of more years. Maryland outspending present ACC schools in recruiting should pick up as well. Look at Missouri and they've been operating in payback mode.
The issue that brings the political pressure is not N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving, it is the other remaining schools in North Carolina and Virginia having to step it up to stay competitive with a home state school that now has expenditure advantages. But my point is this. Because of Maryland and Rutgers and Tennessee and South Carolina that is already the issue. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville folks know that already. A move for N.C. State or Virginia Tech would be smoother and result in more advantages quicker than your present neighbors want to deal with. They have you at a disadvantage in your state because of politics. What they are stroking the arguments for is to maintain that advantage but what they are blind to is that without making substantial market upgrades of their own they won't be able to keep pace with what has already happened around them. N.D. all in and Texas (even with buddies) puts you on equal footing with your two chief rivals if you let such a move transpire. It's slow death if you don't. If the Wolfpack and Hokies do move then they level the playing field against their in state neighbors and with their new conference neighbors. That leveling of the income makes the ACC / SEC / and Big 10 much more competitive in every regard but number of local recruits available to them. And the money doesn't hurt when it comes to that.
So make the move and level your own odds. If the old core ACC doesn't use the move to grow their markets and content then they lose and you gain. If they do then we have as much parity as we will likely ever have. The PAC is an entity unto themselves. Economic parity is not as crucial to them because of the geography, but it is still important.
(04-18-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
I'm not sure either are good comparisons. TAMU and Mizzou are both fully comprehensive universities while VT and NCSU are both STEMs that are limited by their State's as to their offerings on the non-technical side, especially their professional schools. As far as TAMU blowing up - I must have missed that. It seems to me they just had a really good QB for a few years. TAMU has not overtaken Bama, LSU, Auburn, or Georgia.
VT and NC State are really more akin to little B10 type schools than they are like SEC schools. Their curriculums and research focus are more like the B10. Their actual students are for the most part Southern, but VT in particular has been pulling in kids from PA, NJ and MD for a number of years. Only the broad fanbases of the two schools are "Southern".
TAMU has not blown up? Really? You might want to check out their $400 million stadium renovation, the new state of the art locker room complex and the massive infusion of donations to both the AD and the school general fund. Mizzou is the same but to a lesser degree.
And while TAMU has not past the SEC powers, they compete now and have all the tools to remain in contention most years. They have also past UT in many respects; TV coverage, recruiting, stadium attendance, football schedule, etc, Anyone who thinks UT is happy with how things turned out is without a clue.
(04-18-2015 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
LP both the Big 10 and SEC would likely front loans for any kind of expansion and not loans at interest, but loans against future earnings far enough out into the future to make the move profitable. 20 million each payable 2 million against annual revenues for a decade. They would hope that the other 10 would come from corporate and private sponsors within the two schools home states. Missouri did much the same. The move for them was expensive but it is now beginning to pay off in year three. Why loan at no interest? Because the other schools and the conference net more because of the market increases and any content value. Another way some repay is by foregoing their share of bowl revenues instead. But if you are projected to earn, with all revenue streams for broadcasting and merchandising, approximately 37 to 42 million then 2 million a year doesn't put you at a disadvantage in war chest within the conference. I look for Rutgers to become relatively potent within a couple of more years. Maryland outspending present ACC schools in recruiting should pick up as well. Look at Missouri and they've been operating in payback mode.
The issue that brings the political pressure is not N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving, it is the other remaining schools in North Carolina and Virginia having to step it up to stay competitive with a home state school that now has expenditure advantages. But my point is this. Because of Maryland and Rutgers and Tennessee and South Carolina that is already the issue. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville folks know that already. A move for N.C. State or Virginia Tech would be smoother and result in more advantages quicker than your present neighbors want to deal with. They have you at a disadvantage in your state because of politics. What they are stroking the arguments for is to maintain that advantage but what they are blind to is that without making substantial market upgrades of their own they won't be able to keep pace with what has already happened around them. N.D. all in and Texas (even with buddies) puts you on equal footing with your two chief rivals if you let such a move transpire. It's slow death if you don't. If the Wolfpack and Hokies do move then they level the playing field against their in state neighbors and with their new conference neighbors. That leveling of the income makes the ACC / SEC / and Big 10 much more competitive in every regard but number of local recruits available to them. And the money doesn't hurt when it comes to that.
So make the move and level your own odds. If the old core ACC doesn't use the move to grow their markets and content then they lose and you gain. If they do then we have as much parity as we will likely ever have. The PAC is an entity unto themselves. Economic parity is not as crucial to them because of the geography, but it is still important.
Can I get in line for one of those B1G or SEC loans that you are so sure of? With no interest I could really make use of $20M that I could pay back $2M at a time over a decade...with no interest!
(04-18-2015 08:11 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
LP both the Big 10 and SEC would likely front loans for any kind of expansion and not loans at interest, but loans against future earnings far enough out into the future to make the move profitable. 20 million each payable 2 million against annual revenues for a decade. They would hope that the other 10 would come from corporate and private sponsors within the two schools home states. Missouri did much the same. The move for them was expensive but it is now beginning to pay off in year three. Why loan at no interest? Because the other schools and the conference net more because of the market increases and any content value. Another way some repay is by foregoing their share of bowl revenues instead. But if you are projected to earn, with all revenue streams for broadcasting and merchandising, approximately 37 to 42 million then 2 million a year doesn't put you at a disadvantage in war chest within the conference. I look for Rutgers to become relatively potent within a couple of more years. Maryland outspending present ACC schools in recruiting should pick up as well. Look at Missouri and they've been operating in payback mode.
The issue that brings the political pressure is not N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving, it is the other remaining schools in North Carolina and Virginia having to step it up to stay competitive with a home state school that now has expenditure advantages. But my point is this. Because of Maryland and Rutgers and Tennessee and South Carolina that is already the issue. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville folks know that already. A move for N.C. State or Virginia Tech would be smoother and result in more advantages quicker than your present neighbors want to deal with. They have you at a disadvantage in your state because of politics. What they are stroking the arguments for is to maintain that advantage but what they are blind to is that without making substantial market upgrades of their own they won't be able to keep pace with what has already happened around them. N.D. all in and Texas (even with buddies) puts you on equal footing with your two chief rivals if you let such a move transpire. It's slow death if you don't. If the Wolfpack and Hokies do move then they level the playing field against their in state neighbors and with their new conference neighbors. That leveling of the income makes the ACC / SEC / and Big 10 much more competitive in every regard but number of local recruits available to them. And the money doesn't hurt when it comes to that.
So make the move and level your own odds. If the old core ACC doesn't use the move to grow their markets and content then they lose and you gain. If they do then we have as much parity as we will likely ever have. The PAC is an entity unto themselves. Economic parity is not as crucial to them because of the geography, but it is still important.
Can I get in line for one of those B1G or SEC loans that you are so sure of? With no interest I could really make use of $20M that I could pay back $2M at a time over a decade...with no interest!
Okay. Build a large state university called XLance Tech and join the SEC or Big 10 as long as you can deliver viewers in sufficient quantity to earn each of the present members about 2 million a year or more in revenue and the conference the same share then I'm sure it can be arranged.
(04-18-2015 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 08:11 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
LP both the Big 10 and SEC would likely front loans for any kind of expansion and not loans at interest, but loans against future earnings far enough out into the future to make the move profitable. 20 million each payable 2 million against annual revenues for a decade. They would hope that the other 10 would come from corporate and private sponsors within the two schools home states. Missouri did much the same. The move for them was expensive but it is now beginning to pay off in year three. Why loan at no interest? Because the other schools and the conference net more because of the market increases and any content value. Another way some repay is by foregoing their share of bowl revenues instead. But if you are projected to earn, with all revenue streams for broadcasting and merchandising, approximately 37 to 42 million then 2 million a year doesn't put you at a disadvantage in war chest within the conference. I look for Rutgers to become relatively potent within a couple of more years. Maryland outspending present ACC schools in recruiting should pick up as well. Look at Missouri and they've been operating in payback mode.
The issue that brings the political pressure is not N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving, it is the other remaining schools in North Carolina and Virginia having to step it up to stay competitive with a home state school that now has expenditure advantages. But my point is this. Because of Maryland and Rutgers and Tennessee and South Carolina that is already the issue. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville folks know that already. A move for N.C. State or Virginia Tech would be smoother and result in more advantages quicker than your present neighbors want to deal with. They have you at a disadvantage in your state because of politics. What they are stroking the arguments for is to maintain that advantage but what they are blind to is that without making substantial market upgrades of their own they won't be able to keep pace with what has already happened around them. N.D. all in and Texas (even with buddies) puts you on equal footing with your two chief rivals if you let such a move transpire. It's slow death if you don't. If the Wolfpack and Hokies do move then they level the playing field against their in state neighbors and with their new conference neighbors. That leveling of the income makes the ACC / SEC / and Big 10 much more competitive in every regard but number of local recruits available to them. And the money doesn't hurt when it comes to that.
So make the move and level your own odds. If the old core ACC doesn't use the move to grow their markets and content then they lose and you gain. If they do then we have as much parity as we will likely ever have. The PAC is an entity unto themselves. Economic parity is not as crucial to them because of the geography, but it is still important.
Can I get in line for one of those B1G or SEC loans that you are so sure of? With no interest I could really make use of $20M that I could pay back $2M at a time over a decade...with no interest!
Okay. Build a large state university called XLance Tech and join the SEC or Big 10 as long as you can deliver viewers in sufficient quantity to earn each of the present members about 2 million a year or more in revenue and the conference the same share then I'm sure it can be arranged.
XLance University for sure would join the B1G.
(04-18-2015 11:33 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2015 09:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]B1G will add West Virginia in 2017. The B12 is allowing it so they can make room for BYU.
I've said it makes sense due to rivalries and geography before. WVU's endowment is currently the same size of Maryland's and Rutgers.
Except WVU's endowment is significantly smaller than Rutgers and Maryland...
WVU is at $565 million as of 2014
Rutgers is at $918 million as of 2014
Maryland is at $963 million as of 2014
That's not small potatoes at all. That being said I'd gladly have WVU join the Big Ten, they have 3 existing rivalries with PSU, UMD and RU in the conference and I could see Ohio State - WVU being a fun one for both sides.
I see you and I are in agreement. As I stated on a preceding page, a WVU move to the Big Ten would put the 4 largest, eastern flagship schools in one conference, possibly in an eastern pod. That move would make UMD's move to the Big Ten easier to accept.
I could see the pac 12 offer OU, OK state, KU, and K state to block the big 10 from getting OU + KU combo. With both offers, i think those school's go west. Thus, the big 10 might be somewhat boxed in with future expansion moves. The acc seems to be on lockdown, UVA and Unc don't won't to move and no way do they allow V tech or Nc state to move. The pool for the big 10 could be the school's on the twitter rumor, missouri and uconn. As for WVU, can't see the big 10 making that move. The option i do think the big 10 should purse is Florida State
The thing that I find most annoying when talking realignment is the attitude that "Oh, well this conference will take School A and that conference will just take School B" as if it's that easy. It's not. Nobody's going anywhere that doesn't want to move. There are schools on the board that have signaled a desire to move, and there are some who's names get thrown around that have signaled a lack of desire to move unless absolutely necessary. No conference is going to just "take" a school, and no network is going to "move" a school that doesn't want to move and leave the associations it has.
Right now, I'm thinking Mizzou is pretty happy. I'm also willing to believe that the ACC schools are happy, based on their actions as well. However, damn near everyone in the BigXII has signaled a desire to leave at one point or another. I really just don't understand why this is so freaking hard for people to understand.
It is my opinion that the moment a team leaves the SEC is the moment all hell breaks loose.
$5 million 1ST YEAR and they want to tinker with the SECN?
To meet the B1G time line?
These are 100 year decisions being made. Really no risk going to the B1G or the SEC, but to leave the Big 12 for the PAC? That has legs.
(04-18-2015 07:51 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
I'm not sure either are good comparisons. TAMU and Mizzou are both fully comprehensive universities while VT and NCSU are both STEMs that are limited by their State's as to their offerings on the non-technical side, especially their professional schools. As far as TAMU blowing up - I must have missed that. It seems to me they just had a really good QB for a few years. TAMU has not overtaken Bama, LSU, Auburn, or Georgia.
VT and NC State are really more akin to little B10 type schools than they are like SEC schools. Their curriculums and research focus are more like the B10. Their actual students are for the most part Southern, but VT in particular has been pulling in kids from PA, NJ and MD for a number of years. Only the broad fanbases of the two schools are "Southern".
TAMU has not blown up? Really? You might want to check out their $400 million stadium renovation, the new state of the art locker room complex and the massive infusion of donations to both the AD and the school general fund. Mizzou is the same but to a lesser degree.
And while TAMU has not past the SEC powers, they compete now and have all the tools to remain in contention most years. They have also past UT in many respects; TV coverage, recruiting, stadium attendance, football schedule, etc, Anyone who thinks UT is happy with how things turned out is without a clue.
Anyone who can't differentiate between "past" and "passed" is without a clue.
(04-18-2015 07:51 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
I'm not sure either are good comparisons. TAMU and Mizzou are both fully comprehensive universities while VT and NCSU are both STEMs that are limited by their State's as to their offerings on the non-technical side, especially their professional schools. As far as TAMU blowing up - I must have missed that. It seems to me they just had a really good QB for a few years. TAMU has not overtaken Bama, LSU, Auburn, or Georgia.
VT and NC State are really more akin to little B10 type schools than they are like SEC schools. Their curriculums and research focus are more like the B10. Their actual students are for the most part Southern, but VT in particular has been pulling in kids from PA, NJ and MD for a number of years. Only the broad fanbases of the two schools are "Southern".
TAMU has not blown up? Really? You might want to check out their $400 million stadium renovation, the new state of the art locker room complex and the massive infusion of donations to both the AD and the school general fund. Mizzou is the same but to a lesser degree.
And while TAMU has not past the SEC powers, they compete now and have all the tools to remain in contention most years. They have also past UT in many respects; TV coverage, recruiting, stadium attendance, football schedule, etc, Anyone who thinks UT is happy with how things turned out is without a clue.
Anyone who can't differentiate between "past" and "passed" is without a clue.
(04-18-2015 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]You know it really wouldn't take that much to make one set of moves that resolves this and creates the P4 that would give us the on field champs for the national playoff. ESPN controls all of the rights to the ACC and most of the rights to the SEC and a larger share of the rights to Texas and Kansas. FOX controls a larger share of Oklahoma. The issue hanging in the air is the ACCN. Is it coming? If so how long? If not what happens? That issue is unresolved for a reason. ESPN has leverage over the ACC so that it has leverage over the Big 10, SEC and FOX.
FOX wants into the Southeast where the rabid eyeballs are. ESPN wants to keep the Big 10 T1 contract. The SEC wants into Virginia and North Carolina. Texas wants to be king of Texas. The Big 10 wants to get to 16 and get a boost in pay. The PAC desperately needs carriage issues resolved and a larger broadcast zone would help.
The ACC gets its Network and ESPN adds no new overhead if:
ACC agrees to permit ESPN to locate Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC.
Their departures allow N.D. to stay independent and for Texas to come fully on board with an all Texas division with academics suitable for the ACC. Why 4 schools from Texas? It has one of the most rabid football fan bases outside of Alabama. It adds 26 million viewers to the new ACCN alone and guarantees that many of those viewers tune into the ACCN regularly for other sports and sporting events. There is one more catch however. Wake Forest goes independent as well. The new ACC looks like this:
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame attached as an independent to this division. If they win it outright that's their entry into the ACC championship round.)
Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia (Wake Forest attached to this division as an independent. If they win it that's their entry into the ACC championship round.)
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami (If desired Tulane could be attached here as an independent in football thereby adding another AAU and additional markets.)
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Rice (Brigham Young attached to this division as their entry into the ACC championship.) Texas has it's own Texas division. The academics of B.Y.U., Rice, Baylor and T.C.U. all fit within ACC norms.
The LHN is morphed into the ACCN. Notre Dame adds nationwide viewers, Brigham Young adds nationwide viewers. Tulane puts them in a major bowl city and adds viewers from New Orleans. Wake stays in the ACC for everything but football and still plays its most important rivalries annually. The ACCN is now a powerhouse venture worth every bit as much as the Big 10N and SECN.
The Big 10 gets Oklahoma and Kansas and stops at 16.
The SEC gets N.C. State and Virginia Tech and stops at 16.
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do go to the PAC. But why would the PAC take them?
1. Four new venues mostly in the central time zone.
2. FOX and ESPN don't pursue ownership of the PACN it is retained by the conference but both agree to more prosperous leases in their 50/50 split of PAC rights.
3. The lease of property is longer.
4. They both help to resolve PACN distribution issues.
What this means is that for taking those 4 properties the PAC stands to make more if it's product succeeds with increased distribution. That edge helps them compete with what is growing back East with the ACCN, SECN, & Big10N.
Note: The ACC doesn't have to let Tulane in obliquely it could be anybody in that slot.
In the end the P4 would stand at 64 full members for all sports and 4 more independents who are all in for everything but football.
ESPN gets Big 10 T1 rights. FOX gets more time slots for its PAC product and ESPN's incentive to them for cooperating is that FOX gets access to two national brands in Kansas and Oklahoma neither of which does ESPN totally lose its rights. ESPN is able to salvage its investment in the LHN and keeps college footballs #1 product with Texas. ESPN also sublets more rights to games broadcast in the Southeast to FOX. Neither substantially increases costs in supporting the 4 former Big 12 schools moving to the PAC as their payouts were already higher than that of the PAC. They do increase the total PAC payout through lease to bring them more in line but they equally share that cost.
Everybody wins financially. The ACC only augments its standing and cross conference rivalry games with the two departing members remain on the schedule.
The ACC is already well put together in that it takes a product that isn't high value in its region other than locally and brings it to a place where the market for the product is stronger (ie. traditional ACC hoops teams being shown as regional conference games in the NE, and traditional Big East football, imported to the south as locally relevant as conference games). Add Texas to the mix and that combination is potent.
I will disagree on two points.
Pac-12 retaining 100% equity in their network. I suspect ESPN and Fox with a few keystrokes can create chart upon chart explaining the benefit of acquiring content they jointly own and the benefit of allowing ESPN and Fox to each purchase 25.5% of the P12 network.
I would think that four isn't enough. That gives the moving schools no more than two road games (and in alternate years one game) in their home time zone and no more the two games each year on the road on the eastern side of the Rockies. Now obviously if their choice is accept or cobble together something with AAC and MWC schools they make plans to fly more but their best interest is six.
(04-18-2015 07:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
Which goes straight to JRSec's P4 argument. The more you concentrate the power schools, the greater revenue can be generated. We have moved from six AQ leagues to P5. The BCS started in 1998, every school that was AQ in 1998 is P5 today except for Temple and Temple got booted from the club during the BCS era. Utah and TCU have joined the club.
Reducing to four brands increases the leverage of those brands. New efficiency was created by splitting Texas and Texas A&M. If TAMU had accepted the offer to join what became LHN the carriage fee in Texas is unlikely to be equal to the current LHN and SEC fees combined. Being apart extracted more money from the market. Splitting VPI and UVA and NCState from UNC, Duke, Wake would likely do the same as would splitting OU and OkSt.
The NFL is instructive here. They bid the AFC and NFC Sunday afternoon packages independently even though the money goes to the same pool. You know going in if you win one of the packages you are going to get a team in the #1 TV market, one in the #6 market, you will get a Florida team and a Texas team and a Pennsylvania team. Most of the LA speculation includes each conference getting an LA team.
If you want to extract the maximum dollars splitting up some teams makes great sense.
I felt all along TAMU going to SEC was brilliant. In recruiting against Texas they could argue facilities, fan support etc., but at the end of the day they were dealing with offering basically the same thing as Texas, being able to tout a different conference was a positive. Iowa State for all their woes is probably better off being in Big XII than Big 10 in offering a real difference when battling Iowa. Maybe Georgia Tech is worse off not being in the SEC but the evidence points to Clemson and FSU not being in the SEC being a net positive for both.
(04-18-2015 09:35 PM)Dasville Wrote: [ -> ]It is my opinion that the moment a team leaves the SEC is the moment all hell breaks loose.
$5 million 1ST YEAR and they want to tinker with the SECN?
To meet the B1G time line?
These are 100 year decisions being made. Really no risk going to the B1G or the SEC, but to leave the Big 12 for the PAC? That has legs.
These really aren't 100 year decisions.
The TV market model of 1983 (post Board of Regents) led to big changes starting in 1991. The current model which is vastly different led to wholesale changes with moves of Colorado and Nebraska and just now (maybe) is settling down.
This current model is likely to be obsolete in 5 to 10 years and certainly won't last 20 years. When the model changes the path to maximize revenue changes and that discordant situation leads to realigning to maximize revenue.
(04-19-2015 03:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I see with a move by VT and NC State to the B10 or SEC is that both will need to generate an additional $30 million or so annually to maintain their relative competitive level in the new conference. It's damn expensive to operate in the B10 or SEC - to generate that income both football stadiums will have to be expanded to something closer to 70-75K up from the respective 65K and 59K. That's $30 million over and beyond anything that the move and SEC or B10 distribution nets.
A lower cost of competition is one of the things that make the ACC appealing. VT and NC State would be the smallest B10 schools in terms of student population with the exception of Northwestern. NC State and VT would have a smaller football stadium than everyone in the SEC beside Vandy, MSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. NC State will still operate in a home market that also contains UNC, Duke, and ECU who offer direct competition for football ticket sales.
All good points, but look what happened to TAMU and Mizzou after they entered the SEC. They blew up.
Which goes straight to JRSec's P4 argument. The more you concentrate the power schools, the greater revenue can be generated. We have moved from six AQ leagues to P5. The BCS started in 1998, every school that was AQ in 1998 is P5 today except for Temple and Temple got booted from the club during the BCS era. Utah and TCU have joined the club.
Reducing to four brands increases the leverage of those brands. New efficiency was created by splitting Texas and Texas A&M. If TAMU had accepted the offer to join what became LHN the carriage fee in Texas is unlikely to be equal to the current LHN and SEC fees combined. Being apart extracted more money from the market. Splitting VPI and UVA and NCState from UNC, Duke, Wake would likely do the same as would splitting OU and OkSt.
The NFL is instructive here. They bid the AFC and NFC Sunday afternoon packages independently even though the money goes to the same pool. You know going in if you win one of the packages you are going to get a team in the #1 TV market, one in the #6 market, you will get a Florida team and a Texas team and a Pennsylvania team. Most of the LA speculation includes each conference getting an LA team.
If you want to extract the maximum dollars splitting up some teams makes great sense.
I felt all along TAMU going to SEC was brilliant. In recruiting against Texas they could argue facilities, fan support etc., but at the end of the day they were dealing with offering basically the same thing as Texas, being able to tout a different conference was a positive. Iowa State for all their woes is probably better off being in Big XII than Big 10 in offering a real difference when battling Iowa. Maybe Georgia Tech is worse off not being in the SEC but the evidence points to Clemson and FSU not being in the SEC being a net positive for both.
I agree with 1/2 of your point. True, the market value of TAMU and others increased by joining the SEC, and some of that increased value came from differentiation, but I disagree that such value increases would be limited if additional schools joined the SEC because eventually the SEC media rights could be sold in different parts like the NFL, ie by divisions, in-state rivalries, number of night games, etc.
(04-18-2015 09:09 PM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I could see the pac 12 offer OU, OK state, KU, and K state to block the big 10 from getting OU + KU combo. With both offers, i think those school's go west. Thus, the big 10 might be somewhat boxed in with future expansion moves. The acc seems to be on lockdown, UVA and Unc don't won't to move and no way do they allow V tech or Nc state to move. The pool for the big 10 could be the school's on the twitter rumor, missouri and uconn. As for WVU, can't see the big 10 making that move. The option i do think the big 10 should purse is Florida State
Didn't the PAC 12 turn down OU if they weren't bringing Texas? I don't see why they would take two or three teams they don't want to get a team they didn't want by themselves?