CSNbbs

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/


SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651
Total: $1,926,694,856
Average Per Team: $137,621,061


Big 10:

3. Ohio State: $185,409,602
4. Michigan: $185,173,187
14. Penn State: $144,017,055
15. Wisconsin: $142,930,591
19. Iowa: $130,681,467
22. Michigan State: $126,021,377
25. Nebraska: $120,205,090
27. Minnesota: $116,376,862
31. Indiana: $106,139,192
39. Illinois: $97,447,731
40. Rutgers: $96,883,027
43. Maryland: $94,881,357
54. Purdue: $84,841,133
56. Northwestern: $84,279,755
Total: $1,715,848,804
Average Per Team: $122,560,629


Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447
Total: $1,128,257,788
Average Per Team: $112,825,779


PAC 12:

12. Oregon: $145,417,315
21. Washington: $128,745,183
23. Stanford: $125,039,558
28. Southern Cal: $113,174,912
33. Cal Los Angeles: $104,106,646
34. Arizona State: $101,579,860
44. Colorado: $94,226,111
48. Arizona: $90,976,758
49. California: $90,976,576
58. Utah: $83,672,639
63. Oregon State: $78,959,875
****************************
66. Washington State: $64,294,520
Total: $1,221,169,953
Average Per Team: $101,764,163


ACC:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224
Total: $1,327,372,397
Average Per Team: $94,812,314


*17. Notre Dame: $132,371,404

The Only G5 school to place in the top 65:

59. Connecticut: $83,374,223


Gross Total Revenue By Conference:
1. SEC: $1,926,694,856
2. B1G: $1,715,848,804
3. ACC: $1,327,372,397
4. PAC: $1,221,169,953
5. B12: $1,128,257,788

Gross Total Revenue Average Per School by Conference:
1. SEC: $137,621,061
2. B1G: $122,560,629 (-$15,060,432)
3. B12: $112,825,779 (-$24,795,282)
4. PAC: $101,764,163 (-$35,856,898)
5. ACC: $ 94,812,314 (-$42,808,747)


NOTES: I think this is the greatest distance from the average per school revenue that we have had ever. Is there any wonder that many are beginning to doubt the ability of the ACCN to help them catch up?

Next year the Big 10 will get a spike in revenue of 12 million while the SEC will see a spike of about 6. So by the end of next year when this report comes out expect the Big 10 to close their deficit to us to about 8 to 9 million in distance. This is why I have not been troubled by the Big 10's media deal. They've gotten their best shot and will still come up almost 9 million short.

I think you can see why the Big 12 hasn't really felt the heat due to finances. They do fine. If movement happens it will be for reasons other than money.

(06-28-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]13. Florida State: $144,514,413

You know I have a hair up my arse about this ... where did FSU get $30 million extra dollars this past year? Their 2016 revenue was $113 million.

Considering the idea that the SEC would only consider schools above the average revenue for expansion, here is that list:

B1G - Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin
PAC - Oregon
ACC - Florida St
XII - Texas, Oklahoma

That's a pretty short list. Not even Notre Dame makes that list. What about averages for expansion partners?

Oklahoma + Oklahoma St : $123,441,673 (below)
Texas + Texas Tech : $151,817,561.50 (over)
Texoma-4 : $137,629,617.25 (over)
Florida St + Clemson : $128,557,688.50 (under)
Texoma-4 + Florida St + Clemson : $134,605,641 (over)

Bringing in all 6 is at least a slight increase on the average revenue but likely a much greater increase.

North: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Alabama, Florida St, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

(06-29-2018 09:24 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Considering the idea that the SEC would only consider schools above the average revenue for expansion, here is that list:

B1G - Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin
PAC - Oregon
ACC - Florida St
XII - Texas, Oklahoma

That's a pretty short list. Not even Notre Dame makes that list. What about averages for expansion partners?

Oklahoma + Oklahoma St : $123,441,673 (below)
Texas + Texas Tech : $151,817,561.50 (over)
Texoma-4 : $137,629,617.25 (over)
Florida St + Clemson : $128,557,688.50 (under)
Texoma-4 + Florida St + Clemson : $134,605,641 (over)

Bringing in all 6 is at least a slight increase on the average revenue but likely a much greater increase.

North: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Alabama, Florida St, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

This is an excellent way of looking at it. Barring any crazy changes in the CFB landscape by 2022 the only realistic additions that would get member approval would be:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
FSU
Clemson

Very tiny chance that TCU or West Virginia could be in play as #16, but I don't really see either.

(06-29-2018 10:12 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 09:24 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Considering the idea that the SEC would only consider schools above the average revenue for expansion, here is that list:

B1G - Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin
PAC - Oregon
ACC - Florida St
XII - Texas, Oklahoma

That's a pretty short list. Not even Notre Dame makes that list. What about averages for expansion partners?

Oklahoma + Oklahoma St : $123,441,673 (below)
Texas + Texas Tech : $151,817,561.50 (over)
Texoma-4 : $137,629,617.25 (over)
Florida St + Clemson : $128,557,688.50 (under)
Texoma-4 + Florida St + Clemson : $134,605,641 (over)

Bringing in all 6 is at least a slight increase on the average revenue but likely a much greater increase.

North: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Alabama, Florida St, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

This is an excellent way of looking at it. Barring any crazy changes in the CFB landscape by 2022 the only realistic additions that would get member approval would be:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
FSU
Clemson

Very tiny chance that TCU or West Virginia could be in play as #16, but I don't really see either.

Go to the WSJ's valuations of the economic impact of the schools and you can see a different set of numbers that represent the total value of a school to their region and any reach they might have beyond it.

Then take both these total revenue numbers and the WSJ valuations and the list gets a little bit longer. Also then the reasoning between taking just Oklahoma and Texas and taking them with a partner becomes more evident. The same is true when taking all of the key pieces in large market states. The advertising leverage has value too.

So while looking just at at revenue numbers is an important step into understanding a conference's interest in another school, their economic impact valuations and whether or not the school gives you ad leverage within a state is also important.

Taking for instance Texas/Tech/OU/OSU to go with Arkansas and A&M gives you virtual control for advertising in an extended region of over 36 million.

(06-29-2018 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 10:12 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 09:24 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Considering the idea that the SEC would only consider schools above the average revenue for expansion, here is that list:

B1G - Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin
PAC - Oregon
ACC - Florida St
XII - Texas, Oklahoma

That's a pretty short list. Not even Notre Dame makes that list. What about averages for expansion partners?

Oklahoma + Oklahoma St : $123,441,673 (below)
Texas + Texas Tech : $151,817,561.50 (over)
Texoma-4 : $137,629,617.25 (over)
Florida St + Clemson : $128,557,688.50 (under)
Texoma-4 + Florida St + Clemson : $134,605,641 (over)

Bringing in all 6 is at least a slight increase on the average revenue but likely a much greater increase.

North: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Alabama, Florida St, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

This is an excellent way of looking at it. Barring any crazy changes in the CFB landscape by 2022 the only realistic additions that would get member approval would be:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
FSU
Clemson

Very tiny chance that TCU or West Virginia could be in play as #16, but I don't really see either.

Go to the WSJ's valuations of the economic impact of the schools and you can see a different set of numbers that represent the total value of a school to their region and any reach they might have beyond it.

Then take both these total revenue numbers and the WSJ valuations and the list gets a little bit longer. Also then the reasoning between taking just Oklahoma and Texas and taking them with a partner becomes more evident. The same is true when taking all of the key pieces in large market states. The advertising leverage has value too.

So while looking just at at revenue numbers is an important step into understanding a conference's interest in another school, their economic impact valuations and whether or not the school gives you ad leverage within a state is also important.

Taking for instance Texas/Tech/OU/OSU to go with Arkansas and A&M gives you virtual control for advertising in an extended region of over 36 million.

JR - my point that I bolded above speaks to what you wrote without going to that extent but that is definitely it.

---

I like that group of 20 for the SEC, but I like dreaming of 24 which is unrealistic at this point. If 24 is the goal, then going further with North Carolina St, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas should be the SEC's play.

West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas
South: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Florida St, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
East: West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Auburn

(06-29-2018 02:25 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 10:12 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 09:24 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Considering the idea that the SEC would only consider schools above the average revenue for expansion, here is that list:

B1G - Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin
PAC - Oregon
ACC - Florida St
XII - Texas, Oklahoma

That's a pretty short list. Not even Notre Dame makes that list. What about averages for expansion partners?

Oklahoma + Oklahoma St : $123,441,673 (below)
Texas + Texas Tech : $151,817,561.50 (over)
Texoma-4 : $137,629,617.25 (over)
Florida St + Clemson : $128,557,688.50 (under)
Texoma-4 + Florida St + Clemson : $134,605,641 (over)

Bringing in all 6 is at least a slight increase on the average revenue but likely a much greater increase.

North: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Alabama, Florida St, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

This is an excellent way of looking at it. Barring any crazy changes in the CFB landscape by 2022 the only realistic additions that would get member approval would be:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
FSU
Clemson

Very tiny chance that TCU or West Virginia could be in play as #16, but I don't really see either.

Go to the WSJ's valuations of the economic impact of the schools and you can see a different set of numbers that represent the total value of a school to their region and any reach they might have beyond it.

Then take both these total revenue numbers and the WSJ valuations and the list gets a little bit longer. Also then the reasoning between taking just Oklahoma and Texas and taking them with a partner becomes more evident. The same is true when taking all of the key pieces in large market states. The advertising leverage has value too.

So while looking just at at revenue numbers is an important step into understanding a conference's interest in another school, their economic impact valuations and whether or not the school gives you ad leverage within a state is also important.

Taking for instance Texas/Tech/OU/OSU to go with Arkansas and A&M gives you virtual control for advertising in an extended region of over 36 million.

JR - my point that I bolded above speaks to what you wrote without going to that extent but that is definitely it.

---

I like that group of 20 for the SEC, but I like dreaming of 24 which is unrealistic at this point. If 24 is the goal, then going further with North Carolina St, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas should be the SEC's play.

West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas
South: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Florida St, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
East: West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Auburn

I do think Slive was correct in his assessment of the size of conferences. He said they can grow as large as they can remain profitable. For the SEC and Big 10 that may be 18. 20 may be a stretch. This will be particularly true as a market size isn't as important as a school's ability to actually garner the viewers from that market.

This is what makes just flat assuming that North Carolina and Virginia can be home runs. They are nice states but states in which college football doesn't draw the % of the viewers as would be delivered by F.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas, or possibly Clemson considering their draw is into Southern North Carolina, and parts of North Georgia.

When the market model was in vogue, and once we had A&M in the fold, I had a guy with ties to the conference tell me that the ideal addition for the SEC to 16 would be Oklahoma and North Carolina. I think now they would be more likely to say Oklahoma and Florida State (understanding that OU and UT were not as likely as a pairing).

If expansion was going to be out of both the Big 12 and ACC then maybe that would be possible, but if the Big 12 goes first it will be awhile before the ACC might follow. Texas and OU's addition to the either or both of the Big 10 and SEC might well advance our value beyond the additions of any ACC schools.

If the ACC goes first then expansion to 18 out of the ACC by both the Big 10 and SEC is quite possible and would still be profitable. What's more, outside of UNC, I think our targets would be quite different.

Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State would definitely be of interest to the SEC. The question in my mind is how much value would N.C. State actually add?

I think the Big 10 would be all about Virginia, North Carolina and would take Duke to get them and to have those 3 serve as a major lure for N.D.

At that point neither the SEC nor the Big 10 would find it profitable to pursue other schools. If the Big 10 made a play for Ga Tech the SEC might take them to shore up the Southeast and with them possibly Miami. But neither would be adding much to us, but would protect advertising rates in the region.

The Big 10 knows the SEC would not pursue B.C., Syracuse or Pitt. So in the name of profits I think they both stop.

Louisville, B.C., Syracuse, and Pitt would have huge market value however to the Big 12 and Georgia Tech and Miami are in air hubs so travel to them would be easy. Add those 6 to the Big 12 and let them pick up B.Y.U. and maybe Cincinnati and now you have 3 viable 18 member conferences. Then the PAC would have some serious choices to make. That may be the impetus for them finally including some of the West's stronger programs.

(06-29-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 02:25 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 10:12 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 09:24 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Considering the idea that the SEC would only consider schools above the average revenue for expansion, here is that list:

B1G - Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin
PAC - Oregon
ACC - Florida St
XII - Texas, Oklahoma

That's a pretty short list. Not even Notre Dame makes that list. What about averages for expansion partners?

Oklahoma + Oklahoma St : $123,441,673 (below)
Texas + Texas Tech : $151,817,561.50 (over)
Texoma-4 : $137,629,617.25 (over)
Florida St + Clemson : $128,557,688.50 (under)
Texoma-4 + Florida St + Clemson : $134,605,641 (over)

Bringing in all 6 is at least a slight increase on the average revenue but likely a much greater increase.

North: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Clemson
South: Alabama, Florida St, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

This is an excellent way of looking at it. Barring any crazy changes in the CFB landscape by 2022 the only realistic additions that would get member approval would be:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
FSU
Clemson

Very tiny chance that TCU or West Virginia could be in play as #16, but I don't really see either.

Go to the WSJ's valuations of the economic impact of the schools and you can see a different set of numbers that represent the total value of a school to their region and any reach they might have beyond it.

Then take both these total revenue numbers and the WSJ valuations and the list gets a little bit longer. Also then the reasoning between taking just Oklahoma and Texas and taking them with a partner becomes more evident. The same is true when taking all of the key pieces in large market states. The advertising leverage has value too.

So while looking just at at revenue numbers is an important step into understanding a conference's interest in another school, their economic impact valuations and whether or not the school gives you ad leverage within a state is also important.

Taking for instance Texas/Tech/OU/OSU to go with Arkansas and A&M gives you virtual control for advertising in an extended region of over 36 million.

JR - my point that I bolded above speaks to what you wrote without going to that extent but that is definitely it.

---

I like that group of 20 for the SEC, but I like dreaming of 24 which is unrealistic at this point. If 24 is the goal, then going further with North Carolina St, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas should be the SEC's play.

West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas
South: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Florida St, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
East: West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Auburn

I do think Slive was correct in his assessment of the size of conferences. He said they can grow as large as they can remain profitable. For the SEC and Big 10 that may be 18. 20 may be a stretch. This will be particularly true as a market size isn't as important as a school's ability to actually garner the viewers from that market.

This is what makes just flat assuming that North Carolina and Virginia can be home runs. They are nice states but states in which college football doesn't draw the % of the viewers as would be delivered by F.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas, or possibly Clemson considering their draw is into Southern North Carolina, and parts of North Georgia.

When the market model was in vogue, and once we had A&M in the fold, I had a guy with ties to the conference tell me that the ideal addition for the SEC to 16 would be Oklahoma and North Carolina. I think now they would be more likely to say Oklahoma and Florida State (understanding that OU and UT were not as likely as a pairing).

If expansion was going to be out of both the Big 12 and ACC then maybe that would be possible, but if the Big 12 goes first it will be awhile before the ACC might follow. Texas and OU's addition to the either or both of the Big 10 and SEC might well advance our value beyond the additions of any ACC schools.

If the ACC goes first then expansion to 18 out of the ACC by both the Big 10 and SEC is quite possible and would still be profitable. What's more, outside of UNC, I think our targets would be quite different.

Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State would definitely be of interest to the SEC. The question in my mind is how much value would N.C. State actually add?

I think the Big 10 would be all about Virginia, North Carolina and would take Duke to get them and to have those 3 serve as a major lure for N.D.

At that point neither the SEC nor the Big 10 would find it profitable to pursue other schools. If the Big 10 made a play for Ga Tech the SEC might take them to shore up the Southeast and with them possibly Miami. But neither would be adding much to us, but would protect advertising rates in the region.

The Big 10 knows the SEC would not pursue B.C., Syracuse or Pitt. So in the name of profits I think they both stop.

Louisville, B.C., Syracuse, and Pitt would have huge market value however to the Big 12 and Georgia Tech and Miami are in air hubs so travel to them would be easy. Add those 6 to the Big 12 and let them pick up B.Y.U. and maybe Cincinnati and now you have 3 viable 18 member conferences. Then the PAC would have some serious choices to make. That may be the impetus for them finally including some of the West's stronger programs.

I can certainly see why high value football programs would be the top priority. I would be surprised, however, if VT or UNC and Duke would be turned away if they approached the SEC.

The market model is no longer paramount, but I don't think it's irrelevant either. New markets bring new viewers and new viewers add to the baseline. Adding new subscribers will be the name of the game. Even if the consumers in NC or VA don't necessarily watch as much college football as others, they're still enough of them to make a dent. If I remember correctly; cities like Charlotte, Norfolk, Raleigh, and Richmond are still fairly high on the list of DMAs that soak up college football coverage.

That and some of these Presidents would love to have those schools in the group just so they can brag to their buddies up North.

If we can swing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a means of adding punch to our 1st Tier value then I might not even concern myself with Texas at that point.

I would make an effort to add 8 from the ACC. Probably these: Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.

I've now built a 24 team league and secured all the regional and in-state rivals. According to the old economic models, there's no real way this conference would be worth more than a very select 18 or 20. The advantage is leverage, however. No network can afford to let that much quality content escape in one fell swoop. Greater leverage can demand greater paydays at the negotiating table.

Texas doesn't even have to be involved. They can either head to the PAC with a local division or rebuild the Big 12 with schools like Miami and Louisville...maybe even Notre Dame.

(06-29-2018 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I can certainly see why high value football programs would be the top priority. I would be surprised, however, if VT or UNC and Duke would be turned away if they approached the SEC.

The market model is no longer paramount, but I don't think it's irrelevant either. New markets bring new viewers and new viewers add to the baseline. Adding new subscribers will be the name of the game. Even if the consumers in NC or VA don't necessarily watch as much college football as others, they're still enough of them to make a dent. If I remember correctly; cities like Charlotte, Norfolk, Raleigh, and Richmond are still fairly high on the list of DMAs that soak up college football coverage.

That and some of these Presidents would love to have those schools in the group just so they can brag to their buddies up North.

If we can swing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a means of adding punch to our 1st Tier value then I might not even concern myself with Texas at that point.

I would make an effort to add 8 from the ACC. Probably these: Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.

I've now built a 24 team league and secured all the regional and in-state rivals. According to the old economic models, there's no real way this conference would be worth more than a very select 18 or 20. The advantage is leverage, however. No network can afford to let that much quality content escape in one fell swoop. Greater leverage can demand greater paydays at the negotiating table.

Texas doesn't even have to be involved. They can either head to the PAC with a local division or rebuild the Big 12 with schools like Miami and Louisville...maybe even Notre Dame.

If you're going to deal yourself Fuhrer Mickey's hand, at least put all the assets on the table. I see the Big 12 and ACC and SEC, as entities, being irrelevant shortly after Disney decides to try its hand at horizontal integration to go along with the vertical integration they've been doing through conference TV channels.

You don't care about the SEC. Not in the abstract you don't. You care about who you play. From an Alabama fan's standpoint, the deal with the Disney devil goes something like this: We'll make sure you don't have to play Missouri, or the ACC North, or the Big 12 North. But you *do* want to play at least some of the Big 12 South and ACC South don't you? Here's even more money. Your conference doesn't matter anymore. We're putting you into small geographic and traditional rival centric divisions and where we can arbitrarily control how much we blend over regions. No more FCS. No more G5. No more out of conference scheduling at all really except maybe a few big kickoff games.

You can fiddle with the exact numbers and exact division size and makeup (I know I do constantly), but something like this seems plausible and Disney owns nearly all the rights that matter to make this happen:

Plains Division: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
Texas Division: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Texas A&M, TCU,

Delta Division: Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas, Alabama
Gulf Division: Auburn, Florida State, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida

South Atlantic Division: Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, Miami
Mid-South Division: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Northeast Division: Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Syracuse
Midwest Division: Iowa State, Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky, Cincinnati


I wouldn't say I *welcome* our new corporate overlords. But ... as difficult as this is to come to grips with .... Disney might be less soulless and corrupt than the NCAA.

(07-03-2018 03:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I can certainly see why high value football programs would be the top priority. I would be surprised, however, if VT or UNC and Duke would be turned away if they approached the SEC.

The market model is no longer paramount, but I don't think it's irrelevant either. New markets bring new viewers and new viewers add to the baseline. Adding new subscribers will be the name of the game. Even if the consumers in NC or VA don't necessarily watch as much college football as others, they're still enough of them to make a dent. If I remember correctly; cities like Charlotte, Norfolk, Raleigh, and Richmond are still fairly high on the list of DMAs that soak up college football coverage.

That and some of these Presidents would love to have those schools in the group just so they can brag to their buddies up North.

If we can swing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a means of adding punch to our 1st Tier value then I might not even concern myself with Texas at that point.

I would make an effort to add 8 from the ACC. Probably these: Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.

I've now built a 24 team league and secured all the regional and in-state rivals. According to the old economic models, there's no real way this conference would be worth more than a very select 18 or 20. The advantage is leverage, however. No network can afford to let that much quality content escape in one fell swoop. Greater leverage can demand greater paydays at the negotiating table.

Texas doesn't even have to be involved. They can either head to the PAC with a local division or rebuild the Big 12 with schools like Miami and Louisville...maybe even Notre Dame.

If you're going to deal yourself Fuhrer Mickey's hand, at least put all the assets on the table. I see the Big 12 and ACC and SEC, as entities, being irrelevant shortly after Disney decides to try its hand at horizontal integration to go along with the vertical integration they've been doing through conference TV channels.

You don't care about the SEC. Not in the abstract you don't. You care about who you play. From an Alabama fan's standpoint, the deal with the Disney devil goes something like this: We'll make sure you don't have to play Missouri, or the ACC North, or the Big 12 North. But you *do* want to play at least some of the Big 12 South and ACC South don't you? Here's even more money. Your conference doesn't matter anymore. We're putting you into small geographic and traditional rival centric divisions and where we can arbitrarily control how much we blend over regions. No more FCS. No more G5. No more out of conference scheduling at all really except maybe a few big kickoff games.

You can fiddle with the exact numbers and exact division size and makeup (I know I do constantly), but something like this seems plausible and Disney owns nearly all the rights that matter to make this happen:

Plains Division: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
North Texas Division: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

Delta Division: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M
Gulf Division: Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

South Atlantic Division: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami
Mid-South Division: Auburn, Clemson, Georgia Tech, South Carolina,

Northeast Division: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Tennessee
Midwest Division: Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech


I wouldn't say I *welcome* our new corporate overlords. But ... as difficult as this is to come to grips with .... Disney might be less soulless and corrupt than the NCAA.

Fixed it for you.

We don't need the dregs of the ACC dragging down the damned revenue!

Boston College, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse are out.

Baylor is out. We don't need 5 P schools in Texas.

Wake Forest is out. We don't need 4 P schools in North Carolina

West Virginia is out. We don't need batteries and urine thrown at our fans and we don't need our pregnant women punched while trying to defend their husbands from being dragged from the car and beaten.

Notre Dame is out. We don't need somebody always asking for special privileges. Besides with Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Miami, and Clemson we won't be hurting for content.

Now you have a blended system with more cultural identity, more rivalries that work, and a much more manageable area to cover. Just look at the map!

(07-03-2018 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2018 03:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I can certainly see why high value football programs would be the top priority. I would be surprised, however, if VT or UNC and Duke would be turned away if they approached the SEC.

The market model is no longer paramount, but I don't think it's irrelevant either. New markets bring new viewers and new viewers add to the baseline. Adding new subscribers will be the name of the game. Even if the consumers in NC or VA don't necessarily watch as much college football as others, they're still enough of them to make a dent. If I remember correctly; cities like Charlotte, Norfolk, Raleigh, and Richmond are still fairly high on the list of DMAs that soak up college football coverage.

That and some of these Presidents would love to have those schools in the group just so they can brag to their buddies up North.

If we can swing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a means of adding punch to our 1st Tier value then I might not even concern myself with Texas at that point.

I would make an effort to add 8 from the ACC. Probably these: Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.

I've now built a 24 team league and secured all the regional and in-state rivals. According to the old economic models, there's no real way this conference would be worth more than a very select 18 or 20. The advantage is leverage, however. No network can afford to let that much quality content escape in one fell swoop. Greater leverage can demand greater paydays at the negotiating table.

Texas doesn't even have to be involved. They can either head to the PAC with a local division or rebuild the Big 12 with schools like Miami and Louisville...maybe even Notre Dame.

If you're going to deal yourself Fuhrer Mickey's hand, at least put all the assets on the table. I see the Big 12 and ACC and SEC, as entities, being irrelevant shortly after Disney decides to try its hand at horizontal integration to go along with the vertical integration they've been doing through conference TV channels.

You don't care about the SEC. Not in the abstract you don't. You care about who you play. From an Alabama fan's standpoint, the deal with the Disney devil goes something like this: We'll make sure you don't have to play Missouri, or the ACC North, or the Big 12 North. But you *do* want to play at least some of the Big 12 South and ACC South don't you? Here's even more money. Your conference doesn't matter anymore. We're putting you into small geographic and traditional rival centric divisions and where we can arbitrarily control how much we blend over regions. No more FCS. No more G5. No more out of conference scheduling at all really except maybe a few big kickoff games.

You can fiddle with the exact numbers and exact division size and makeup (I know I do constantly), but something like this seems plausible and Disney owns nearly all the rights that matter to make this happen:

Plains Division: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
North Texas Division: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

Delta Division: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M
Gulf Division: Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

South Atlantic Division: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami
Mid-South Division: Auburn, Clemson, Georgia Tech, South Carolina,

Northeast Division: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Tennessee
Midwest Division: Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech


I wouldn't say I *welcome* our new corporate overlords. But ... as difficult as this is to come to grips with .... Disney might be less soulless and corrupt than the NCAA.

Fixed it for you.

We don't need the dregs of the ACC dragging down the damned revenue!

Boston College, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse are out.

Baylor is out. We don't need 5 P schools in Texas.

Wake Forest is out. We don't need 4 P schools in North Carolina

West Virginia is out. We don't need batteries and urine thrown at our fans and we don't need our pregnant women punched while trying to defend their husbands from being dragged from the car and beaten.

Notre Dame is out. We don't need somebody always asking for special privileges. Besides with Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Miami, and Clemson we won't be hurting for content.

Now you have a blended system with more cultural identity, more rivalries that work, and a much more manageable area to cover. Just look at the map!

I like that line up sure. I just go to some lengths to avoid losers because when you have losers you get the United States Congress and State Congress involved. See: Tech, Virginia.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

(07-03-2018 04:04 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2018 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2018 03:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2018 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I can certainly see why high value football programs would be the top priority. I would be surprised, however, if VT or UNC and Duke would be turned away if they approached the SEC.

The market model is no longer paramount, but I don't think it's irrelevant either. New markets bring new viewers and new viewers add to the baseline. Adding new subscribers will be the name of the game. Even if the consumers in NC or VA don't necessarily watch as much college football as others, they're still enough of them to make a dent. If I remember correctly; cities like Charlotte, Norfolk, Raleigh, and Richmond are still fairly high on the list of DMAs that soak up college football coverage.

That and some of these Presidents would love to have those schools in the group just so they can brag to their buddies up North.

If we can swing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a means of adding punch to our 1st Tier value then I might not even concern myself with Texas at that point.

I would make an effort to add 8 from the ACC. Probably these: Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.

I've now built a 24 team league and secured all the regional and in-state rivals. According to the old economic models, there's no real way this conference would be worth more than a very select 18 or 20. The advantage is leverage, however. No network can afford to let that much quality content escape in one fell swoop. Greater leverage can demand greater paydays at the negotiating table.

Texas doesn't even have to be involved. They can either head to the PAC with a local division or rebuild the Big 12 with schools like Miami and Louisville...maybe even Notre Dame.

If you're going to deal yourself Fuhrer Mickey's hand, at least put all the assets on the table. I see the Big 12 and ACC and SEC, as entities, being irrelevant shortly after Disney decides to try its hand at horizontal integration to go along with the vertical integration they've been doing through conference TV channels.

You don't care about the SEC. Not in the abstract you don't. You care about who you play. From an Alabama fan's standpoint, the deal with the Disney devil goes something like this: We'll make sure you don't have to play Missouri, or the ACC North, or the Big 12 North. But you *do* want to play at least some of the Big 12 South and ACC South don't you? Here's even more money. Your conference doesn't matter anymore. We're putting you into small geographic and traditional rival centric divisions and where we can arbitrarily control how much we blend over regions. No more FCS. No more G5. No more out of conference scheduling at all really except maybe a few big kickoff games.

You can fiddle with the exact numbers and exact division size and makeup (I know I do constantly), but something like this seems plausible and Disney owns nearly all the rights that matter to make this happen:

Plains Division: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
North Texas Division: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

Delta Division: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M
Gulf Division: Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

South Atlantic Division: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami
Mid-South Division: Auburn, Clemson, Georgia Tech, South Carolina,

Northeast Division: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Tennessee
Midwest Division: Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech


I wouldn't say I *welcome* our new corporate overlords. But ... as difficult as this is to come to grips with .... Disney might be less soulless and corrupt than the NCAA.

Fixed it for you.

We don't need the dregs of the ACC dragging down the damned revenue!

Boston College, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse are out.

Baylor is out. We don't need 5 P schools in Texas.

Wake Forest is out. We don't need 4 P schools in North Carolina

West Virginia is out. We don't need batteries and urine thrown at our fans and we don't need our pregnant women punched while trying to defend their husbands from being dragged from the car and beaten.

Notre Dame is out. We don't need somebody always asking for special privileges. Besides with Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Miami, and Clemson we won't be hurting for content.

Now you have a blended system with more cultural identity, more rivalries that work, and a much more manageable area to cover. Just look at the map!

I like that line up sure. I just go to some lengths to avoid losers because when you have losers you get the United States Congress and State Congress involved. See: Tech, Virginia.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

There would be nothing to stop Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia and Notre Dame from forming a new division(s) of an expanded Big 10 and the fit would be more natural. Wake Forest? They virtually can't afford to be in the P5 now. And Baylor would receive no sympathy.

So I don't think there would be many losers except for 1 that simply doesn't belong and another that everyone knows doesn't deserve the slot.

(07-03-2018 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]There would be nothing to stop Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia and Notre Dame from forming a new division(s) of an expanded Big 10 and the fit would be more natural. Wake Forest? They virtually can't afford to be in the P5 now. And Baylor would receive no sympathy.

So I don't think there would be many losers except for 1 that simply doesn't belong and another that everyone knows doesn't deserve the slot.

I agree with you in the context of an ideal world. But in politics perception is reality. And that perception doesn't have to be grounded to actual reality. For all of their ****** political behavior UCONN has felt almost no blacklash. Unless you count the wallets of the students currently funding the athletic department.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

(07-03-2018 04:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2018 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]There would be nothing to stop Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia and Notre Dame from forming a new division(s) of an expanded Big 10 and the fit would be more natural. Wake Forest? They virtually can't afford to be in the P5 now. And Baylor would receive no sympathy.

So I don't think there would be many losers except for 1 that simply doesn't belong and another that everyone knows doesn't deserve the slot.

I agree with you in the context of an ideal world. But in politics perception is reality. And that perception doesn't have to be grounded to actual reality. For all of their ****** political behavior UCONN has felt almost no blacklash. Unless you count the wallets of the students currently funding the athletic department.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

UConn has slipped 10 positions in Revenue in the last 5 years thus averaging 2 spots per year. In 3 more years they will be out of the top 65 earners. I'd say the political hatchet job is working. Within the next decade they will be squarely and in every way a G5. We are only this litigious because there are more lawyers than clients and many are hungry.

BTW: Don't know if it is true but I've been told this year will be UConn's last disbursement for all of those old Big East exit fees. Their drop could gain terminal velocity if that's so.

In the case of Pitt, I feel like the only reason they're struggling is because literally all of their biggest rivals have been taken away from them: first Penn State, then WVU, now even Notre Dame is once every 3 years and Boston College once every 6. Only the lukewarm Syracuse "rivalry" remains for them. Put Pitt in the right division and I think they'd get back to the old Panthers. JMO.

Auburn did lose annual games with Ga Tech and Florida... imagine if it lost Georgia and Alabama too! That would have a huge effect...