(12-15-2015 02:56 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: (12-14-2015 07:38 PM)XLance Wrote: Once ESPN and FOX get their share of the PAC network and we move to a P4 instead of P5 what do you really expect to happen? Really happen, not just your message board wish list?
I believe that the networks will move to enhance their new product, which most likely means that both Texas and Oklahoma will move to the PAC in an attempt to garner large numbers of new network subscriptions not only in Texas and Oklahoma but to jump start the California market as well.
Kansas most likely heads to the B1G as there just is no cultural fit for the SEC.
The ACC? ESPN will try to enhance the ACC just like they will the PAC, because it's good business practice to reap as much income as possible from as many sources as possible.
What does this mean? There is no reason for ESPN to enhance the SEC where revenue for the SECN is already very strong and the fan base won't run from their conference even if they end up with two stinkers.
I think the PAC ends up with 18 teams, the B1G, SEC and ACC with 16. The ACC with Notre Dame and Cincinnati. The SEC with Baylor and West Virginia. The B1G with Iowa State and Kansas and the PAC gets the rest of the Big 12.
Hoss, with all due respect...most of that doesn't even make sense.
There's no reason for ESPN to diminish the value of any league that they want to survive. Baylor and WVU to the SEC? What does that even accomplish? The SEC isn't going to even consider those 2 unless they've got much bigger fish on the line. The SEC doesn't have to take anyone they don't want. I mean, shoot, if the SEC is just going to take any 2 on the board to get to 16 then there are several schools with more potential than those 2. Might as well take schools like ECU or UCF or Tulsa or Cincy.
It makes sense that some Big 12 schools would move West, but no one is going to do it for less money. It's entirely probable that a PAC 12 Network even with OU and UT will still be less profitable than the BTN or the SECN especially if the PAC has to take little brothers to make it happen. That will further hurt the bottom line. Yeah, the PAC 12 wants a move like that for their own betterment, but no one else profits from it and certainly not ESPN even if they obtain a percentage of the PAC 12 Networks. ESPN might as well try to save the Big 12 and give them a network by forcing FSU, Clemson, and a few others to move to the Big 12.
I think ESPN definitely wants a slice of the PAC 12 Network, but they have no motivation to damage their other products to make it work. Might as well let FOX get stuck with it or if the product is truly valuable then it should be able to stand on its own two feet without disrupting the other conferences.
The SEC and the B1G have absolutely nothing to gain from parsing out a few Big 12 leftovers so the PAC 12 can get stronger or so the Big 12 can find homes for the requisite 8 number to disband. Even a move with Kansas doesn't do much for the B1G if they have to double down in a small market like IA.
I think from the numbers two years ago, last year, and the ones just coming out this year that there are only two schools that add to the SEC's bottom line in any kind of significant way that could come from the Big 12: Texas and Oklahoma. There is only one school that would add to the SEC's bottom line on simply their brand from the ACC: Florida State. But that addition would be so slight that only as a pairing mate with one that added significantly would they be considered. There are two variations of schools that add to the SEC's total market value and therefore would be worthwhile additions from the ACC: A state school from Virginia and a state school from North Carolina add significantly under the market model. If we move to simply streaming they don't.
Clemson is a NET neutral. They too could serve as a travel companion for a brand that adds value.
In looking at the numbers the safest additions for future value would be Texas and Oklahoma as they are content multipliers for the stellar existing SEC content. Their attendance would not detract from our mean, and both schools travel very well. North Carolina is a content multiplier for basketball and therefore only worth 1/3rd as much to us as a content multiplier. Kansas would be the same. Kansas however would detract from our attendance numbers in football, would not fit culturally, would not travel well for football, and IMO would never fit comfortably within our ranks.
So again if we add just two and do so without the affects of GOR's weighing upon our decisions then our options in prioritized order would be:
1. Oklahoma (Brand & new state)
2. Texas (Brand & Academics)
3. North Carolina (Large Market & Basketball Brand & Academics)
4. Virginia Tech (Large Market & Regional Football Brand)
5. Virginia (Large Market & Academics)
6. N.C. State (Large Market)
7. Florida State (Brand & cultural fit)
8. Duke (Basketball Brand & Academics)
9. Oklahoma State (Likely only as a travel mate but does deliver DFW)
10. Clemson (Likely only as a travel mate, regional brand, cultural fit)
The likelihood of expanding with schools below the 6th position is very slim and would likely only occur should there be a much larger move by other conferences thereby forcing us to protect our region, or if brokered moves occur at the behest of the networks.
IMO Baylor is only viable in a brokered move. T.C.U. is not viable if an Oklahoma school is involved in future expansion.
For all of those who think of schools like East Carolina, Memphis, Cincinnati, etc. simply look at the numbers. They do not meet the SEC mean for revenue, attendance, viewership, or academically. They detract from our bottom line.
IMO if a move is brokered to eliminate the Big 12 we will likely get either Oklahoma, or Texas, but not both and Oklahoma is much more likely than Texas. Then we get another Big 12 school depending on who either Texas or Oklahoma wants to travel with them.
If the ACC is brokered then we could get as many as 4 additions and again who we get depends upon who the first two schools who accept are. If we were to get North Carolina and Virginia then expect to add Duke and Georgia Tech as we would be adding for academic standing as much as for markets. If we get N.C. State and Virginia Tech we might stand pat at 16, or if other conferences were growing larger we could pick up Clemson and Florida State to protect our region and brand.
I don't see us adding West Virginia unless we were to move to a conference size of 20 - 24 which I consider to be very unlikely. Remember again somebody has to be willing to pay for a TV contract that would up the pay to such schools by almost 20 million above what they presently pay for those schools. I don't see that happening.
A network however might love to have Clemson & Florida State added in with the markets of Virginia and North Carolina for the SEC. Clemson & F.S.U. are content multipliers and in a world moving toward streaming those additions become far more valuable.
To recap if we expand again and do so out of the Big 12 I look for us to add Oklahoma and probably Oklahoma State.
If we expand out of the ACC I would expect many of their programs to be moving somewhere. So if North Carolina moves to the SEC then look for Duke as a requirement and Virginia might tag along. Georgia Tech would be protected in that move due to academics.
If the teams are N.C. State & Virginia Tech then we essentially lock down the Southeast by adding Clemson & Florida State. At that juncture Georgia Tech and Miami as football brands won't be significant as isolated schools within the footprint of a more solidified SEC.
The only way I see us moving to 20 is if both the Big 12 and ACC are dissolved.
Now go look at the numbers again and you will see why these scenarios are the only ones that realistically have any statistical chance of every happening because they are the only ones that could be profitable for the new schools and for the SEC's existing membership.