(01-25-2023 03:26 PM)Poster Wrote: (01-25-2023 11:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: (01-25-2023 11:24 AM)Poster Wrote: (01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: (01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote: FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.
I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.
Please explain "dilutive" in this context.
That the per school payout would actually go down if the SEC or Big Ten added UVA or Ga Tech. (Not even that they'd be fairly revenue neutral like Oregon, Washington or Stanford seem to be-I suspect Ga Tech or UVA would actually bring down the payout.)
Is that because you feel that their media deal dollars to the conference would not be adjusted (so more mouths to feed = less money per school) or that you don't think an updated media deal with the conference is possible to pay for the extra schools? Or some other reason?
I'm trying to better understand your use of "dilutive" in context of a media deal.
It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.
I’m not sure what you fail to understand about the word “dilutive.” It’s not very hard to understand.
If teams like Georgia Tech and UVA were very valuable, then the ACC would have a better TV contract to begin with.
Thank you.
It's not that I don't understand the word, I just wanted to find out what you were placing on that word.
Quote:It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.
According to who? Corporate payouts are not done that way at all.
This is why I think the word "dilutive" is kind of ridiculous to ever use in terms of a media deal.
It makes several suppositions, at least one of which is incorrect.
a.) that a media deal means that money is given to individual schools - it's not.
b.) Or that a media deal is a lump sum given to a conference - it's also not that.
c.) that adding schools means less money for a conference. Not likely at all. And "how much" is not at all based upon merely adding a school and saying that that school is worth "x" to a media deal. If someone told you that, they lied to you.
If the media deal
is updated or re-negotiated, then who is to say that the more money is going to be "dilutive"? a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who place value on a school based upon recent field success?
Yeah, no.
I have rarely seen anyone - pundit, fan, forum poster, or whomever - use that term and not sound rather foolish when they use it.
It's very use shows a lack of understanding of how this all works - trying to ascribe value in a media deal based upon what a fan values, rather than what a corporate entity values.
And the corporate entity is the one providing the money. So, I think looking from their point of view makes a bit more sense than John Q. Fan's perspective.
Anyway, thank you for clarifying. I had hoped there was perhaps more "there" there in your usage. But I guess not.