(02-04-2024 05:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-04-2024 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-04-2024 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-04-2024 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-04-2024 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote: IMO, the four corners schools are way more desirable than most nB12 schools. Regardless of TV analysis or attendance, I'd much rather USF be in a conference with flagships and flagship equivalents like Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State than any of the nB12 schools save for Kansas.
I admit I am not a fan of the "Sice-em" TV analysis for purposes of determining brand power. For example, they have Texas as #16 in TV viewing, but IMO Texas is arguably the single biggest overall brand in the country. If there was a draft of schools to form a conference, I would bet Texas would go first, even ahead of Notre Dame, Ohio State and Alabama. But Sic-em says their TV was behind the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin. USC is at #21 in the list I saw, and they were invited by the B1G and with no having to wait to get full payouts. They are a top 10 brand IMO as well.
I don't doubt the numbers are correct, but IMO they just mean there isn't that strong a correlation between those numbers and overall brand power.
Just MO.
Note I'm leaving out Kansas which has a WSJ valuation for all sports of .527 billion. Here are the next 4 most valuable Big 12 schools:
Kansas State: .339 billion
Oklahoma State: .338 billion
Texas Tech: .284 billion
Iowa State: .256 billion
Here are the 4 corners:
Arizona State: .368 billion
Arizona: .303 billion
Colorado: .259 billion
Utah: .249 billion
Gross Total Revenue Next 4 not including Texas and Oklahoma (then TCU) & Kansas:
T.C.U.: 139 million
Baylor: 111 million
Texas Tech: 104 million
Oklahoma State: 101.5 million.
Arizona: 120 million
Arizona State: 107 million
Utah: 97 million
Colorado: 96 million
Now tell me with a straight face that other than academics this wasn't a lateral move or better for those 4 schools.
Data is your friend. It removes personal prejudice.
JR, I am even less of a fan of the WSJ valuations than I am of the Sic-em TV ratings.
For example, the 2021 valuation (from a post by "Nerdlinger" in May of 2021) has Kansas ($527m) considerably more valuable than USC ($349m). Heck, they have USC as the *fifth* most valuable PAC 12 brand, when IMO Southern Cal is a top 10 national brand and was easily the most valuable brand in the old PAC 12. That is IMO why the mighty B1G invited them, allowed them to bring UCLA as a tagalong, and invited them at full pay from day one, whereas they had made other invites wait years for full pay.
In contrast, neither the B1G or SEC has invited Kansas and IMO are very unlikely to do so. Because IMO it is clear the USC is way bigger brand.
WSJ also has USC behind Arizona State in value, and Arizona State had to scrounge out an invite to the nB12.
I mean, the WSJ (2021) has Louisville as the most valuable ACC brand! Even ahead of FSU. In all of this "what if the ACC GOR goes" discussion, I don't think anyone is talking about the SEC or B1G wanting Louisville. They have VT ranked ahead of UNC. Does anyone think VT will, if the GOR goes down, get an SEC or B1G invite ahead of North Carolina?
I am partial to the SEC, but the WSJ has USC ranked behind 11 SEC schools (the 2021 SEC sans TX and OU). They slot USC between Ole Miss and Mississippi State in value. Come on, that is just not realistic IMO. In the B1G, they have Michigan State, Minnesota and Indiana as more valuable than USC.
I mean, that data just does not resonate with me.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-922385.html
You aren't a fan because it inhibits your prejudices. USC is exactly where they need to be. They may be located in Los Angeles but they hardly command that market most years. If people believe Miami is fair weather when it comes to fans Los Angeles says, "Hold my beer!" It is, has been, and shall always be about the numbers. Some coaches can inspire better results, some kids grow and rise to the challenge and that makes the sport. But the vast majority of the time it plays out along the numbers.
The WSJ measures the amount of commercial business in a region generated by the school's athletic teams. That perhaps is the best indicator of the strength of a brand. USC is only elevated in your mind because of Simpson, White and Cunninghame and Keith Jackson calling the Rose Bowls. All of that is gone and has been for twenty years minimally and even that 2 year stint was anomaly for the past 30 years.
Maybe I am stuck in the past, but IMO it is just obvious that USC is a way bigger brand than schools like Michigan State, Louisville, Kansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Arizona State and others that the WSJ has ahead of them. USC is a true blue-blood.
That IMO is why USC was invited to the B1G, and without having to wait any time at all to collect full conference pay, while schools like Washington and Oregon, that WSJ says are much more valuable, were not invited and had to twist in the wind for two years before getting B1G invites.
I mean, the SEC and B1G are really the ultimate arbiters of school value, as they are the top market for schools. And in 2021, the same year that WSJ said USC was behind 11 SEC schools in value and only the 5th most valuable PAC 12 school, USC was invited by the B1G and was even allowed to bring a tagalong.
Just MO.
USC was taken by the Big 10 who swallowed the addition of UCLA along with them because the SEC had just taken the #2 and #8 additions in the nation. And USC was shopping the notion of independence and had been for over a year prior to the Big 10 taking them, and the Big 10 knew that without Notre Dame there was no catching up to the SEC acquisitions. USC had to be taken first. If ESPN signs them to an N.D. style deal in the ACC Notre Dame is never shaking loose.
USC's importance was to a degree due to their desire to lure Notre Dame and to prevent ESPN from cementing them in place with a USC addition.
So, boom! We get USC and UCLA to the Big 10. The massive destabilization created by the OU / UT moves cannot be overestimated. It was nuclear. The rest is the response by the Big 10 as they hunt and hope for their white whale. The additions of Notre Dame cuts the future advantage of the SEC to a third of where it stands now. Pick up enough of the remaining value of what is left in the PAC and ACC and they can close it by another third. If the SEC counters with more moves of its own the value gap and future revenue gap projected by ACC studies to be 13 million in favor of the SEC in media revenue is also closed.
Now we get the talks between Petitti and Sankey. I'm wondering if FOX and ESPN want a truce so they can make solid bids on the CFP which the ACC screwed up for ESPN. If the SEC and Big 10 agree to a breakaway and to the rules governing it and if they agree to selling their rights as one at some point in the future, then it doesn't matter who goes where, they will be working together. It ends the destructive escalation currently being considered, contains the damage, and allows a cohesive unit moving forward in which could provide rights to all of the OTA's and Cable Channels and still stream.
But USC and UCLA were the response of two schools in the 20th or lower standing to two top 10 picks. The SEC already had 1.7-billion-dollar lead in valuation, they just didn't have the same affluence in the markets so the justification for the Big 10 to earn more in media revenue. That's going to be gone.
So, there's a lot more disarray going on than meets the eye. The courts just complicate it, and damages just add to the inability to adequately prepare for the future.
In the midst of all of it is the FSU case destabilizing the ACC and setting up another round of snatch and grab.
Right now, I suspect the Networks and the Commissioners are trying to figure out how to put the brakes on it, cooperate, and manage an uncertain future together.
The issue is how do you stop a train wreck in progress? Answer: The SEC and Big 10 agree to halt until they can work it out together. FOX and ESPN's role might need to be similar. We'll see. Surely, they both have a need to cap the growth of the Big 10 and SEC at levels affordable to both which meet each's need for content.
Face it, Quo, the destruction of one, possibly 3 P conferences, was unthinkable and unprecedented. It seems to have gotten beyond the control of those responsible for its control. The courts, the loss of OU and UT, the challenge to the GOR, and the panic exhibited by the MAG 7, the radical move of Cal and Stanford. These are apocalyptic signs in terms of college athletics. We process them slowly because that is how the human mind is supposed to handle stress. We rationalize the strategies involved and what kind of possible orderly outcome there can be. What if it's not?
I think we all should ponder that. In the middle of realignment two archrivals sit down to hammer things out. That's either because they have already agreed to the divvy, or they are trying to stop the need of it.
In that world an agreement to grow by those who want in and sell the rights collectively and follow a uniform governance has to be worked out to stop the destruction of value among too many friends and neighbors.
I think they have already decided on the divvy and are working out future rules, but I'm also keeping an open mind for the fact that this thing may be out of control and in need of a mutually agreed upon ending.
/
UNC officials now 'barking' about ACC revenue gap
