(02-04-2024 06:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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.

3 P conferences have already been destroyed, SWC, Big East and Pac 12.

I don't think the Big 10 and SEC are talking about divvying up the spoils. I think they are worried about everything getting spoiled by NIL and the lawsuits. They don't seem to have been concerned in the past about collateral damage.

I never considered the Big East to be a P conference in fact, just in claim. The SWC wasn't killed by realignment. It died because of the cable subscription model and only have 2 states in the footprint, and a key school having the death penalty. And the ones I'm referring to should have been much more stable P12, B12, & ACC.

The Big 10 and SEC aren't the only ones worried about the lawsuits and damages either. So that's not their sole purview of worry. I think bringing what has happened to a more organized landing rather than a wheels up, flaps down belly landing is what they are concerned about. And it is quite possible they've agreed on their last set of moves. We'll see. I truly think all parties (FOX/ESPN/Big 10/SEC) are looking more at immediate damage control and maximizing future efforts to land their new upper tier.

(02-04-2024 06:01 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(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:  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.

An excellent point quo! There's a lot to be said for the idea that something is worth what somebody else will pay for it....

And ESPN decided not to bid a 2nd time on the Pac 10. The Apple deal was only $25 and all streaming.

(02-04-2024 06:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

3 P conferences have already been destroyed, SWC, Big East and Pac 12.

I don't think the Big 10 and SEC are talking about divvying up the spoils. I think they are worried about everything getting spoiled by NIL and the lawsuits. They don't seem to have been concerned in the past about collateral damage.

I never considered the Big East to be a P conference in fact, just in claim. The SWC wasn't killed by realignment. It died because of the cable subscription model and only have 2 states in the footprint, and a key school having the death penalty. And the ones I'm referring to should have been much more stable P12, B12, & ACC.

The Big 10 and SEC aren't the only ones worried about the lawsuits and damages either. So that's not their sole purview of worry. I think bringing what has happened to a more organized landing rather than a wheels up, flaps down belly landing is what they are concerned about. And it is quite possible they've agreed on their last set of moves. We'll see. I truly think all parties (FOX/ESPN/Big 10/SEC) are looking more at immediate damage control and maximizing future efforts to land their new upper tier.

SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

(02-04-2024 08:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

3 P conferences have already been destroyed, SWC, Big East and Pac 12.

I don't think the Big 10 and SEC are talking about divvying up the spoils. I think they are worried about everything getting spoiled by NIL and the lawsuits. They don't seem to have been concerned in the past about collateral damage.

I never considered the Big East to be a P conference in fact, just in claim. The SWC wasn't killed by realignment. It died because of the cable subscription model and only have 2 states in the footprint, and a key school having the death penalty. And the ones I'm referring to should have been much more stable P12, B12, & ACC.

The Big 10 and SEC aren't the only ones worried about the lawsuits and damages either. So that's not their sole purview of worry. I think bringing what has happened to a more organized landing rather than a wheels up, flaps down belly landing is what they are concerned about. And it is quite possible they've agreed on their last set of moves. We'll see. I truly think all parties (FOX/ESPN/Big 10/SEC) are looking more at immediate damage control and maximizing future efforts to land their new upper tier.

SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

True.

(02-04-2024 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

3 P conferences have already been destroyed, SWC, Big East and Pac 12.

I don't think the Big 10 and SEC are talking about divvying up the spoils. I think they are worried about everything getting spoiled by NIL and the lawsuits. They don't seem to have been concerned in the past about collateral damage.

I never considered the Big East to be a P conference in fact, just in claim. The SWC wasn't killed by realignment. It died because of the cable subscription model and only have 2 states in the footprint, and a key school having the death penalty. And the ones I'm referring to should have been much more stable P12, B12, & ACC.

The Big 10 and SEC aren't the only ones worried about the lawsuits and damages either. So that's not their sole purview of worry. I think bringing what has happened to a more organized landing rather than a wheels up, flaps down belly landing is what they are concerned about. And it is quite possible they've agreed on their last set of moves. We'll see. I truly think all parties (FOX/ESPN/Big 10/SEC) are looking more at immediate damage control and maximizing future efforts to land their new upper tier.

SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

True.

Whoop-tie do! What did it get them? They are gone. I don't understand this nostalgia for things which did not survive on their own steam? The old SWC conference was great with Texas vs Arkansas. Gone. Nebraska vs Oklahoma's huge games for important titles? Gone. The Grandaddy of them all for all of the marbles between the Big 10 and PAC 10? Gone. As I see it the whole point here is to survive. And while there is nothing particularly glorious in just surviving it is what it is coming down to in the end isn't it?

I'm sorry to be a realist who acknowledges the reductionist nature of this but it's staring us in the face! The immediate task is to survive in one of the top two conferences because the money is likely to be sufficient to see the schools through pay for play and the professionalization of college football.

I'm not one who enjoys eulogizing light bulbs which have blown out. I'd rather pop in the new bulb and move on. Are we going to pine for the NCAA when it is kaput? I don't know if I like where we are headed but SCOTUS says change so it's coming and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. So, if I can enjoy it I will. Otherwise, I won't watch another game.

Likely 60 plus schools survive and make it into the upper tier. It will happen within a couple of years. We'll see what it likes and each of us will make our own evaluation and either accept or reject the changes. Until then it's all we got! And none of us can do anything about that either.

Many great things live only in my memories. I pull them up, muse over them and smile. They mean nothing to the youngsters and never will. The only things we take to our graves are personal experiences we treasured. It's the same for the young. If they didn't experience them it's as if they never happened, but just for them, not us.

(02-04-2024 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 03:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 12:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there has never been anything quite like the nB12's acquisitions of 2023. It was I believe a case of a conference made up of less valuable schools inviting a passel of more valuable ones. If I were to rank the four most valuable nB12 schools, it would include at least three of the four corners schools. Probably Utah, Colorado, Arizona State, and Kansas.

Just bizarro how that turned out.

Or maybe people's preconceived notions were wrong. In the Sic-em TV analysis, the top 5 are from the R8. Iowa St. beats the rest except for Utah, who is one ahead of them. KSU is 5 behind Utah and one spot behind Arizona St., but ahead of the others. Even BYU and UCF while not in the P5 were ahead of Arizona and Colorado. In average attendance the 4 corners are 6, 8, 9 and 13 among the 16 teams.

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.

Texas finished unranked 6 of the 9 years of Sic em 365's study (2013-2021), and finished #19 and #25 in 2 of the remaining 3 years.

It wasn't Sic em 365's study that was flawed. All that means is that Texas in its worst performing decade plummeted to #16 due to having their worst decade when that study was conducted. So we can take Sic 'em 365's study and conclude that "Texas' floor in an absolute doomsday scenario is #16, but their brand value when performing to their standards is much higher".

Like I said, I have no quarrel with Sice-em's numbers, I assume they are correct.

IMO, it just means that the TV numbers presented by Sice-em don't necessarily reflect brand value, because to me Texas is easily a top 3 brand, probably the #1 brand in the country, over the entire time of the Sic-em study, whether their TV numbers were at the top or not.

That IMO is why the SEC wanted Texas in 2021, and had no interest in other schools that may have been ahead of them in the Sic-em rankings.

You have to look closely at the conference numbers to see why the Big 12 schools look so bad. They had 52 rated games rather than the 21 of the ACC. If you take only the top 21 for OUT and Ok st, OU is at ~ 5.3m avg and Texas and Ok St are ~ 4.3m avg. The SEC numbers are inflated b/c we only have 18 games (thanks Vandy), while the B1G numbers are low b/c they have 27. Fortunately, it's easy to directly compare higher-drawing schools directly by looking at the graph, it shows the avg as it changes per game. ie, Texas' numbers don't fall off that much from 21 to 52, their avg falls from about 4.3m to 3m, Ok St's numbers drop off a bit more by game 52, down to ~ 2.7m. And, since I have to compare my Aggies constantly and in all things to Texas, we are both at ~ 3.5m avg for our top 40 games from that time period.

One of the reasons I like that data so much is that it helps to demonstrate why a program like Miami that has fallen on (relatively) hard times can still produce some serious ratings, and it also shows that a supposedly less-desirable program like Ok St is perhaps not quite as undesirable to media execs as many of us supposed, and far more desirable than the rest of the Big 12(16).

(02-04-2024 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  3 P conferences have already been destroyed, SWC, Big East and Pac 12.

I don't think the Big 10 and SEC are talking about divvying up the spoils. I think they are worried about everything getting spoiled by NIL and the lawsuits. They don't seem to have been concerned in the past about collateral damage.

I never considered the Big East to be a P conference in fact, just in claim. The SWC wasn't killed by realignment. It died because of the cable subscription model and only have 2 states in the footprint, and a key school having the death penalty. And the ones I'm referring to should have been much more stable P12, B12, & ACC.

The Big 10 and SEC aren't the only ones worried about the lawsuits and damages either. So that's not their sole purview of worry. I think bringing what has happened to a more organized landing rather than a wheels up, flaps down belly landing is what they are concerned about. And it is quite possible they've agreed on their last set of moves. We'll see. I truly think all parties (FOX/ESPN/Big 10/SEC) are looking more at immediate damage control and maximizing future efforts to land their new upper tier.

SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

True.

Whoop-tie do! What did it get them? They are gone. I don't understand this nostalgia for things which did not survive on their own steam? The old SWC conference was great with Texas vs Arkansas. Gone. Nebraska vs Oklahoma's huge games for important titles? Gone. The Grandaddy of them all for all of the marbles between the Big 10 and PAC 10? Gone. As I see it the whole point here is to survive. And while there is nothing particularly glorious in just surviving it is what it is coming down to in the end isn't it?

I'm sorry to be a realist who acknowledges the reductionist nature of this but it's staring us in the face! The immediate task is to survive in one of the top two conferences because the money is likely to be sufficient to see the schools through pay for play and the professionalization of college football.

I'm not one who enjoys eulogizing light bulbs which have blown out. I'd rather pop in the new bulb and move on. Are we going to pine for the NCAA when it is kaput? I don't know if I like where we are headed but SCOTUS says change so it's coming and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. So, if I can enjoy it I will. Otherwise, I won't watch another game.

Likely 60 plus schools survive and make it into the upper tier. It will happen within a couple of years. We'll see what it likes and each of us will make our own evaluation and either accept or reject the changes. Until then it's all we got! And none of us can do anything about that either.

Many great things live only in my memories. I pull them up, muse over them and smile. They mean nothing to the youngsters and never will. The only things we take to our graves are personal experiences we treasured. It's the same for the young. If they didn't experience them it's as if they never happened, but just for them, not us.

You don't have to be the best to survive, but you do have to be smart.

(02-04-2024 09:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 06:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I never considered the Big East to be a P conference in fact, just in claim. The SWC wasn't killed by realignment. It died because of the cable subscription model and only have 2 states in the footprint, and a key school having the death penalty. And the ones I'm referring to should have been much more stable P12, B12, & ACC.

The Big 10 and SEC aren't the only ones worried about the lawsuits and damages either. So that's not their sole purview of worry. I think bringing what has happened to a more organized landing rather than a wheels up, flaps down belly landing is what they are concerned about. And it is quite possible they've agreed on their last set of moves. We'll see. I truly think all parties (FOX/ESPN/Big 10/SEC) are looking more at immediate damage control and maximizing future efforts to land their new upper tier.

SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

True.

Whoop-tie do! What did it get them? They are gone. I don't understand this nostalgia for things which did not survive on their own steam? The old SWC conference was great with Texas vs Arkansas. Gone. Nebraska vs Oklahoma's huge games for important titles? Gone. The Grandaddy of them all for all of the marbles between the Big 10 and PAC 10? Gone. As I see it the whole point here is to survive. And while there is nothing particularly glorious in just surviving it is what it is coming down to in the end isn't it?

I'm sorry to be a realist who acknowledges the reductionist nature of this but it's staring us in the face! The immediate task is to survive in one of the top two conferences because the money is likely to be sufficient to see the schools through pay for play and the professionalization of college football.

I'm not one who enjoys eulogizing light bulbs which have blown out. I'd rather pop in the new bulb and move on. Are we going to pine for the NCAA when it is kaput? I don't know if I like where we are headed but SCOTUS says change so it's coming and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. So, if I can enjoy it I will. Otherwise, I won't watch another game.

Likely 60 plus schools survive and make it into the upper tier. It will happen within a couple of years. We'll see what it likes and each of us will make our own evaluation and either accept or reject the changes. Until then it's all we got! And none of us can do anything about that either.

Many great things live only in my memories. I pull them up, muse over them and smile. They mean nothing to the youngsters and never will. The only things we take to our graves are personal experiences we treasured. It's the same for the young. If they didn't experience them it's as if they never happened, but just for them, not us.

You don't have to be the best to survive, but you do have to be smart.

You should know about that! But this time smart won't be enough.

(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.

Look at how much they pay the football coach. USC and Michigan St are willing to bust out the Brinks truck. Oregon is, too. Washington? It's hard to criticize them too hard, they offered DeBoer more than double his current $4.2m to stay, so they were willing to go into the top tier, too. What about the others?

Louisville: Brohm signed after the 2022 season for 6 years, $30+ with some escalators that push him to $6.5m in 2029.

Minnesota: Fleck signed a new, 7 yr, $42m deal at the end of 2022, so $6m a yr avg

ASU: Dillingham's salary starts at $3.85m. A&M's basketball coach makes more than that.

Indiana: Cignetti just signed a 6 yr, $27m contract in Dec 2023, so $4.5m a year

Kansas: Leipold signed a 7 yr, $35m contract, so $5m a year

Louisville and Minnesota pay a decent amount, but they're not ponying up 10 yr $95m contracts like Michigan St or 10 yr $115m deals like USC. The others still have some work to do.

(02-04-2024 05:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 03:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  It very well could be. The 10th most valuable ACC team is probably worth a lot more than any team left in the Big 12.
What is the most valuable Big 12 school? Let's say it's Kansas.
Kansas has a population of 3 Million?
Georgia Tech sits in a State of 11 Million with lots of B1G alumni.
UVa covers the DC area with lots of B1G alumni (BTW VT also has a large presence in the DC area).
Raleigh (NC State) is growing like a weed with huge B1G alumni numbers (Chapel Hill is only 25 miles away). BTW Raleigh is now larger than Charlotte.

It does not matter how valuable you think the Big 12 is, there is nobody to watch them. Oklahoma with a population of 4 Million and most are Oklahoma fans so that leaves Oklahoma State with maybe a million? No one that I know would ever care to watch the 'Pokes, but by the same token if you lived in North Carolina, Georgia or Virginia you would pay attention to local teams.
There are not enough brands left in the Big 12 to get the attention of a national audience.

That's not what the data says. Looking at tv ratings over the past decade, the ACC as a whole, and especially the ACC sans FSU, Clemson and Miami, is far behind the Big 12(16). We can look at the historical Sic'em data, the 5 otherworldly games for CU last year, Ok St's past decade+ of extremely strong ratings...any data that we use puts the Big 12 schools on par with the full-strength ACC and quite a bit more valuable than a weakened ACC would be. The only thing that we have to justify something like "the top 10 ACC may very well be more valuable than any Big 12 school" is qualitative "data" like feelings or gut. It's certainly possible that the Fox and ESPN guys go more on feelings and gut than they do on data when making Billion(s) dollar decisions, but my feelings and gut says that they care more about hard data.

Isn't that Big 12 homer information?

The source is a Baylor site, true, and I have no love for Baylor, but I've been unable to find any flaws in the data. And you are correct in that not all information is factored in, this is just regular season Conference games, the CCGs and Bowls are not included. I recently did a deep dive into the past 6 ACC and Big 12 CCGs, and the Big 12 absolutely destroys the ACC. It doesn't matter if the Big 12 CCG is OUT or Ok St - Baylor, their ratings are generally in the 8-9m range, with a low in the 7s and high just over 10m. The ACC pulled about 3m in 21 and also 22 before drawing a much-improved 7m this year that was still last place in the P5. I'm not sure how this helps the argument of "the ACC might have 10 programs that are more valuable to media partners than any in the Big 12", unfortunately.

Bryan, when a CCG has impact on the four-team playoff it will be higher regardless of the conference. This is just a straight up fact and one I've called you out on before, because you are not including any nuance.

Going forward, we will have more accurate numbers with the new lineups in the conferences and a larger playoff. It doesn't make sense to me to use old numbers without any nuance.

Florida State's CCG had a huge impact on the CFP, and that game was still dead last in the P5 this year. What's your excuse for that? And, sure, it makes sense that more people would be enthusiastic about watching a game with CFP implications, but 6.1m total viewers combined from 21 and 22, ie, a 3.05m avg? Come on, man, you can't shine up that turd.

(02-04-2024 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

True.

Whoop-tie do! What did it get them? They are gone. I don't understand this nostalgia for things which did not survive on their own steam? The old SWC conference was great with Texas vs Arkansas. Gone. Nebraska vs Oklahoma's huge games for important titles? Gone. The Grandaddy of them all for all of the marbles between the Big 10 and PAC 10? Gone. As I see it the whole point here is to survive. And while there is nothing particularly glorious in just surviving it is what it is coming down to in the end isn't it?

I'm sorry to be a realist who acknowledges the reductionist nature of this but it's staring us in the face! The immediate task is to survive in one of the top two conferences because the money is likely to be sufficient to see the schools through pay for play and the professionalization of college football.

I'm not one who enjoys eulogizing light bulbs which have blown out. I'd rather pop in the new bulb and move on. Are we going to pine for the NCAA when it is kaput? I don't know if I like where we are headed but SCOTUS says change so it's coming and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. So, if I can enjoy it I will. Otherwise, I won't watch another game.

Likely 60 plus schools survive and make it into the upper tier. It will happen within a couple of years. We'll see what it likes and each of us will make our own evaluation and either accept or reject the changes. Until then it's all we got! And none of us can do anything about that either.

Many great things live only in my memories. I pull them up, muse over them and smile. They mean nothing to the youngsters and never will. The only things we take to our graves are personal experiences we treasured. It's the same for the young. If they didn't experience them it's as if they never happened, but just for them, not us.

You don't have to be the best to survive, but you do have to be smart.

You should know about that! But this time smart won't be enough.

Perhaps.
I certainly would feel a lot more confident if Swofford was still on the job, but we'll see.

(02-04-2024 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 03:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  That's not what the data says. Looking at tv ratings over the past decade, the ACC as a whole, and especially the ACC sans FSU, Clemson and Miami, is far behind the Big 12(16). We can look at the historical Sic'em data, the 5 otherworldly games for CU last year, Ok St's past decade+ of extremely strong ratings...any data that we use puts the Big 12 schools on par with the full-strength ACC and quite a bit more valuable than a weakened ACC would be. The only thing that we have to justify something like "the top 10 ACC may very well be more valuable than any Big 12 school" is qualitative "data" like feelings or gut. It's certainly possible that the Fox and ESPN guys go more on feelings and gut than they do on data when making Billion(s) dollar decisions, but my feelings and gut says that they care more about hard data.

Isn't that Big 12 homer information?

The source is a Baylor site, true, and I have no love for Baylor, but I've been unable to find any flaws in the data. And you are correct in that not all information is factored in, this is just regular season Conference games, the CCGs and Bowls are not included. I recently did a deep dive into the past 6 ACC and Big 12 CCGs, and the Big 12 absolutely destroys the ACC. It doesn't matter if the Big 12 CCG is OUT or Ok St - Baylor, their ratings are generally in the 8-9m range, with a low in the 7s and high just over 10m. The ACC pulled about 3m in 21 and also 22 before drawing a much-improved 7m this year that was still last place in the P5. I'm not sure how this helps the argument of "the ACC might have 10 programs that are more valuable to media partners than any in the Big 12", unfortunately.

Bryan, when a CCG has impact on the four-team playoff it will be higher regardless of the conference. This is just a straight up fact and one I've called you out on before, because you are not including any nuance.

Going forward, we will have more accurate numbers with the new lineups in the conferences and a larger playoff. It doesn't make sense to me to use old numbers without any nuance.

Florida State's CCG had a huge impact on the CFP, and that game was still dead last in the P5 this year. What's your excuse for that? And, sure, it makes sense that more people would be enthusiastic about watching a game with CFP implications, but 6.1m total viewers combined from 21 and 22, ie, a 3.05m avg? Come on, man, you can't shine up that turd.

Simple. Texas > FSU

(02-04-2024 09:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 03:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 12:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  Or maybe people's preconceived notions were wrong. In the Sic-em TV analysis, the top 5 are from the R8. Iowa St. beats the rest except for Utah, who is one ahead of them. KSU is 5 behind Utah and one spot behind Arizona St., but ahead of the others. Even BYU and UCF while not in the P5 were ahead of Arizona and Colorado. In average attendance the 4 corners are 6, 8, 9 and 13 among the 16 teams.

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.

Texas finished unranked 6 of the 9 years of Sic em 365's study (2013-2021), and finished #19 and #25 in 2 of the remaining 3 years.

It wasn't Sic em 365's study that was flawed. All that means is that Texas in its worst performing decade plummeted to #16 due to having their worst decade when that study was conducted. So we can take Sic 'em 365's study and conclude that "Texas' floor in an absolute doomsday scenario is #16, but their brand value when performing to their standards is much higher".

Like I said, I have no quarrel with Sice-em's numbers, I assume they are correct.

IMO, it just means that the TV numbers presented by Sice-em don't necessarily reflect brand value, because to me Texas is easily a top 3 brand, probably the #1 brand in the country, over the entire time of the Sic-em study, whether their TV numbers were at the top or not.

That IMO is why the SEC wanted Texas in 2021, and had no interest in other schools that may have been ahead of them in the Sic-em rankings.

You have to look closely at the conference numbers to see why the Big 12 schools look so bad. They had 52 rated games rather than the 21 of the ACC. If you take only the top 21 for OUT and Ok st, OU is at ~ 5.3m avg and Texas and Ok St are ~ 4.3m avg. The SEC numbers are inflated b/c we only have 18 games (thanks Vandy), while the B1G numbers are low b/c they have 27. Fortunately, it's easy to directly compare higher-drawing schools directly by looking at the graph, it shows the avg as it changes per game. ie, Texas' numbers don't fall off that much from 21 to 52, their avg falls from about 4.3m to 3m, Ok St's numbers drop off a bit more by game 52, down to ~ 2.7m. And, since I have to compare my Aggies constantly and in all things to Texas, we are both at ~ 3.5m avg for our top 40 games from that time period.

One of the reasons I like that data so much is that it helps to demonstrate why a program like Miami that has fallen on (relatively) hard times can still produce some serious ratings, and it also shows that a supposedly less-desirable program like Ok St is perhaps not quite as undesirable to media execs as many of us supposed, and far more desirable than the rest of the Big 12(16).

To me, once again relying on my own intuition and not data ... Miami in my view still has big brand potential because CFB fans of a certain age, basically 40 or older, remember when the Canes dominated football in the 1980s and in to the early 1990s. Not only did they win titles, they did it in a flashy, era-defining way that transcended college football. That has echoed down the years and still resonates with many of us, periodically revived by things like the brief time at the top in the early 2000s, the ESPN documentary on "The U" that was very popular, etc.

As for OK State, they have been a great performer, frequently ranked, in both football and hoops. That I guess is why their ratings are good - ranked teams are always of viewer interest. But that said, I've never seen any inkling from the SEC, much less the B1G, or when it was a power, the PAC, in Oklahoma State. If anything, they have always been described as the "little brother" that Oklahoma politics would want to tagalong with OU, and of course that didn't happen in 2021. So IMO, despite these numbers, I'll believe OK State has value to a better conference (EDIT: and their media partners) when I see it, so to speak.

IMO, among the nB12, schools like the PAC flagships recently added are all much more likely to eventually end up in the B1G or SEC than OK State. Ditto for Kansas. Maybe we'll see.

(02-05-2024 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 03:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis 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.

Texas finished unranked 6 of the 9 years of Sic em 365's study (2013-2021), and finished #19 and #25 in 2 of the remaining 3 years.

It wasn't Sic em 365's study that was flawed. All that means is that Texas in its worst performing decade plummeted to #16 due to having their worst decade when that study was conducted. So we can take Sic 'em 365's study and conclude that "Texas' floor in an absolute doomsday scenario is #16, but their brand value when performing to their standards is much higher".

Like I said, I have no quarrel with Sice-em's numbers, I assume they are correct.

IMO, it just means that the TV numbers presented by Sice-em don't necessarily reflect brand value, because to me Texas is easily a top 3 brand, probably the #1 brand in the country, over the entire time of the Sic-em study, whether their TV numbers were at the top or not.

That IMO is why the SEC wanted Texas in 2021, and had no interest in other schools that may have been ahead of them in the Sic-em rankings.

You have to look closely at the conference numbers to see why the Big 12 schools look so bad. They had 52 rated games rather than the 21 of the ACC. If you take only the top 21 for OUT and Ok st, OU is at ~ 5.3m avg and Texas and Ok St are ~ 4.3m avg. The SEC numbers are inflated b/c we only have 18 games (thanks Vandy), while the B1G numbers are low b/c they have 27. Fortunately, it's easy to directly compare higher-drawing schools directly by looking at the graph, it shows the avg as it changes per game. ie, Texas' numbers don't fall off that much from 21 to 52, their avg falls from about 4.3m to 3m, Ok St's numbers drop off a bit more by game 52, down to ~ 2.7m. And, since I have to compare my Aggies constantly and in all things to Texas, we are both at ~ 3.5m avg for our top 40 games from that time period.

One of the reasons I like that data so much is that it helps to demonstrate why a program like Miami that has fallen on (relatively) hard times can still produce some serious ratings, and it also shows that a supposedly less-desirable program like Ok St is perhaps not quite as undesirable to media execs as many of us supposed, and far more desirable than the rest of the Big 12(16).

To me, once again relying on my own intuition and not data ... Miami in my view still has big brand potential because CFB fans of a certain age, basically 40 or older, remember when the Canes dominated football in the 1980s and in to the early 1990s. Not only did they win titles, they did it in a flashy, era-defining way that transcended college football. That has echoed down the years and still resonates with many of us, periodically revived by things like the brief time at the top in the early 2000s, the ESPN documentary on "The U" that was very popular, etc.

As for OK State, they have been a great performer, frequently ranked, in both football and hoops. That I guess is why their ratings are good - ranked teams are always of viewer interest. But that said, I've never seen any inkling from the SEC, much less the B1G, or when it was a power, the PAC, in Oklahoma State. If anything, they have always been described as the "little brother" that Oklahoma politics would want to tagalong with OU, and of course that didn't happen in 2021. So IMO, despite these numbers, I'll believe OK State has value to a better conference when I see it, so to speak.

IMO, among the nB12, schools like the PAC flagships recently added are all much more likely to eventually end up in the B1G or SEC than OK State. Ditto for Kansas. Maybe we'll see.

It takes a long time to lose a brand. Miami hasn't lost it. Nebraska hasn't lost it. Both outperform their records in TV ratings and generate lots of interest when they win. On the other hand, Minnesota, who was a power from the 30s to 60s, has lost its brand. Schools that generate views from winning but haven't built up a brand, like Boise St., can disappear pretty quickly.

(02-04-2024 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  True.

Whoop-tie do! What did it get them? They are gone. I don't understand this nostalgia for things which did not survive on their own steam? The old SWC conference was great with Texas vs Arkansas. Gone. Nebraska vs Oklahoma's huge games for important titles? Gone. The Grandaddy of them all for all of the marbles between the Big 10 and PAC 10? Gone. As I see it the whole point here is to survive. And while there is nothing particularly glorious in just surviving it is what it is coming down to in the end isn't it?

I'm sorry to be a realist who acknowledges the reductionist nature of this but it's staring us in the face! The immediate task is to survive in one of the top two conferences because the money is likely to be sufficient to see the schools through pay for play and the professionalization of college football.

I'm not one who enjoys eulogizing light bulbs which have blown out. I'd rather pop in the new bulb and move on. Are we going to pine for the NCAA when it is kaput? I don't know if I like where we are headed but SCOTUS says change so it's coming and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. So, if I can enjoy it I will. Otherwise, I won't watch another game.

Likely 60 plus schools survive and make it into the upper tier. It will happen within a couple of years. We'll see what it likes and each of us will make our own evaluation and either accept or reject the changes. Until then it's all we got! And none of us can do anything about that either.

Many great things live only in my memories. I pull them up, muse over them and smile. They mean nothing to the youngsters and never will. The only things we take to our graves are personal experiences we treasured. It's the same for the young. If they didn't experience them it's as if they never happened, but just for them, not us.

You don't have to be the best to survive, but you do have to be smart.

You should know about that! But this time smart won't be enough.

Perhaps.
I certainly would feel a lot more confident if Swofford was still on the job, but we'll see.

I don't think that Swofford gets enough credit. I'd put him on the Mount Rushmore of Conference Commissioners. Phillips hasn't impressed me thus far, but he hasn't failed spectacularly yet, either. I'd say that the jury is still out on him.

(02-04-2024 10:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  Isn't that Big 12 homer information?

The source is a Baylor site, true, and I have no love for Baylor, but I've been unable to find any flaws in the data. And you are correct in that not all information is factored in, this is just regular season Conference games, the CCGs and Bowls are not included. I recently did a deep dive into the past 6 ACC and Big 12 CCGs, and the Big 12 absolutely destroys the ACC. It doesn't matter if the Big 12 CCG is OUT or Ok St - Baylor, their ratings are generally in the 8-9m range, with a low in the 7s and high just over 10m. The ACC pulled about 3m in 21 and also 22 before drawing a much-improved 7m this year that was still last place in the P5. I'm not sure how this helps the argument of "the ACC might have 10 programs that are more valuable to media partners than any in the Big 12", unfortunately.

Bryan, when a CCG has impact on the four-team playoff it will be higher regardless of the conference. This is just a straight up fact and one I've called you out on before, because you are not including any nuance.

Going forward, we will have more accurate numbers with the new lineups in the conferences and a larger playoff. It doesn't make sense to me to use old numbers without any nuance.

Florida State's CCG had a huge impact on the CFP, and that game was still dead last in the P5 this year. What's your excuse for that? And, sure, it makes sense that more people would be enthusiastic about watching a game with CFP implications, but 6.1m total viewers combined from 21 and 22, ie, a 3.05m avg? Come on, man, you can't shine up that turd.

Simple. Texas > FSU

But what about last year when TCU-K St pulled in 9.41m eyeballs? Or a couple years ago when Baylor-OK St pulled in over 8m? Are TCU, Baylor, Ok St and KSt also > FSU and the rest of the ACC? The Big 12 CCG consistently pulls in 8-9m eyeballs, and I'd wager that it will in 2024, too, whether it's OK St vs Utah or UCF vs Texas Tech. The ACC pulls in 7m eyeballs in a really good year, and 3m in a year with not much at stake (even with it's UNC vs Clemson!!).

(02-05-2024 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-05-2024 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 03:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Texas finished unranked 6 of the 9 years of Sic em 365's study (2013-2021), and finished #19 and #25 in 2 of the remaining 3 years.

It wasn't Sic em 365's study that was flawed. All that means is that Texas in its worst performing decade plummeted to #16 due to having their worst decade when that study was conducted. So we can take Sic 'em 365's study and conclude that "Texas' floor in an absolute doomsday scenario is #16, but their brand value when performing to their standards is much higher".

Like I said, I have no quarrel with Sice-em's numbers, I assume they are correct.

IMO, it just means that the TV numbers presented by Sice-em don't necessarily reflect brand value, because to me Texas is easily a top 3 brand, probably the #1 brand in the country, over the entire time of the Sic-em study, whether their TV numbers were at the top or not.

That IMO is why the SEC wanted Texas in 2021, and had no interest in other schools that may have been ahead of them in the Sic-em rankings.

You have to look closely at the conference numbers to see why the Big 12 schools look so bad. They had 52 rated games rather than the 21 of the ACC. If you take only the top 21 for OUT and Ok st, OU is at ~ 5.3m avg and Texas and Ok St are ~ 4.3m avg. The SEC numbers are inflated b/c we only have 18 games (thanks Vandy), while the B1G numbers are low b/c they have 27. Fortunately, it's easy to directly compare higher-drawing schools directly by looking at the graph, it shows the avg as it changes per game. ie, Texas' numbers don't fall off that much from 21 to 52, their avg falls from about 4.3m to 3m, Ok St's numbers drop off a bit more by game 52, down to ~ 2.7m. And, since I have to compare my Aggies constantly and in all things to Texas, we are both at ~ 3.5m avg for our top 40 games from that time period.

One of the reasons I like that data so much is that it helps to demonstrate why a program like Miami that has fallen on (relatively) hard times can still produce some serious ratings, and it also shows that a supposedly less-desirable program like Ok St is perhaps not quite as undesirable to media execs as many of us supposed, and far more desirable than the rest of the Big 12(16).

To me, once again relying on my own intuition and not data ... Miami in my view still has big brand potential because CFB fans of a certain age, basically 40 or older, remember when the Canes dominated football in the 1980s and in to the early 1990s. Not only did they win titles, they did it in a flashy, era-defining way that transcended college football. That has echoed down the years and still resonates with many of us, periodically revived by things like the brief time at the top in the early 2000s, the ESPN documentary on "The U" that was very popular, etc.

As for OK State, they have been a great performer, frequently ranked, in both football and hoops. That I guess is why their ratings are good - ranked teams are always of viewer interest. But that said, I've never seen any inkling from the SEC, much less the B1G, or when it was a power, the PAC, in Oklahoma State. If anything, they have always been described as the "little brother" that Oklahoma politics would want to tagalong with OU, and of course that didn't happen in 2021. So IMO, despite these numbers, I'll believe OK State has value to a better conference when I see it, so to speak.

IMO, among the nB12, schools like the PAC flagships recently added are all much more likely to eventually end up in the B1G or SEC than OK State. Ditto for Kansas. Maybe we'll see.

It takes a long time to lose a brand. Miami hasn't lost it. Nebraska hasn't lost it. Both outperform their records in TV ratings and generate lots of interest when they win. On the other hand, Minnesota, who was a power from the 30s to 60s, has lost its brand. Schools that generate views from winning but haven't built up a brand, like Boise St., can disappear pretty quickly.

There was a time Army was a dominating powerhouse. I am not claiming to be old enough to observe that era. Yeah, they lost it, but it was inevitable for the military academies due to multiple factors impacting beyond their direct control.

(02-05-2024 11:06 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 10:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The source is a Baylor site, true, and I have no love for Baylor, but I've been unable to find any flaws in the data. And you are correct in that not all information is factored in, this is just regular season Conference games, the CCGs and Bowls are not included. I recently did a deep dive into the past 6 ACC and Big 12 CCGs, and the Big 12 absolutely destroys the ACC. It doesn't matter if the Big 12 CCG is OUT or Ok St - Baylor, their ratings are generally in the 8-9m range, with a low in the 7s and high just over 10m. The ACC pulled about 3m in 21 and also 22 before drawing a much-improved 7m this year that was still last place in the P5. I'm not sure how this helps the argument of "the ACC might have 10 programs that are more valuable to media partners than any in the Big 12", unfortunately.

Bryan, when a CCG has impact on the four-team playoff it will be higher regardless of the conference. This is just a straight up fact and one I've called you out on before, because you are not including any nuance.

Going forward, we will have more accurate numbers with the new lineups in the conferences and a larger playoff. It doesn't make sense to me to use old numbers without any nuance.

Florida State's CCG had a huge impact on the CFP, and that game was still dead last in the P5 this year. What's your excuse for that? And, sure, it makes sense that more people would be enthusiastic about watching a game with CFP implications, but 6.1m total viewers combined from 21 and 22, ie, a 3.05m avg? Come on, man, you can't shine up that turd.

Simple. Texas > FSU

But what about last year when TCU-K St pulled in 9.41m eyeballs? Or a couple years ago when Baylor-OK St pulled in over 8m? Are TCU, Baylor, Ok St and KSt also > FSU and the rest of the ACC? The Big 12 CCG consistently pulls in 8-9m eyeballs, and I'd wager that it will in 2024, too, whether it's OK St vs Utah or UCF vs Texas Tech. The ACC pulls in 7m eyeballs in a really good year, and 3m in a year with not much at stake (even with it's UNC vs Clemson!!).

3 TCU vs 10 K State and 5 OK State vs 9 Baylor all had playoff implications so they are getting fans of other teams watching as well. What time were the games on?

Neither of those games drew 70k in actual attendance BTW

(02-04-2024 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 08:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  SWC was killed by the same things that killed the Pac 12 and Big East. Economic forces. After Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC fell through, eventually Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big 8 schools to form a stronger group. Same thing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Louisville later did.

Big East had Miami and Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College were solid at the time. For a time in the 90s, they were making more than any conference but the ACC. And they were usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC during this era. Even after losing Miami, VT and BC, they were still usually stronger on average than the Big 10 and ACC.

True.

Whoop-tie do! What did it get them? They are gone. I don't understand this nostalgia for things which did not survive on their own steam? The old SWC conference was great with Texas vs Arkansas. Gone. Nebraska vs Oklahoma's huge games for important titles? Gone. The Grandaddy of them all for all of the marbles between the Big 10 and PAC 10? Gone. As I see it the whole point here is to survive. And while there is nothing particularly glorious in just surviving it is what it is coming down to in the end isn't it?

I'm sorry to be a realist who acknowledges the reductionist nature of this but it's staring us in the face! The immediate task is to survive in one of the top two conferences because the money is likely to be sufficient to see the schools through pay for play and the professionalization of college football.

I'm not one who enjoys eulogizing light bulbs which have blown out. I'd rather pop in the new bulb and move on. Are we going to pine for the NCAA when it is kaput? I don't know if I like where we are headed but SCOTUS says change so it's coming and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. So, if I can enjoy it I will. Otherwise, I won't watch another game.

Likely 60 plus schools survive and make it into the upper tier. It will happen within a couple of years. We'll see what it likes and each of us will make our own evaluation and either accept or reject the changes. Until then it's all we got! And none of us can do anything about that either.

Many great things live only in my memories. I pull them up, muse over them and smile. They mean nothing to the youngsters and never will. The only things we take to our graves are personal experiences we treasured. It's the same for the young. If they didn't experience them it's as if they never happened, but just for them, not us.

You don't have to be the best to survive, but you do have to be smart.

You should know about that! But this time smart won't be enough.

Playing it smart when confronting a dilemma is not always easy. I can understand the reasons the NC BoT has pressed for bonding NCSU's interests with that of UNC. It is reasonable for UNC, to prefer continuing with a format whereby they consistently play in-state ACC rivals inclusive of NCSU, Duke, and I'll say Wake Forest also. Including Virginia as a treasured rivalry makes sense.
The conflict for UNC, at least, is maintaining at present levels those in-conference relationships going forward, or accept a bid to the SEC or BIG whereby the earnings would be much better. UNC may be more comfortable with football rivalry changes, and less so with long established, nearby basketball rivalries.

Would the SEC, for example, accept a UNC-NCSU duo when the conference further expands? The SEC would have to answer that, and I doubt it has reached that point for determination. Much would depend on how much larger the SEC (and/or BIG) seek to enlarge. Could an SEC expansion to reach 20 include something such as FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NCSU? That's plausible, depending on circumstances whereby Virginia and Miami, for examples, are off the table for whatever reason. Would UNC be willing to go it alone as a school from North Carolina? That hasn't been tested, and the wedge in financial disbursements may be way too much in favor of the P2 to reject.

I don't see how the ACC can distribute massive new revenue to FSU, Clemson, and UNC without ESPN, or some other unidentified source, pumping tons of cash the schools' or conference's way. ESPN won't do that.

FSU is currently doing what they can to exit the ACC and join the P2. On the other hand, UNC hasn't made such a decision beyond supporting certain developments that would sustain their options.

The SEC and BIG can't openly lobby for anyone currently in the ACC. However, those that would be the prime targets have a good idea who wants them in due time.

I wouldn't be surprised to see very incremental expansion by the P2 in the near future. Adding a very attractive couple of schools may be very enticing for adding the next couple of schools.

Are the BIG and SEC privately collaborating on schools for future expansion? I have no doubt. It'll be cut and dried by the time the newest short-wave of invitations are extended. That could be years away given the barriers involving the ACC's GoR, and how FSU navigates through the process with their legal challenges.

(02-05-2024 11:12 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-05-2024 11:06 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 10:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  Bryan, when a CCG has impact on the four-team playoff it will be higher regardless of the conference. This is just a straight up fact and one I've called you out on before, because you are not including any nuance.

Going forward, we will have more accurate numbers with the new lineups in the conferences and a larger playoff. It doesn't make sense to me to use old numbers without any nuance.

Florida State's CCG had a huge impact on the CFP, and that game was still dead last in the P5 this year. What's your excuse for that? And, sure, it makes sense that more people would be enthusiastic about watching a game with CFP implications, but 6.1m total viewers combined from 21 and 22, ie, a 3.05m avg? Come on, man, you can't shine up that turd.

Simple. Texas > FSU

But what about last year when TCU-K St pulled in 9.41m eyeballs? Or a couple years ago when Baylor-OK St pulled in over 8m? Are TCU, Baylor, Ok St and KSt also > FSU and the rest of the ACC? The Big 12 CCG consistently pulls in 8-9m eyeballs, and I'd wager that it will in 2024, too, whether it's OK St vs Utah or UCF vs Texas Tech. The ACC pulls in 7m eyeballs in a really good year, and 3m in a year with not much at stake (even with it's UNC vs Clemson!!).

3 TCU vs 10 K State and 5 OK State vs 9 Baylor all had playoff implications so they are getting fans of other teams watching as well. What time were the games on?

Neither of those games drew 70k in actual attendance BTW

And the ACC drew 57k in 2021, 64 k in 2022 and 62k in 2023. FSU's game had playoff implications as did every ACC CCG from 2014-2020.