Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Buyout existing conference member?
Author Message
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #41
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 05:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 04:55 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yeah USAFMedic triage is hell and unless it is driven by the absolute need to survive it won't be tolerated. Inviting someone to leave unless it is truly mutually beneficial will only serve to destroy the trust among the remaining members of any conference that tries it. I don't think any of them would want to pay that price.

Now lets say a suggested move would enhance the prospects of the team that is offered a chance to leave, then it could get interesting.

Hypothetically speaking should Virginia Tech and N.C. State be given permission to entertain an offer from the SEC free of an exit fee then both of those schools could stand to earn more and the ACC could free two spots for expansion into new markets that would earn them more. Maybe then something could be done. Let's say the ACC used those four slots (the two they have now and the additional two that would open up should Va Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC) then they could land Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State and Cincinnati to move to 18 and have three divisions of 6. The SEC could take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma and West Virginia and do the same. They could then partner and both of the teams that voluntarily took the move and both conferences could come out way ahead. That might work if the two schools were interested. But, it would have to be their decision and no one else's for it to work.

Good point. That is the kind of thing I was thinking; mutually beneficial. You are an SEC guy, so I'm sure you saw how excited TAMU was to get out from under UT's shadow. Imagine what Mississippi State and Auburn could do by becoming the bad boys of the South in an expanded Big 12, especially if FSU and Clemson end up in the Big 12, as well. If these flagships continue pushing for better academic reputations and research dollars, their recruiting base will need to tighten up, and that leaves a lot of great athletes but only decent students to elect to go to the state school. It is all about what the conference wants to be. If the SEC wants to be the main rival to the BIG, they will have to suffer through some of the hindrances that the BIG already has in what type of student they can recruit. If the Big 12 wants to be an elite athletic conference and decent academically, these trades would work. The devil is in the details, but surely these high level, revenue minded school administrators have looked at all ways to build revenue, including true realignment.

You do realize of course that Auburn is right in the middle of the SEC academically ahead of Missouri and that it is the 5th top money producer in the SEC? I might also add that the state of Kentucky pays Auburn to educate its large animal veterinarians. You know horse doctors for Churchill Downs. You better check the earnings of SEC schools and their academic rankings before performing that triage. You pegged Miss State but they are the only number two school from a state that drags up the rear. Vanderbilt may not be an athletic juggernaut but they more than earn their spot in the lineup academically.

Easy... Auburn was included in that last post because we were talking about scenarios where a school may decide that a conference switch could be in their best interest. They were lumped in a hypothetical where the Big 12 decided to go all in on sports while the SEC flagships pursued a more BIG route where academics and research became the focus. A Big 12 with an Auburn, FSU, and Clemson addition could become a juggernaut. Off the top of my head, I know Auburn is a top 100 school with revenue of a bit over $100 mil. It did TAMU a world of good to get out of the same conference as UT. Down the road when conferences naturally transform, is it outlandish to say that a similar move would give Auburn a similar result? That is all I was getting at.
04-19-2013 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,779
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 06:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If this opening posts premises is valid then schools on this bubble are:

SEC
Kentucky (basketball currently saving their @ss)
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State

Big 10
Northwestern
Purdue


ACC
Wake Forest

Big 12
Baylor
Kansas State
Iowa State


PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Arizona State
California

The problem is replacing them with somebody that's better. 07-coffee3

If any of the schools in bold get tossed aside I will probably lose interest in "powerhouse athletics".
04-19-2013 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #43
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 06:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If this opening posts premises is valid then schools on this bubble are:

SEC
Kentucky (basketball currently saving their @ss)
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State

Big 10
Northwestern
Purdue

ACC
Wake Forest

Big 12
Baylor
Kansas State
Iowa State


PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Arizona State
California

The problem is replacing them with somebody that's better. 07-coffee3

As mentioned in the OP, the question was raised after hearing Bowlsby repeat again, essentially, that the Big 12 is choosing quality over quantity. If the viewing model changes considerably in the future, it would not be as much about replacing exiting members as it would be to tighten up the quality of the remaining members. As for your "cut-list" schools, a few comments:

SEC - UK is not going anywhere. They are a flagship, middle of the road revenue and academics, but have, at worst, a top 5 brand in basketball. Vandy would be wise to leave only if they could land in a conference that include Duke and Northwestern. If Notre Dame and Syracuse ever got the gang of elite private schools together to form an uber new Big East type league including those five schools plus Boston College, Wake Forest, Miami, and possibly Baylor/TCU, that would be awesome for them, but I don't see that happening unless major shifts occur.

BIG - NW (see the Vandy argument; almost identical). Purdue - Similar to Auburn in the SEC. They are overlapping markets but strong members all around. Auburn is higher revenue, Purdue is higher academically, and I think they are a wash historically on the field/court. I mentioned in another thread that I would love to see them in the same conference as Pitt, Michigan State, and Va. Tech, however that takes shape, but I don't see the BIG ever adding Pitt or Va. Tech.

ACC - Wake Forest just needs to stay quiet and keep their head down like the "Where's My Stapler" guy in Office Space. Wherever Duke/Syracuse/Boston College are, there shall ye be also. They have been a great rival to Vanderbilt in recent years, and I think any of those private schools would pitch for them if it came down to it. At least they benefit the conference academically, which cannot be said for some of the other conference bottom feeders.

Big 12 - Baylor -They are actually a pretty high revenue school with really good academics, especially compared to the rest of the Big 12. I would love to see them compete regularly with Vanderbilt and Miami. Kansas State is higher revenue than you might think. From what I've seen on revenue and academics, they are very comparable to Arizona State and Texas Tech. You mentioned a few State schools in the PAC list; if the more elite PAC schools ever decide to reduce back to just the flagship/private schools and stick there or possibly add the Big 12 flagship schools, K State would make an excellent addition to a conference with ASU, WSU, Oregon State, Texas Tech, and other comparable schools. Iowa State is low revenue, but they are an AAU member. I feel sorry for them because they are stuck up in no man's land. I assume their wagon is hitched to K-State.

PAC - CAL is not going anywhere under any circumstance. Those three schools, if the situation required it, could make a very strong west coast conference by adding the top half of the MWC along with BYU and maybe some of the non-flagship Big 12 schools if things started breaking that way. I'm still trying wrap my head around the addition of Utah. They are neck and neck with the three state schools academically and much lower revenue than ASU. They are about neck and neck with OSU and WSU in all areas. Not a stelllar addition, but maybe they see growth potential.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 09:07 AM by bigblueblindness.)
04-19-2013 09:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #44
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 08:36 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 06:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  07-coffee3

If any of the schools in bold get tossed aside I will probably lose interest in "powerhouse athletics".

I agree. I only want to see changes if a school is purposefully bottom feeding (which I don't think is happening at all right now) or they are able to find a landing spot that give them a better overall fit for their school's mission. That may not mean higher revenue, but I suppose I am a free market guy at heart, so I sympathize more with the top teams that are not earning their full share than with the lower schools that have been exceeding their worth for some time now. That may be a positive to come out of the O'Bannon lawsuit. With a temper placed on the arms war to spend outrageous sums on anything that can be labeled as non-profit, maybe things will transform out of revenue generation (schools will not be as aggressive if a good chunk of the money goes to the athletes, not the school) and back to using athletics to enhance the school's mission.
04-19-2013 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 11:03 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I don't think conferences go bye bye because TV and AD money changes.

Not my argument at all.

Conferences existed for decades without being in the business of selling TV rights. The SEC existed for nearly six decades without being in the business of selling TV rights.

The assumption they will always be in that business is a dangerous one to make, but it doesn't follow that leaving that enterprise makes conferences out-dated and without value to the members.
04-19-2013 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,816
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 219
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicago Metro
Post: #46
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 06:37 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  If the B1G and SEC go to 16 they are NOT going to split up. LSU and UF aren't going to want to be in different conferences. Nebraska and Ohio St wont want to be in different conferences.

Just because the WAC/MWC split and the Big East/AAC split doesn't mean every conference that goes to 16 will split. There were specific reasons those conferences split. The Big East had a FB/BBall dynamic that was even recognized by the members ten years ago. The WAC didn't have the money that the Big Three have that could keep all those schools together.

How would the B1G split up? Here are a few groups who would most likely stick together.

Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State

Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
_________________
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

I played with your quote and suggestion. If, at sometime in the future, a regional push is valued for any number or reasons, it isn't too difficult to see how expansion or splits could work at reforming conferences.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 09:53 AM by chess.)
04-19-2013 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 06:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If this opening posts premises is valid then schools on this bubble are:

SEC
Kentucky (basketball currently saving their @ss)
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State

Big 10
Northwestern
Purdue

ACC
Wake Forest

Big 12
Baylor
Kansas State
Iowa State


PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Arizona State
California

The problem is replacing them with somebody that's better. 07-coffee3

Actually, the lowest 4 schools in the Pac-12 are:
1. Utah*
2. WSU
3. OSU
4. UC Boulder*

However, UC Boulder and Utah should see increases, so you might be right.

However, given that 2 of the lowest 4 are recent adds, you r point about the difficulties of finding replacements is def right.

*recent add
04-19-2013 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lolly Popp Offline
Magically Delicious
*

Posts: 2,425
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Football
Location: Endzone
Post: #48
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
By the time the Big East voted to boot Temple, things had fallen in line for UConn to take their place, since it's not like the Big East was planning to drop from 8 to 7 football schools. As for the comment that basketball is the "only thing which kept Rutgers in the Big East," that would reinforce my point, it's almost impossible to kick out a full member but easy to remove a football-only, or baseball-only, or swimming-only program from a league.
04-19-2013 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TomThumb Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 687
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 18
I Root For: stuff
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 06:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If this opening posts premises is valid then schools on this bubble are:

PAC 12
...
California

The problem is replacing them with somebody that's better. 07-coffee3

You gotta have some huge football blinkers on to consider Cal a liability to the Pac 12. Best public university in the country, international prestige, lots of NCAA titles, flagship school of the largest state in the country.
04-19-2013 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TomThumb Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 687
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 18
I Root For: stuff
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 09:04 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  PAC - CAL is not going anywhere under any circumstance. Those three schools, if the situation required it, could make a very strong west coast conference by adding the top half of the MWC along with BYU and maybe some of the non-flagship Big 12 schools if things started breaking that way. I'm still trying wrap my head around the addition of Utah. They are neck and neck with the three state schools academically and much lower revenue than ASU. They are about neck and neck with OSU and WSU in all areas. Not a stelllar addition, but maybe they see growth potential.

Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the country. Adding the state flagship means kids there will now grow up thinking of themselves as living in PAC 12 country.

I'm too young to remember when the Arizona schools weren't in the PAC. Pretty much my whole life I've thought of Arizona as PAC territory. I see the same thing happening to Utah.
04-19-2013 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
Lets trade Vandy to the ACC for Virginia Tech and Mississippi State to the Big 12 for West Virginia. Move Missouri to the SEC West

Everyone is happy. VT and WVU come in as rivals to a conference more culturally similar to themselves. The East is more logically organized. The ACC gets an academic powerhouse in a new state and extends their reach. The Big 12 ends up about where they started. Mississippi State gets out of the SEC Shadow.
04-19-2013 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #52
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 01:35 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Lets trade Vandy to the ACC for Virginia Tech and Mississippi State to the Big 12 for West Virginia. Move Missouri to the SEC West

Everyone is happy. VT and WVU come in as rivals to a conference more culturally similar to themselves. The East is more logically organized. The ACC gets an academic powerhouse in a new state and extends their reach. The Big 12 ends up about where they started. Mississippi State gets out of the SEC Shadow.

Yeah, trading baseball cards! It actually makes sense, too, which means it will never happen.
04-19-2013 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #53
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 01:44 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 01:35 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Lets trade Vandy to the ACC for Virginia Tech and Mississippi State to the Big 12 for West Virginia. Move Missouri to the SEC West

Everyone is happy. VT and WVU come in as rivals to a conference more culturally similar to themselves. The East is more logically organized. The ACC gets an academic powerhouse in a new state and extends their reach. The Big 12 ends up about where they started. Mississippi State gets out of the SEC Shadow.

Yeah, trading baseball cards! It actually makes sense, too, which means it will never happen.
Trading baseball cards has been discussed on this forum for a long time. Let the fun continue. Maybe a two-for-one deal can be made too. 05-lurk
04-19-2013 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #54
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 09:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 11:03 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I don't think conferences go bye bye because TV and AD money changes.

Not my argument at all.

Conferences existed for decades without being in the business of selling TV rights. The SEC existed for nearly six decades without being in the business of selling TV rights.

The assumption they will always be in that business is a dangerous one to make, but it doesn't follow that leaving that enterprise makes conferences out-dated and without value to the members.
Which is precisely why the SEC will never "kick out" a member. If the SEC was totally about money, then the bigger power schools would not be sharing equal revenues with the MS States and Vandys.
04-19-2013 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,919
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7740
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
Shoot boys, let's just pick four captains call them Slive, Scott, Delany and Swofford and let them pick until each has 16 and call it quits. They could flip a coin to see who starts and then reverse the order after the first four picks and after the eighth pick flip again and repeat the process. If Bowlsby wants in he and Swofford have to find a way to settle it between just the two of them. ESPN might like to air a Thunderdome like grudge match. In the end it might make about as much sense anyway. Those that didn't want to play inside a group of 16 could just sit in the corner and play all by themselves. And it wouldn't matter if the number was 72 or 80 just use the same process. We could redo it every 10 years and put that on live television as well. It would be better than the NCAA tourney brackets and the sportswriters would have a field day.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 02:03 PM by JRsec.)
04-19-2013 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WinOrLoseEAGLE Offline
Banned

Posts: 820
Joined: Nov 2003
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 02:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In light of how revenue is generated and distributed, has anyone heard discussion or consideration by a conference to convince an existing member institution to align with a different conference? Of course, it would be written up as a "mutually beneficial decision", similar to how long-term, under-performing coaches "retire" with a golden parachute.

The thought was prompted by Bowlsby's recent comments rationalizing the stance to stay at 10 schools. Each of the big conferences have one or two schools that no longer fit the conference profile and do not perceive to add any value. There are cases of regional overlap in small markets (Purdue/Kansas State) and low revenue (Wake Forest), but Washington State and Mississippi State immediately stand out as lacking in several important areas. Both schools are at or near last in their conference in terms of academics, revenue, brand impact, markets, and about every other category you can think of. Yes, they both have history as founding members of their conferences, but is there an arrangement that can be made so both the conference and school benefit in the long term? What if Washington State could immediately be admitted with full benefits to the MWC (they are a perfect fit MWC in almost all areas if you just forget about their PAC history) plus a $100 million thank you gift paid out over 10 years for their dedication and contribution to the PAC. If you do the revenue sharing math, each current institution comes out ahead, an additional spot is opened to add a high quality school, and Washington State becomes a competitive, if not top dog, institution in their new conference. I seriously doubt the value of the PAC network would drop a penny by losing Washington State (or Oregon State, for that matter), especially if it allowed round robin again for football content. Almost a mirror scenario can be argued for Mississippi State if they could land in the AAC (everyone can see that will become a south/southwest conference before too long).

If there is a group of people anywhere in this country that would have an opinion on such a move, I figured this would be it! My apologies if this has been discussed on another thread recently. I am new here and really enjoying it so far.

I'm curious - if there is ability in the specific conference to eject a school, ala Temple, then why not eject what you do not want? If that ability does not exist then why the hell would washington state agree to a 10 year 100 million dollar buy-out when just standing pat they will get over 200 million during the same time period?

Take the sec "buyout" of the worthless moo-u bull pups (btw - I agree with their virtual worthlessness to the sec) ... assuming an approximate $30 million payout per year that translates to $300,000,000 over the coming ten years. Not only would they be giving up the $30 million for years 11 through oh, armageddon, they'd lose revenues from 10-12k visiting sec fans every home game, probably lose another 10-12k pup fans per home game and puppy pound donations would drop in half. It would take considerably MORE than the $300,000,000 they are going to get ANYWAY for the next 10 years to convince them to leave the conference.

Using the $30 million annual payout amount, if I were the President of msu the LOWEST number I'd look at that wouldn't immediately cause me to burst into uncontrolled laughter would be a cool up front RIGHT NOW $1 billion dollars. That's 33 years worth of payout.

Of course, after mulling it over for about 15 seconds thinking what I could do with a billion dollars, I'd realize that even that amount of money doesn't translate into a good deal for msu.

Nope - paying me 1/2, or in the case of the sec, 1/3 of what I'm going to get over a 10 year period - paid over a 10 year period - is not going to persuade me to leave my conference......even if they don't want me anymore.
04-19-2013 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #57
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 02:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot boys, let's just pick four captains call them Slive, Scott, Delany and Swofford and let them pick until each has 16 and call it quits. They could flip a coin to see who starts and then reverse the order after the first four picks and after the eighth pick flip again and repeat the process. If Bowlsby wants in he and Swofford have to find a way to settle it between just the two of them. ESPN might like to air a Thunderdome like grudge match. In the end it might make about as much sense anyway. Those that didn't want to play inside a group of 16 could just sit in the corner and play all by themselves. And it wouldn't matter if the number was 72 or 80 just use the same process. We could redo it every 10 years and put that on live television as well. It would be better than the NCAA tourney brackets and the sportswriters would have a field day.

I'm the newest here, so I'll suck it up and be Swofford and take the last pick of the 1st round. JRSec, your idea, so you can be Slive. Do we have a Delany and Scott out there? Could this exercise not also double as a game of Risk? If so, you may find Alaska in the PAC!
04-19-2013 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #58
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 02:11 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 02:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In light of how revenue is generated and distributed, has anyone heard discussion or consideration by a conference to convince an existing member institution to align with a different conference? Of course, it would be written up as a "mutually beneficial decision", similar to how long-term, under-performing coaches "retire" with a golden parachute.

The thought was prompted by Bowlsby's recent comments rationalizing the stance to stay at 10 schools. Each of the big conferences have one or two schools that no longer fit the conference profile and do not perceive to add any value. There are cases of regional overlap in small markets (Purdue/Kansas State) and low revenue (Wake Forest), but Washington State and Mississippi State immediately stand out as lacking in several important areas. Both schools are at or near last in their conference in terms of academics, revenue, brand impact, markets, and about every other category you can think of. Yes, they both have history as founding members of their conferences, but is there an arrangement that can be made so both the conference and school benefit in the long term? What if Washington State could immediately be admitted with full benefits to the MWC (they are a perfect fit MWC in almost all areas if you just forget about their PAC history) plus a $100 million thank you gift paid out over 10 years for their dedication and contribution to the PAC. If you do the revenue sharing math, each current institution comes out ahead, an additional spot is opened to add a high quality school, and Washington State becomes a competitive, if not top dog, institution in their new conference. I seriously doubt the value of the PAC network would drop a penny by losing Washington State (or Oregon State, for that matter), especially if it allowed round robin again for football content. Almost a mirror scenario can be argued for Mississippi State if they could land in the AAC (everyone can see that will become a south/southwest conference before too long).

If there is a group of people anywhere in this country that would have an opinion on such a move, I figured this would be it! My apologies if this has been discussed on another thread recently. I am new here and really enjoying it so far.

I'm curious - if there is ability in the specific conference to eject a school, ala Temple, then why not eject what you do not want? If that ability does not exist then why the hell would washington state agree to a 10 year 100 million dollar buy-out when just standing pat they will get over 200 million during the same time period?

Take the sec "buyout" of the worthless moo-u bull pups (btw - I agree with their virtual worthlessness to the sec) ... assuming an approximate $30 million payout per year that translates to $300,000,000 over the coming ten years. Not only would they be giving up the $30 million for years 11 through oh, armageddon, they'd lose revenues from 10-12k visiting sec fans every home game, probably lose another 10-12k pup fans per home game and puppy pound donations would drop in half. It would take considerably MORE than the $300,000,000 they are going to get ANYWAY for the next 10 years to convince them to leave the conference.

Using the $30 million annual payout amount, if I were the President of msu the LOWEST number I'd look at that wouldn't immediately cause me to burst into uncontrolled laughter would be a cool up front RIGHT NOW $1 billion dollars. That's 33 years worth of payout.

Of course, after mulling it over for about 15 seconds thinking what I could do with a billion dollars, I'd realize that even that amount of money doesn't translate into a good deal for msu.

Nope - paying me 1/2, or in the case of the sec, 1/3 of what I'm going to get over a 10 year period - paid over a 10 year period - is not going to persuade me to leave my conference......even if they don't want me anymore.
I think the SEC is pretty happy with all members now. Why mess up what's working so well. And I believe it was Jr who made the comment that this kind of action would completely destroy trust between the schools that has taken decades to create. Everyone would be wondering who would be next on the chopping block...
04-19-2013 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #59
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 02:11 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 02:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

I'm curious - if there is ability in the specific conference to eject a school, ala Temple, then why not eject what you do not want? If that ability does not exist then why the hell would washington state agree to a 10 year 100 million dollar buy-out when just standing pat they will get over 200 million during the same time period?

Take the sec "buyout" of the worthless moo-u bull pups (btw - I agree with their virtual worthlessness to the sec) ... assuming an approximate $30 million payout per year that translates to $300,000,000 over the coming ten years. Not only would they be giving up the $30 million for years 11 through oh, armageddon, they'd lose revenues from 10-12k visiting sec fans every home game, probably lose another 10-12k pup fans per home game and puppy pound donations would drop in half. It would take considerably MORE than the $300,000,000 they are going to get ANYWAY for the next 10 years to convince them to leave the conference.

Using the $30 million annual payout amount, if I were the President of msu the LOWEST number I'd look at that wouldn't immediately cause me to burst into uncontrolled laughter would be a cool up front RIGHT NOW $1 billion dollars. That's 33 years worth of payout.

Of course, after mulling it over for about 15 seconds thinking what I could do with a billion dollars, I'd realize that even that amount of money doesn't translate into a good deal for msu.

Nope - paying me 1/2, or in the case of the sec, 1/3 of what I'm going to get over a 10 year period - paid over a 10 year period - is not going to persuade me to leave my conference......even if they don't want me anymore.

Yeah, I phrased the OP for this scenario to be a "golden parachute" that a long-time coach receives from a school when he "resigns". He can agree to the parachute and do it the easy way, or we can keep the parachute and do it the hard way. I figure $100 mil is about the amount a major conference would be willing to pay out to avoid the huge PR disaster it would endure for getting rid of a team. Much more than that, it would probably be better for the conference to take their lumps and move on with it.
04-19-2013 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,919
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7740
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 02:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 02:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot boys, let's just pick four captains call them Slive, Scott, Delany and Swofford and let them pick until each has 16 and call it quits. They could flip a coin to see who starts and then reverse the order after the first four picks and after the eighth pick flip again and repeat the process. If Bowlsby wants in he and Swofford have to find a way to settle it between just the two of them. ESPN might like to air a Thunderdome like grudge match. In the end it might make about as much sense anyway. Those that didn't want to play inside a group of 16 could just sit in the corner and play all by themselves. And it wouldn't matter if the number was 72 or 80 just use the same process. We could redo it every 10 years and put that on live television as well. It would be better than the NCAA tourney brackets and the sportswriters would have a field day.

I'm the newest here, so I'll suck it up and be Swofford and take the last pick of the 1st round. JRSec, your idea, so you can be Slive. Do we have a Delany and Scott out there? Could this exercise not also double as a game of Risk? If so, you may find Alaska in the PAC!

I'm not sure I would make a good Slive. If I had first pick I would take Southern Cal just so I could fire Lane Kiffen. Seriously the first pick would be tough. Texas for the revenue, Ohio State or Michigan for revenue, Alabama for championships although the revenue is not bad there either, or Notre Dame for national audience. You would have to have a motive. Are you going for titles, revenue, prestige, or spite? I guess we need some more ground rules here.
04-19-2013 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.