Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Killing the BIG XII
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,453
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #61
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-11-2018 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:27 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  PG: you're OBVIOUSLY correct that I overstated the geographic spread of the AAC. As to why the BIG XII is constantly discussed for implosion? It's the least geographically stable, and has an alpha-dog looking to get out.

I'd say the ACC is at least as geographically/culturally unstable. The ACC sprawls from Miami Beach in the south to Boston in the north and Louisville basically in the midwest.

And politically, it has its football-first deep south contingent and its mid-atlantic basketball-first contingent, and then its Yankee emphasize-both contingent as well.

Their commish did a great job with the GOR and promise of an AACN to settle things down, but those fissures still exist and if things head south, particularly if ACCN revenues don't materialize as hoped for, they could re-open.

Quo the ACC exists for three reasons:

.....

So Quo the ACC is not in peril as it should be because ESPN has a use for it. Whereas the Big 12 only has 3 maybe 4 products the networks are interested in: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Texas Tech since it is a P5 public in the state of Texas.

I agree that the ACC is not in peril. At worst, the FSU's and Clemson's are going to wait and see how much $$$ the ACCN brings in. But if it fails to bring in the expected money, and those football schools start to see themselves as at a permanent, and big, money disadvantage compared to their southern and midwestern rivals, that could change.
01-12-2018 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,260
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 783
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-12-2018 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:37 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:13 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  It's all going to boil down to what the networks want.

If they feel that it's in their best interests to cull the cream of the crop from the XII and slide them into other conferences they'll simply lowball the XII come contract time.

No one outside of ESPN/Fox is going to bid against themselves when they don't have to worry about the big 2. There's no way OU & TX are going to accept second fiddle money to stay when the SEC & B1G have their checkbooks out.

I honestly don't think the movers & shakers care what the K-States and ISUs of the world think.

Yes, Texas and Oklahoma call the shots and are the big enchiladas for TV. But, again, that's also the way it was in 2011 - 2012, and yet the networks were willing to pony up equal P5 money then.

And FWIW, I don't think networks have ever been the impetus in these moves. They've played a reactive roll - e.g., it was clear as a bell that ESPN didn't want the Big 12 to expand last year and paid them not to. But no network egged on the B1G to raid the Big 12, or the ACC to raid the Big East, or was behind the PAC trying to gobble up the Big 12.

Those moves came from the growth-driven desires of the conference offices and the members they represented. Sure, they make those moves while thinking of how FOX or ESPN might react, but the networks themselves don't move chess pieces around.

Exactly

Have you two met P.T. Barnum? Because he sure described your thinking on this. There's one born every minute!

So we will ignore the president of B.C., the protocol on Missouri to the SEC, the odd path of Poppa Bowden, the reasoning behind the LHN, the stonewalling of the carriage of the then independent Big 10 network, the present stonewalling of the PAC network with regards to carriage, and the use of the market model to try to bust up large state leverage in Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Virginia, and the inability of any conference to add a school without first getting an appraised value from the networks before they could issue an invitation, and all of this just so that we can believe that conferences that had not changed much for 100 years suddenly turned cannibalistic just for the hell of it? Priceless!

I didn't say just for the hell of it. To the contrary, commissioners like Delany and Slive started taking a look at the rising value of college athletics, and saw opportunities for increasing the power and value of their conferences via expansion that they could take advantage of. That's why they pounced.

Uh, Delany and Slive were both sports contract attorneys prior to becoming commissioners of the two most powerful conferences, and both had made a nice living at the behest of networks.

Don't you think it is highly likely that both heard the corporate desires and worked more or less in that direction to increase the payouts of the conferences they signed on with? I do.

Delany, however, took umbrage to a network offering and did start the Big 10 Network independently, but it floundered by under producing until FOX finally picked it up due to lousy carriage.

Don't think for a moment that ESPN didn't have something to do with that. Carriage for the SEC and probably for the ACC started/or will start at peak. And ESPN definitely had/has something to do with that.

And then there's the PAC. Still suffering carriage, and still independent. That's not an accident.

Quo, at one time conference commissioners were people who handled disputes and scheduling problems and who had oversight over officials and spoke for the conference at the NCAA.

Now, virtually all of them have had network related jobs.

The only thing that occurred naturally was OU/UGA vs the NCAA over television distribution. When they won that law suit the networks began to figure out how they could use that ruling to takeover and run college football. The rest is history and the conferences have had only a subordinate role in it.

The very use of the term "market model" which wasn't in any conference commissioner's lexicon in the early 80's is strictly advertising and network jargon. If that alone doesn't tell you who is in control nothing ever will. When industry jargon from an outside source sneaks into your vocabulary it is almost always because it is something that has some control over your world. Otherwise there is no need to learn or use it. Network jargon is so pervasive in the sports lingo today for only one reason. We are learning the language of our conquerors.
01-12-2018 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,260
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 783
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-12-2018 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:27 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  PG: you're OBVIOUSLY correct that I overstated the geographic spread of the AAC. As to why the BIG XII is constantly discussed for implosion? It's the least geographically stable, and has an alpha-dog looking to get out.

I'd say the ACC is at least as geographically/culturally unstable. The ACC sprawls from Miami Beach in the south to Boston in the north and Louisville basically in the midwest.

And politically, it has its football-first deep south contingent and its mid-atlantic basketball-first contingent, and then its Yankee emphasize-both contingent as well.

Their commish did a great job with the GOR and promise of an AACN to settle things down, but those fissures still exist and if things head south, particularly if ACCN revenues don't materialize as hoped for, they could re-open.

Quo the ACC exists for three reasons:

.....

So Quo the ACC is not in peril as it should be because ESPN has a use for it. Whereas the Big 12 only has 3 maybe 4 products the networks are interested in: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Texas Tech since it is a P5 public in the state of Texas.

I agree that the ACC is not in peril. At worst, the FSU's and Clemson's are going to wait and see how much $$$ the ACCN brings in. But if it fails to bring in the expected money, and those football schools start to see themselves as at a permanent, and big, money disadvantage compared to their southern and midwestern rivals, that could change.

I agree that long term this could be interesting. When the time comes it will probably be overcome by merger more than by realignment.

BTW: I enjoy your and Ohio 1317's posts and the vast majority of the time I agree with both of your positions. But when it comes to who controls realignment we will just have to disagree as it should be too obvious as to the heavy hand of industry involved in this, and because of some other things.
01-12-2018 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,453
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #64
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-12-2018 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:27 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  PG: you're OBVIOUSLY correct that I overstated the geographic spread of the AAC. As to why the BIG XII is constantly discussed for implosion? It's the least geographically stable, and has an alpha-dog looking to get out.

I'd say the ACC is at least as geographically/culturally unstable. The ACC sprawls from Miami Beach in the south to Boston in the north and Louisville basically in the midwest.

And politically, it has its football-first deep south contingent and its mid-atlantic basketball-first contingent, and then its Yankee emphasize-both contingent as well.

Their commish did a great job with the GOR and promise of an AACN to settle things down, but those fissures still exist and if things head south, particularly if ACCN revenues don't materialize as hoped for, they could re-open.

Quo the ACC exists for three reasons:

.....

So Quo the ACC is not in peril as it should be because ESPN has a use for it. Whereas the Big 12 only has 3 maybe 4 products the networks are interested in: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Texas Tech since it is a P5 public in the state of Texas.

I agree that the ACC is not in peril. At worst, the FSU's and Clemson's are going to wait and see how much $$$ the ACCN brings in. But if it fails to bring in the expected money, and those football schools start to see themselves as at a permanent, and big, money disadvantage compared to their southern and midwestern rivals, that could change.

I agree that long term this could be interesting. When the time comes it will probably be overcome by merger more than by realignment.

BTW: I enjoy your and Ohio 1317's posts and the vast majority of the time I agree with both of your positions. But when it comes to who controls realignment we will just have to disagree as it should be too obvious as to the heavy hand of industry involved in this, and because of some other things.

Fair enough. 04-cheers
01-13-2018 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,021
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #65
RE: Killing the BIG XII
Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.
01-13-2018 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,453
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #66
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

That's a good way of putting it. It's an interactive process. Does a conference thinking about expanding consider what network partners might think about it? Of course, you have to. Does that mean that networks drive the process? No.

Especially in cases where a network's position might by no means be friendly. E.g., the B1G decides it wants to fully capture the northeast by raiding Syracuse and Boston College from the ACC. Will FOX like that? Sure, they have no stake in the ACC. Will ESPN like that? Maybe, because it might make its B1G contract more valuable. But maybe not, because it might weaken the value of ESPN's contract with the ACC. And, ESPN only has half of the B1G rights but all of the ACC rights.

In the case of the Big 12 last year, its' pretty clear ESPN had a big role, and that's because the Big 12 wasn't thinking about raiding other P5, they were going to raid G5, property that is much less valuable to the networks. So how ESPN valued the addition of two AAC schools was huge.

But if it is P5 vs P5 raiding, the network politics can be much less clear-cut, meaning network opinion is going to matter less.

Plus, networks don't mean everything anyway. E.g., the B1G might decide to raid the Big 12 again for Texas and Oklahoma because even if ESPN or FOX disapprove, they might just think it's in the best long-run interest of the conference beyond what the next media deal will mean.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2018 11:16 AM by quo vadis.)
01-13-2018 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,260
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 783
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

For instance in '91 when the networks weren't nearly as heavy handed the SEC had designs on Clemson and Florida State. ESPN didn't want the SEC to have control of a large state. That kind of leverage means the networks have to pay more to sell advertising space in that large state. They gave the SEC an estimate for what they would pay for Florida State's valuation. It was enough that we could make the offer. But they likely also gave that figure to the ACC and also likely told them the date of our offer because the ACC showed up 1 day earlier and made a slightly better offer. Bowden then made his excuse of seeking a path of least resistance to the championship.

Amid the ACC's problems in 2010-1 those two schools came up again. This time a clause that ESPN put in the SEC's contract came into play. No re-negotiations unless two new markets were added, a clause worded to exclude the two most likely SEC targets, Clemson and F.S.U. who are within our footprint and are the two most SEC like schools in the ACC, a product 100% owned by ESPN, where those two football programs make up a significant portion of value for ESPN's investment. But, ESPN was trying to work a larger deal that involved one of the SEC's other long term goals, Oklahoma so they made a large offer for A&M and the suggestion came through channels for Missouri which they also approved of for a large market for the SECN. Interestingly enough the concept of Virginia Tech and N.C. State in the SEC was floated. We had not considered them in the past and the rumor was released to test SEC fans on the concept and the reasons why to consider them were put out there to sell it.

It was an attempt again to break up the hold a single conference had over two large markets, North Carolina and Virginia. Texas A&M was approved in spades because it did the same to the Big 12's hold over the extremely large Texas market.

The footprint model was a ruse from day 1. Why would the ACC be paid for all of ESPN's subscriptions in Florida, and the SEC be paid for the same when rationally they should have been paid for the % of Florida that each carried? Ditto for the SEC in Texas, or if the SEC had gotten N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

Look at the ESPN lineup of schools and plot them on a map. ESPN pushes to own the majority of rights to every noteworthy school in a state whether that school is in the SEC, ACC, or AAC. What they don't want is a conference holding all of the properties in a state. This strategy gives them the highest possible advertising revenue total in each state where they hold the rights to all of the product, but through various conferences. They never intended to keep the footprint subscription payout model. Had time permitted they would have shifted to a % of payout based on the % of the market a particular state school actually carried. However streaming is going to change that and do so in a way that is going to be more advantageous to their pay model than just a % of the market carried. Now they are going to have a reason simply to pay for actual viewers and perhaps eventually on a model that accumulates pay by event. I'm sure they will still make offers of steady payouts, but it will be gauged upon a compilation of actual viewers per event.

ESPN has its sights on Texas (the state) and I'm sure they will want the top schools in different conferences for the same reason. They have majority rights now to S.M.U., Houston, and Texas A&M through the AAC and SEC. They have a 50% stake in Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Baylor's T1 and T2 rights through the Big 12, but share that with FOX which also has a 50% stake in those schools. They protected the most valuable product they have by creating the LHN as a T3 contract with Texas. Since Texas is a state nearing 28 million potential viewers I'm sure that ESPN would love to control the FOX portion of the Big 12 schools. Oklahoma penetrates DFW in a significant way. FOX has Oklahoma's T3 and shares the T1 and T2 of course with ESPN.

Should Oklahoma and Oklahoma State move to the SEC at some point, as ESPN talking heads have suggested more than a few times over the past couple of years, it gives ESPN compete control of Oklahoma since Tulsa is in the AAC. And having OSU and OU in the SEC isn't as costly to them since Oklahoma is a small state of just over 4 million. That leaves them needing just a little more interest in Texas Tech and T.C.U. to effectively own the rights to key entrance points into advertising on Saturdays in Texas.

And to complete this picture ESPN and FOX only lease the PAC rights 50/50. So the only conference that FOX exercises any control over is the Big 10 where they own roughly 51% of the BTN and hold a slight advantage in T1 & T2 rights over ESPN.

So when you plot all of the properties on a map a pattern, that is quite clear even to the un-initiated, emerges. ESPN is about owning outright the rights to the region of the country that is growing, is only interested in having options in the West where the viewing numbers are weak for college sports, and interested in having dibs on enough of the games in the Big 10 to have draw from that region for ESPN programming. But they are all about the Southeast and whatever it takes to capitalize on Texas. The additions of Pitt, Syracuse, and Boston College were about protecting their investment in the ACC by keeping what was, at that time, an independent BTN from obtaining those markets, which would also give the BTN access to grow Southward down the Atlantic coast. And by taking as much of a lucrative, but not necessarily fanatic, college sports market in New York and New England ESPN could create a lure for Notre Dame which is a valuable draw for that region and key Big 10 cities not under ESPN control. Notre Dame is a great back door into Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago, and Detroit in addition to being a darling in the Northeast.

Pitt, B.C. and Syracuse were not natural moves for the ACC. The ACC was a convenient tool for ESPN to use to get them. Missouri was not a natural addition for the SEC. The SEC was a convenient tool to get them. My point being these were network moves motivated out of control of markets. They were not moves that the conferences would have suggested or had reason to think would or could or should happen.

In this business controlling the valuation of potential additions is tantamount to controlling the process. Of course the SEC wasn't going to add Florida State if ESPN our contract partner wasn't willing to pay us to take them. So it didn't matter what the SEC wanted. We got what we were paid to take, whether or not the school was on our list of desired properties. Ditto for any of the conferences. We set our parameters and ESPN paid us to take their choice out of those. Or they suggested a product that fit our parameters should they not be on that list.

This also emphasizes the obvious as to why Iowa State is in a tough spot. Iowa is a state of a little over 3 million and Iowa State has good attendance, is AAU, and is an extremely stable if average product in sports. But it is not a growth state of note. The Big 10 draws best there, and their real problem would be lack of interest from ESPN. Some kind of move with key properties to the PAC would be their only salvation if the Big 12 goes away. The same is true for Kansas State. Kansas has some brand value, but they don't offer a significant market to either the SEC or Big 10. The populations of the Big 12 states is roughly 40 million. Texas and Oklahoma together account for 32 million of that and covers all of the necessary markets to monopolize ad rates in Texas. By taking Missouri, ESPN effectively cut off the Big 10's best pathway (marketwise) to Texas. The Big 10 already had deep penetration of the Kansas markets. Now the Big 10 will have to go through Kansas to get to either of the top two brands left for football, Oklahoma or Texas. The fat markets of Houston & DFW are why the Big 12 is so vulnerable. Those lucrative markets are the lure for the two strongest conferences one of which ESPN controls and the other which is complicitous with FOX.

Maybe the recent Disney acquisition of FOX properties abates that tension for acquisition of that region, maybe not. We'll see about that. But the Big 12 only became unstable because of unequal revenue in a conference where the value of markets was already terribly imbalanced throughout its boundaries. That's where the ACC always had the upper hand. From Miami to Atlanta to Boston the markets were reasonably uniform in value with Atlanta of course being the plumb. Hence the ACC despite lower revenue (because no school there was of the value of Texas or Oklahoma) was more stable.

The Big 12 was not stable, and not because Texas was a bear to deal with, because they are, but because there was no way that that Texas and Oklahoma were ever going to be able to justify complete revenue sharing because it meant giving too much away. And more importantly because the networks can make so much more by placing those two schools somewhere else.

But back to the main point. If the SEC/B1G just wanted Texas and Oklahoma and those two said no there would have been no realignment from the Big 12. The Colorado's and Nebraska's and Missouri's might have been unhappy, but they would have stayed. It was the fear of Texas and Oklahoma leaving, and not their behavior, that created the momentum for movement. Nebraska, a very small state, felt vulnerable as the lure of network money started creating the possibility of movement so they took the very best pathway out for them. Missouri realized their situation as well. Colorado had the more natural fit to get out and took it because of the same threat. But when Texas A&M left, Texas finally felt a loss of control. A&M was the move that made Oklahoma truly nervous. And in each case, behind those moves were networks picking off the key brands and markets carefully whittling away at the support structure of Texas and OU. So by denying eastward expansion to the Big 10 and SEC the networks set those two conferences on a pathway to dismantling the Big 12.

Last year's entourage of hopeful G5's just put a stamp on it. There is no avenue for more revenue for the Big 12 as it is presently comported. There is an avenue for Texas and Oklahoma to more revenue, leaving. Hence the vote not to expand, and not to renew the GOR. But make no mistake, this was not the machinations of the Big 10, or the SEC. The Big 10's growth plans were to the East and ESPN blocked them. The SEC's growth plans were for consolidation of the best sports properties in the Southeast. ESPN blocked them. Why? They didn't want the Big 10 or SEC gaining even more leverage in their own natural markets. But they would use Texas and Oklahoma, by the elimination of our preferred moves, as the only options to the kind of growth that either the Big 10 or SEC would want. Why? Because it is not enough to simply hold Texas and Oklahoma in a market where they play schools that don't maximize their value. But the schools of the SEC or Big 10 would maximize that value and Texas and Oklahoma would maximize the value of the either of those conferences. The synergy of those moves means millions more tune if for key games. So not only do they reach the key markets in Texas but Texas and Oklahoma reach the key markets in either the Big 10 or SEC.

It's about the networks period. Until the rise of the networks ability to sculpt their own product by offering revenue, or withholding it, realignment was random and local. After OU/UGA versus the NCAA for TV's sake, it was not. This isn't a conference based phenomenon. It's a network driven one. The moves benefit the networks or they don't pay for it. Nothing much happened for 100 years except a few breakoffs of conferences within regions until schools were free through their conferences to negotiate TV contracts. That was all of the opening the networks needed. There was no longer a bureaucratic entity called the NCAA to have to deal with. So since '91 realignment is a network agenda and the conferences have been motivated by money. It's not the other way around, or we would all have grown quite differently.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2018 01:40 PM by JRsec.)
01-13-2018 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,788
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Killing the BIG XII
I think jrsec is spot on, but how in the heck do you have all this info and in the correct time lines ?
01-13-2018 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,741
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 59
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #69
RE: Killing the BIG XII
I agree network are part of expansion process, but there are many factors that are considered.
I also believe B-12 can expand to 18, with Tex & Okla staying in top 10 of revenue
01-13-2018 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 125
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 8
I Root For: SEC &others
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Killing the BIG XII
If the B12 plans on staying together after a few more years, they would expand now by 2 to 4. I don't buy the networks are in complete control of them or are financially preventing them from expanding. I am not impressed with Bowlsby's (and company) rationale, or sure what flexibility he has if something different is wanted. This is a conference that shows collective uncertainty despite the messaging, and only commits to short-term measures leaning on the status quo.
.
01-13-2018 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,066
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Killing the BIG XII
If consolidation and complete control is something that the networks want wouldn't it behoove the conferences to do the opposite?

Consider this: the SEC and ACC announce a full merger (or a merger that involves 10 ACC schools). It gives the new combined college sports confederation a monopoly on the Southeast. Texas would be the only southern state in the footprint where another league has a toe hold. You then have the ability to name your price for tier 1 and 2 rights and launch your own family of networks for tier 3 content where all the profits are yours. With all of that content you also gain the ability to create your own streaming platform or pick up top dollar from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc. for a product they couldn't possibly get elsewhere. Sure, the SEC schools make more than the ACC right now but I think all the schools involved would stand to make even more in this combined gambit.

I think it's time that the conferences take back the power from the networks.
01-13-2018 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 7,335
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 629
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #72
RE: Killing the BIG XII
The Big 12 isn't going anywhere. It may end up with some new / different members but it will still exist in some form. It's too valuable not too.
CJ
01-13-2018 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,260
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 783
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-13-2018 04:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  If the B12 plans on staying together after a few more years, they would expand now by 2 to 4. I don't buy the networks are in complete control of them or are financially preventing them from expanding. I am not impressed with Bowlsby's (and company) rationale, or sure what flexibility he has if something different is wanted. This is a conference that shows collective uncertainty despite the messaging, and only commits to short-term measures leaning on the status quo.
.

They are never in complete control. Conferences and schools are free not to expand. In the case of the Big 12 the networks paid them not to expand and then refused to pay them pro rata for G5 schools last year. But the networks are obviously in control of the valuations for new additions. That's really all they need to accomplish their ends. If Texas and Oklahoma can't expand with G5 product what are they to do? Maybe the Big 10 and Big 12 expand someday out of the PAC but if they do the travel issues still remain. The networks might pay for that if they want to tie the West Coast into the Northern and Southern Midwest. But in all things the one who does the paying is in control in a service relationship.
01-13-2018 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,021
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #74
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. The SEC wanted a larger presence in the state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.
01-14-2018 08:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,453
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #75
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. The SEC wanted a larger presence in the state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.
01-14-2018 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,260
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 783
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. presence in the The SEC wanted a larger state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

That's complete and total hooey! None of the presidents would have voted for reduced athletic funding even for Texas A&M. The only redress to such a refusal by the network to pay for a new member would have been to wait until the end of the contract and then change to a network that would and then accept the school as a new member.

Before the huge television revenue money what you suggest might have been possible. Perhaps in the days when all of the TV money might have only reflected a couple of million to the Athletic Budget. But if your contract is for an amount that pays your member schools 40 million a year to invite Texas A&M to be the 13th member and we aren't even including Missouri here, it would have cost each of your 12 present member schools 3.07 million dollars per year for the remainder of the contract. So if that happened this year with our present contract we would be talking about 16 x 3.07 per school or 49.12 million per school for the duration of the contract. Texas A&M got it's invitation because it added money to the member institutions of the SEC.

Nobody gets invited if they take money away! They don't get added to the Big 10 if they don't add revenue and they don't get added to the SEC if they don't add revenue. Otherwise the SEC could have bucked ESPN and invited Florida State or Clemson in 2010-1.

Why is it that you think the Iowa State's (a fine school) are in such rough shape when it comes to expansion?

Academic grant money isn't shared between schools project applications are. When people talk about this sort of thing happening in the Big 10 they are talking about sharing portions of grants involving different kinds of research where several schools within a conference may apply together for a project where each aspect of it are covered by capable research teams. That's quite different from saying that adding a school with A&M's research capacity is going to add grant money to the rest of the SEC members. A&M might partner with Florida or Vanderbilt on applying for a grant but that doesn't benefit Mississippi State or South Carolina. And as for saying that L.S.U.'s athletic department only gets 1/4 of it's total revenue from TV contract money they sure as hell don't get any of the rest of it from the other schools nor do they add any of it to other schools pots outside of their travel crowd which is limited in the amount of tickets they can purchase by each of the other venues in the SEC for between 7,000 to 15,000 tickets which if they don't sell them are returned to the home school to sell.

Both of your arguments here are so far out of line from reality that it defies the imagination as to why you would make them.

Large state schools are independent financial institutions outside of academic associations which are not bound by athletic conference affiliation. Auburn and Purdue have partnered before for Aerospace Engineering projects for NASA. Auburn has seeded schools of Veterinary Medicine at other schools who wished to start one. But none of that has anything to do with the SEC.

If L.S.U. earns 40 million a year in TV revenue that is their only tie in the vast majority of the rest of their revenue stream to the other members of the SEC and they wouldn't be making that 40 million without the other members combined viewership draw.

So having Texas A&M in the conference doesn't improve the SEC's revenue unless their draw adds enough to ours for the networks to pay everyone a higher aggregate for their television rights.

Are they a fine institution that academically the SEC schools would love to associate with? Absolutely! But we aren't paying 49 million each over 16 years for the damned privilege! If associations with fine academic schools paid the bill then Georgia Tech and Tulane would be back in the conference tomorrow! They aren't! Because they don't add anything to the collective TV revenue pot!

Why is Nebraska and Penn State in the Big 10? They added collective revenue. Do you think Michigan and Ohio State would have given a hoot about them otherwise? If what you suggest was true Rice would either have been invited by the PAC or the Big 10 by now. If Duke didn't play basketball all of the academics in the world wouldn't get them an invite to a conference, unless the Ivy League decided to expand.

It was long thought that Vanderbilt had a standing invitation to the Big 10. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the point at hand. If they had the invite it was because not only were they AAU and highly thought of, but because they had football and basketball in one of the largest markets separating the Big 10 from the South. Nashville added to the revenue under the market model of payouts. The Big 10 didn't need them for the CIC and I'm sure Vanderbilt probably shares research with some Big 10 schools already.

And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

The biggest reason that you hear that some schools want to be part of the academic association with the Big 10 is because faculty at Big 10 institutions command higher salaries than those at (to use a current example) Oklahoma. The Big 10 logo on their resume' brings more cachet. So academicians crave that. Athletic Departments would merely be looking at the TV revenue totals and subtracting the travel to see if it was doable. So schools like Oklahoma will remain conflicted. But their conflict is merely between what profits the academia and what profits the athletic department, not necessarily what profits the school. There is a big distinction between what profits academia and what profits academics.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2018 10:27 AM by JRsec.)
01-14-2018 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,453
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #77
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

Not exactly. Would LSU be making nearly $100m a year from local revenue - tickets, parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc. - if they were in the Sun Belt and playing Troy, Georgia State, and FIU instead of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida?

Maybe, but probably not. Even if ESPN wasn't willing to pay more for Texas A/M, they help fill up the seats in Tiger Stadium, as do all the other SEC teams. Those are the teams Tiger alums and fans want to see their school competing against, so you think about that.

I don't think the SEC votes to take in FIU even if ESPN promises them $2m more a school in media money for them because it will better-penetrate greater Miami or something. The stands would be half-empty and lots of fan goodwill and cash would be lost as a result.

IMO, you are largely correct, but too much of media-determinist. You take a correct point a bit too far.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2018 10:57 AM by quo vadis.)
01-14-2018 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,228
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 104
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 11:07 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Conferences aren't going to invite just anyone because that's who the networks will pay for. Kansas State isn't going to the Big Ten, BYU won't go to the PAC 12, Wake Forest to the SEC, etc.

Likewise, conferences are unlikely to invite schools if they don't improve the conference, specifically their income.

This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. presence in the The SEC wanted a larger state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

That's complete and total hooey! None of the presidents would have voted for reduced athletic funding even for Texas A&M. The only redress to such a refusal by the network to pay for a new member would have been to wait until the end of the contract and then change to a network that would and then accept the school as a new member.

Before the huge television revenue money what you suggest might have been possible. Perhaps in the days when all of the TV money might have only reflected a couple of million to the Athletic Budget. But if your contract is for an amount that pays your member schools 40 million a year to invite Texas A&M to be the 13th member and we aren't even including Missouri here, it would have cost each of your 12 present member schools 3.07 million dollars per year for the remainder of the contract. So if that happened this year with our present contract we would be talking about 16 x 3.07 per school or 49.12 million per school for the duration of the contract. Texas A&M got it's invitation because it added money to the member institutions of the SEC.

Nobody gets invited if they take money away! They don't get added to the Big 10 if they don't add revenue and they don't get added to the SEC if they don't add revenue. Otherwise the SEC could have bucked ESPN and invited Florida State or Clemson in 2010-1.

Why is it that you think the Iowa State's (a fine school) are in such rough shape when it comes to expansion?

Academic grant money isn't shared between schools project applications are. When people talk about this sort of thing happening in the Big 10 they are talking about sharing portions of grants involving different kinds of research where several schools within a conference may apply together for a project where each aspect of it are covered by capable research teams. That's quite different from saying that adding a school with A&M's research capacity is going to add grant money to the rest of the SEC members. A&M might partner with Florida or Vanderbilt on applying for a grant but that doesn't benefit Mississippi State or South Carolina. And as for saying that L.S.U.'s athletic department only gets 1/4 of it's total revenue from TV contract money they sure as hell don't get any of the rest of it from the other schools nor do they add any of it to other schools pots outside of their travel crowd which is limited in the amount of tickets they can purchase by each of the other venues in the SEC for between 7,000 to 15,000 tickets which if they don't sell them are returned to the home school to sell.

Both of your arguments here are so far out of line from reality that it defies the imagination as to why you would make them.

Large state schools are independent financial institutions outside of academic associations which are not bound by athletic conference affiliation. Auburn and Purdue have partnered before for Aerospace Engineering projects for NASA. Auburn has seeded schools of Veterinary Medicine at other schools who wished to start one. But none of that has anything to do with the SEC.

If L.S.U. earns 40 million a year in TV revenue that is their only tie in the vast majority of the rest of their revenue stream to the other members of the SEC and they wouldn't be making that 40 million without the other members combined viewership draw.

So having Texas A&M in the conference doesn't improve the SEC's revenue unless their draw adds enough to ours for the networks to pay everyone a higher aggregate for their television rights.

Are they a fine institution that academically the SEC schools would love to associate with? Absolutely! But we aren't paying 49 million each over 16 years for the damned privilege! If associations with fine academic schools paid the bill then Georgia Tech and Tulane would be back in the conference tomorrow! They aren't! Because they don't add anything to the collective TV revenue pot!

Why is Nebraska and Penn State in the Big 10? They added collective revenue. Do you think Michigan and Ohio State would have given a hoot about them otherwise? If what you suggest was true Rice would either have been invited by the PAC or the Big 10 by now. If Duke didn't play basketball all of the academics in the world wouldn't get them an invite to a conference, unless the Ivy League decided to expand.

It was long thought that Vanderbilt had a standing invitation to the Big 10. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the point at hand. If they had the invite it was because not only were they AAU and highly thought of, but because they had football and basketball in one of the largest markets separating the Big 10 from the South. Nashville added to the revenue under the market model of payouts. The Big 10 didn't need them for the CIC and I'm sure Vanderbilt probably shares research with some Big 10 schools already.

And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

The biggest reason that you hear that some schools want to be part of the academic association with the Big 10 is because faculty at Big 10 institutions command higher salaries than those at (to use a current example) Oklahoma. The Big 10 logo on their resume' brings more cachet. So academicians crave that. Athletic Departments would merely be looking at the TV revenue totals and subtracting the travel to see if it was doable. So schools like Oklahoma will remain conflicted. But their conflict is merely between what profits the academia and what profits the athletic department, not necessarily what profits the school. There is a big distinction between what profits academia and what profits academics.

Figuratively or literally, an athletic conference logo, or even the name, never appears on an academic's resume, and it certainly doesn't have an iota to do with their salary or cachet. It has zero impact at all. There is no "profit" to the academic side of a university due to athletic conference affiliation, other than the university may have to subsidize their athletic department less because of conference payouts which is true for any school in the power 5, although that hasn't helped Maryland or Rutgers. What absolute hilarity.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2018 11:15 AM by CrazyPaco.)
01-14-2018 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,260
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 783
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-14-2018 11:07 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(01-14-2018 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-14-2018 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-14-2018 08:03 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-13-2018 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is a disingenuous line of argumentation. Of course they don't. The way it works is the conferences set parameters and make a list of preferred targets. The networks peruse those and offer a sum for the ones they approve of. And in some cases the networks make a direct recommendation of a school previously not considered, e.g. Missouri.

So the bolded part of your statement is irrelevant. If the network wants somebody they pay the conference enough to make it worth their while. If they don't want somebody they low ball the offer.

This is why the market footprint model was used to do the networks bidding on several levels.

Television revenue isn't the only method of income, nor is it the only thing considered for prospective members. Would the SEC have invited Texas A&M without an increase in pay from the networks? I think they would have in order to plant a large flag in the top football state, add an AAU school, and bring in a school that the rest of the conference would want to compete against. presence in the The SEC wanted a larger state of Texas and would have wanted Texas A&M regardless if ESPN (or another network) paid for that.

Agreed. While it is clear that networks pay a lot of money for conference media deals, so of course the conference cares what a network (or the market of networks) thinks about adding members, i disagree with those who think network reaction is ALL that matters. As you note, conferences have strategic plans that stretch beyond and encompass more than the current or next media deal. And one reason for that is media money isn't the entire ball game.

A school like LSU has about $140 million in athletic revenue, about $40m of that is media money from ESPN. A big amount, sure, but not even a majority of it.

That's complete and total hooey! None of the presidents would have voted for reduced athletic funding even for Texas A&M. The only redress to such a refusal by the network to pay for a new member would have been to wait until the end of the contract and then change to a network that would and then accept the school as a new member.

Before the huge television revenue money what you suggest might have been possible. Perhaps in the days when all of the TV money might have only reflected a couple of million to the Athletic Budget. But if your contract is for an amount that pays your member schools 40 million a year to invite Texas A&M to be the 13th member and we aren't even including Missouri here, it would have cost each of your 12 present member schools 3.07 million dollars per year for the remainder of the contract. So if that happened this year with our present contract we would be talking about 16 x 3.07 per school or 49.12 million per school for the duration of the contract. Texas A&M got it's invitation because it added money to the member institutions of the SEC.

Nobody gets invited if they take money away! They don't get added to the Big 10 if they don't add revenue and they don't get added to the SEC if they don't add revenue. Otherwise the SEC could have bucked ESPN and invited Florida State or Clemson in 2010-1.

Why is it that you think the Iowa State's (a fine school) are in such rough shape when it comes to expansion?

Academic grant money isn't shared between schools project applications are. When people talk about this sort of thing happening in the Big 10 they are talking about sharing portions of grants involving different kinds of research where several schools within a conference may apply together for a project where each aspect of it are covered by capable research teams. That's quite different from saying that adding a school with A&M's research capacity is going to add grant money to the rest of the SEC members. A&M might partner with Florida or Vanderbilt on applying for a grant but that doesn't benefit Mississippi State or South Carolina. And as for saying that L.S.U.'s athletic department only gets 1/4 of it's total revenue from TV contract money they sure as hell don't get any of the rest of it from the other schools nor do they add any of it to other schools pots outside of their travel crowd which is limited in the amount of tickets they can purchase by each of the other venues in the SEC for between 7,000 to 15,000 tickets which if they don't sell them are returned to the home school to sell.

Both of your arguments here are so far out of line from reality that it defies the imagination as to why you would make them.

Large state schools are independent financial institutions outside of academic associations which are not bound by athletic conference affiliation. Auburn and Purdue have partnered before for Aerospace Engineering projects for NASA. Auburn has seeded schools of Veterinary Medicine at other schools who wished to start one. But none of that has anything to do with the SEC.

If L.S.U. earns 40 million a year in TV revenue that is their only tie in the vast majority of the rest of their revenue stream to the other members of the SEC and they wouldn't be making that 40 million without the other members combined viewership draw.

So having Texas A&M in the conference doesn't improve the SEC's revenue unless their draw adds enough to ours for the networks to pay everyone a higher aggregate for their television rights.

Are they a fine institution that academically the SEC schools would love to associate with? Absolutely! But we aren't paying 49 million each over 16 years for the damned privilege! If associations with fine academic schools paid the bill then Georgia Tech and Tulane would be back in the conference tomorrow! They aren't! Because they don't add anything to the collective TV revenue pot!

Why is Nebraska and Penn State in the Big 10? They added collective revenue. Do you think Michigan and Ohio State would have given a hoot about them otherwise? If what you suggest was true Rice would either have been invited by the PAC or the Big 10 by now. If Duke didn't play basketball all of the academics in the world wouldn't get them an invite to a conference, unless the Ivy League decided to expand.

It was long thought that Vanderbilt had a standing invitation to the Big 10. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the point at hand. If they had the invite it was because not only were they AAU and highly thought of, but because they had football and basketball in one of the largest markets separating the Big 10 from the South. Nashville added to the revenue under the market model of payouts. The Big 10 didn't need them for the CIC and I'm sure Vanderbilt probably shares research with some Big 10 schools already.

And Quo you can get a breakdown of the various aspects of the athletic department's of each school's revenue at Equity in Athletics. Ticket sales, donations, merchandising and licensing, concessions, radio and TV money all go into that pot as do in some cases interest off of endowments. And while it is true that TV money at a well run institution might only be 1/4 to 1/5th of the total gross revenue, it is the only part that reflects in any substantial way any form of shared revenue.

The biggest reason that you hear that some schools want to be part of the academic association with the Big 10 is because faculty at Big 10 institutions command higher salaries than those at (to use a current example) Oklahoma. The Big 10 logo on their resume' brings more cachet. So academicians crave that. Athletic Departments would merely be looking at the TV revenue totals and subtracting the travel to see if it was doable. So schools like Oklahoma will remain conflicted. But their conflict is merely between what profits the academia and what profits the athletic department, not necessarily what profits the school. There is a big distinction between what profits academia and what profits academics.

Figuratively or literally, an athletic conference logo never appears on an academic's resume, and it certainly doesn't have an iota to do with their salary. It has zero impact at all. There is no "profit" to the academic side of a university due to athletic affiliation. What absolute hilarity.

Good enough! That's your area of expertise and not mine. It was a poor choice of words with which to express that schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, Northwestern, carry a higher academic profile than Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, or L.S.U. and therefore association with them is preferable from an academic standpoint. I din't mean to imply that "B1G" as an athletic brand carried any weight for an academic. But, It doesn't change the fact that no school is getting invited into an athletic association if it can't add to the value of the collective.

But there are plenty of people who would rather have an Ivy League school's position on their resume than one from a Big 12 school provided both have performed equally in their positions. And there are researchers at Oklahoma that would rather have the associations with the schools that comprise the Big 10 athletic conference than say those that comprise the membership of the SEC but not because of the athletics, but because of the research capacity of the schools in the Big 10. And when it comes to graduates, where you went to school makes a difference when it comes to employment opportunities. So academic pedigree is part of life whether it is intended to be so or not and it has been known to increase one's earning potential.

In my post graduate work many of the professors had Ivy League roots for their PHD's. Few had roots from schools that would be found in the ACC / Big 12 / SEC / or Big 10 groupings. Why is that? Not all of them were great instructors. Surely there were some great instructors who could have done their doctoral work at a large well respected state school? Those not from an Ivy background were usually educated overseas (Cambridge & Oxford). So you are telling me that academic pedigree in the field of higher education doesn't translate into employment opportunities and higher salaries which personally profit those individuals, provided performance is relatively equal? There is an academic pecking order for the competent.

But the main thrust of my initial response was to the specious notion that a school gets invited to an Athletic Association simply by reputation, even if it can't add to the bottom line of the member schools because a network won't pay more for it's rights than the conference is already getting. That's hilarity.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2018 12:06 PM by JRsec.)
01-14-2018 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,788
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Killing the BIG XII
Back to what’s killing the b12...
1) is it the networks
2) is it Texas and the LHN
3) is it posters here that want the b12 to die so Texas will join the sec ?
It still boggles my mine that all the schools that left the b12, especially the aggies, that’s what my have been the final nail in the b12 coffin
If four teams leave the b12, tx, ok and two little bros leave , then what happens to the the other schools?, I think they are out of p5 status and man you are gonna hear a whole lot of crying, they sure as heck are not going to like being referred to as little schools
It would then be a p4 and a g6
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2018 01:02 PM by JHS55.)
01-14-2018 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.