Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More Money?
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More...
(11-02-2018 07:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-01-2018 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-31-2018 01:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Can’t say I’d ever want that

Makes A&M the easternmost school in a division full of schools we have zero history and cultural commonality with (if not out right hostility...I mean can you imagine the Fight’n Texas Aggie Band taking the field at Stanford?).

There’s a reason we told UT and their PAC 16 plan to pound sand when they tried it the first time.

That's fine 10th. The simplest path to the greatest reward for the SEC is to go hard after two of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas in this next set of moves in 2023-4. That puts us at a very very profitable 16. Then about 2035 we make another push for Clemson and Florida State. That's the most profitable path for the future to take.

Then the SEC breaks into these divisions:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Kansas/Texas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That would work nicely!

That alignment only works if ESPN decided to sell off the ACC contract to FOX, JR.
Otherwise ESPN would be reversing their trend (see Kentucky) to continue to split states for "double dip" advertising rates between the SEC and the ACC.
You must have forgotten whose benefit all of this realignment is for (hint....not the conferences).

For ESPN's version, this is much more reasonable:

Florida, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina

Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia

A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

ESPN might very well decide to sell off the ACC at some point. The ACC made great sense under the market footprint model. It doesn't make a much sense in a content driven market.
11-02-2018 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More...
(11-02-2018 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not at all certain that, even if the NCAA were to lose the Alston case, that any school would wind up paying players directly. Some may want to, or at least be willing to. But those who want to will need to have a group with sufficient numbers to reach a critical mass for scheduling.

I believe that many schools who choose not to pay would refuse to play those who do. And with good reasons. Money may talk, but these are still universities. Most faculties would probably be opposed to paying salaries to players. And few university presidents rose to their positions via athletics rather than academics. Many university donors would enthusiastically support pay for play. But some donors would stop giving if it were adopted.

Presidents and Trustees would have to weigh both the net effect on contributions as a whole and how much academic donations would suffer. They would also have to weigh how much real power would have to be ceded to athletics boosters, and how that would affect university policies and academic reputations.

Pay for play is far from a done deal. IMO. Pay for likeness and endorsements ( by entities outside the schools) is much more likely.

There would be enough schools that would transition to pay for play to form their own conference or league. Those who didn't would spend a few years with much less in the way of TV revenue from the networks and would use that time to try to figure out which direction to go and in the end that would be the group that is divided. Some would stay with scholarship only and downsize their scale of operations and the others would opt to pay, but might have difficulty getting into the group that had already formed and divvied up the fatter checks.

University presidents are dinosaurs presiding over academics which they understand and athletics which they don't, and which I might also add have a business dynamic which is wholly outside of the bailiwick of most university presidents. The two endeavors need to be separated at the schools.
11-02-2018 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #43
RE: Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More...
(11-02-2018 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-02-2018 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not at all certain that, even if the NCAA were to lose the Alston case, that any school would wind up paying players directly. Some may want to, or at least be willing to. But those who want to will need to have a group with sufficient numbers to reach a critical mass for scheduling.

I believe that many schools who choose not to pay would refuse to play those who do. And with good reasons. Money may talk, but these are still universities. Most faculties would probably be opposed to paying salaries to players. And few university presidents rose to their positions via athletics rather than academics. Many university donors would enthusiastically support pay for play. But some donors would stop giving if it were adopted.

Presidents and Trustees would have to weigh both the net effect on contributions as a whole and how much academic donations would suffer. They would also have to weigh how much real power would have to be ceded to athletics boosters, and how that would affect university policies and academic reputations.

Pay for play is far from a done deal. IMO. Pay for likeness and endorsements ( by entities outside the schools) is much more likely.

There would be enough schools that would transition to pay for play to form their own conference or league. Those who didn't would spend a few years with much less in the way of TV revenue from the networks and would use that time to try to figure out which direction to go and in the end that would be the group that is divided. Some would stay with scholarship only and downsize their scale of operations and the others would opt to pay, but might have difficulty getting into the group that had already formed and divvied up the fatter checks.

University presidents are dinosaurs presiding over academics which they understand and athletics which they don't, and which I might also add have a business dynamic which is wholly outside of the bailiwick of most university presidents. The two endeavors need to be separated at the schools.

Amen to that. How to make that happen is complicated and very intertwined with politics.
11-03-2018 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #44
RE: Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More...
Nobody knows for sure which schools might opt to pay for play. My own best guess is a number that's probably smaller than other guessers would predict.

Being a numbers nerd, I might try to predict who goes and who stays by analyzing the money trail. But in this case, that's useless because the game would be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be a matter of comparing how much money you are getting now with how much you might get by going (or staying).

Ultimately, what matters is not how much revenue you would get, but where you would stand compared with the other schools that make the same choice you do.It won't matter if Alabama is bringing in twice what you are, or ten times what you are, if you aren't going to be competing against them. If you are North Carolina, it may matter how much NC State or Virginia Tech are earning. But not Clemson or Florida State if they opt to be one of 24-30 teams in a higher tier.

Take those 24-30 teams out of the FBS and the CFP just goes away as a critical revenue source for the other 100+ schools. And the media contracts likewise would be much smaller and less important. There will still be a financial arms race - there will always be a race - but everybody will be chasing smaller caliber weapons.

Football still matters to the Ivy League. It would still matter to the ACC as well, regardless what happens with pay for play.
11-03-2018 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Online
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,477
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #45
RE: Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More...
(11-02-2018 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN might very well decide to sell off the ACC at some point. The ACC made great sense under the market footprint model. It doesn't make a much sense in a content driven market.

While I agree The ACC made great sense under the market footprint model, I disagree about The ACC not having a spot in the content driven market.

Your contention might be accurate if college football was played 12 months a year, lucky for The ACC its value to ESPN is in the other sports that fill out the annual sports calendar. Primarily basketball, where no conference can match The ACC, certainly not The SEC that’s a roundball wasteland. While The ACC might not match great with The SEC in football, it matches up better in pigskin then The SEC matches up with The ACC in roundball.

Given the opportunity, more fans will tune in to watch ACC basketball than SEC basketball. Frankly without UK, The SEC is nothing more than a glorified rec league.

You can’t look through the content driven lense and value The SEC at the same level year round as you do September to November. It simply doesn’t have it. ESPN knows it, college basketball fans know it.

The reality is college football is losing popularity. Students aren’t attending games like they used to. Millennials simply don’t follow the game like we do. Not even in the south. As boomers die, college football loses its hardcore fans. They aren’t being replaced, not even in the south.

Ironically soccer may well be more popular than college football by the time The ACC ends its contract with ESPN. The SEC doesn’t even play soccer and The ACC is the best conference in the country. When The SEC announces it will be begin sponsoring soccer, you’ll know the change has started.

Stop looking at college athletics through 2018 eyes. The future will look much different.
CJ
11-03-2018 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Want to Revitalize College Football, Help Recruiting in the North, & Make More...
(11-03-2018 08:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  
(11-02-2018 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN might very well decide to sell off the ACC at some point. The ACC made great sense under the market footprint model. It doesn't make a much sense in a content driven market.

While I agree The ACC made great sense under the market footprint model, I disagree about The ACC not having a spot in the content driven market.

Your contention might be accurate if college football was played 12 months a year, lucky for The ACC its value to ESPN is in the other sports that fill out the annual sports calendar. Primarily basketball, where no conference can match The ACC, certainly not The SEC that’s a roundball wasteland. While The ACC might not match great with The SEC in football, it matches up better in pigskin then The SEC matches up with The ACC in roundball.

Given the opportunity, more fans will tune in to watch ACC basketball than SEC basketball. Frankly without UK, The SEC is nothing more than a glorified rec league.

You can’t look through the content driven lense and value The SEC at the same level year round as you do September to November. It simply doesn’t have it. ESPN knows it, college basketball fans know it.

The reality is college football is losing popularity. Students aren’t attending games like they used to. Millennials simply don’t follow the game like we do. Not even in the south. As boomers die, college football loses its hardcore fans. They aren’t being replaced, not even in the south.

Ironically soccer may well be more popular than college football by the time The ACC ends its contract with ESPN. The SEC doesn’t even play soccer and The ACC is the best conference in the country. When The SEC announces it will be begin sponsoring soccer, you’ll know the change has started.

Stop looking at college athletics through 2018 eyes. The future will look much different.
CJ

Better check your NCAA Tourney winning % since 1985. The SEC is third behind the Big East and ACC and virtually tied with the Big 10 and outside of the Big East there wasn't much of a statistical difference between the winning % of the ACC/SEC/B1G. And now that we are funneling money to hoops at the behest of Mike Slive before he retired and passed, we are picking up steam there again.

But no matter how you cut it hoops is still only 20% of sports revenue, even for ESPN.

And we match up fine with the ACC in hoops at the top, and are improving in the middle considerably. You can't touch us in baseball. That takes care of the money sports. BTW, viewing %'s in the SEC are pretty strong for hoops and that after all is what drives ad revenue in that sport as well.

And hey CJ when the ACC figures out how to make a nickel on a damned soccer match let the world know and then the SEC will consider spending money on it.

In the meantime, my analysis is on target. Keep an eye on SEC hoops they are only going to get stronger now that we are investing a piece of the football pie in coaches, facilities, and in recruiting. We did pretty well the last two tourneys, and the women's end of the sport is fine for us.

What I'm catching a whiff of is the usual ACC schadenfreude! Oh, and every school in this glorified rec league is still academically ranked higher than Louisville, so....

And as to the future, CJ, when football is no longer king it will just mean everyone will lose that revenue. There is no sport on the horizon or even beyond it that is going to take it's place, or even catch basketball as #2. So when that day comes the ACC will still be 4th or 5th in athletic revenue.

And do some fact checking why don't you. The WSJ valued SEC basketball very favorably, and our viewing numbers have been every bit as strong as those of the ACC. Where the ACC nips the SEC in hoops is in ticket prices. Even our attendance stands well against yours.

As Satchel Page once said, don't look back in basketball, because we are gaining on you!


BTW: The WSJ average valuation of an ACC basektball program was 76 million and 71 million for that of an SEC member.

But, in actual average total revenue the SEC earned 137.6 million per member and the ACC earned 94.8 million. So I don't think we are missing that 5 million in basketball valuation.

And note this if you are peeking into the future. If we pay players going forward college football will be around much longer than if we don't. So it's not going away anytime soon, though it is highly likely that there won't be as many schools playing it at the highest level should we enter a pay for play era, but then the same will be true of basketball, and likely baseball.

It's been turned into a big business with corporate sponsors. It is already professional sports, it just that it hasn't been formally acknowledged yet.
`
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2018 09:47 PM by JRsec.)
11-03-2018 09:14 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.