(08-09-2019 11:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I haven't posted in a long time, but I do now because the academic connection between Texas and the B1G may be a stronger pull than posters think.

Note that this is more about social status within academia than about financial earning power. There is no conflict between long term athletic brand value and academic status when it comes to the Longhorns ... but it's not automatically the case that they can bring along any school they want. Kansas, sure, ... OU, maybe, though even OU would be slumming it for the worst academic snobs in the Big Ten, so that rests a lot on who happens to be President at (in AWRU order), Northwestern (#25 world), That School Up North (#27), Whiskey (#28), Minnesota (#37), Illinois (#41, one below UT), Maryland (#51) and Purdue (#70).

Nebraska brings up the rear in the Big Ten academic status games, and even they are in the 201-300 in the world tier in the AWRU rankings.

Texas Tech (401-500 world)? Ok State (401-500 world)? It'll be hard enough to get OU (401-500 world), on the rationalization that they are the state flagship ... also, a big chunk of the results for Ok State that put them in that tier are land grant funded agricultural sciences, and so in AAU type rankings that put a heavy weight on competitive grant funding, the Sooners will outrank the Pokes.

And TCU? Don't be silly. That's a pure SEC play.

(08-10-2019 10:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I haven't posted in a long time, but I do now because the academic connection between Texas and the B1G may be a stronger pull than posters think.

Note that this is more about social status within academia than about financial earning power. There is no conflict between long term athletic brand value and academic status when it comes to the Longhorns ... but it's not automatically the case that they can bring along any school they want. Kansas, sure, ... OU, maybe, though even OU would be slumming it for the worst academic snobs in the Big Ten, so that rests a lot on who happens to be President at (in AWRU order), Northwestern (#25 world), That School Up North (#27), Whiskey (#28), Minnesota (#37), Illinois (#41, one below UT), Maryland (#51) and Purdue (#70).

Nebraska brings up the rear in the Big Ten academic status games, and even they are in the 201-300 in the world tier in the AWRU rankings.

Texas Tech (401-500 world)? Ok State (401-500 world)? It'll be hard enough to get OU (401-500 world), on the rationalization that they are the state flagship ... also, a big chunk of the results for Ok State that put them in that tier are land grant funded agricultural sciences, and so in AAU type rankings that put a heavy weight on competitive grant funding, the Sooners will outrank the Pokes.

And TCU? Don't be silly. That's a pure SEC play.

There are only 2 SEC plays, Texas and Oklahoma. Those are the only two who add to our revenue. Where the variance occurs is that the SEC has wider parameters on a second fiddle, which would probably be the second state school of either Texas or Oklahoma. I don't see where T.C.U. enters the picture. They would be a play for the ACC to enter a significant market in Texas and since they are in a transportation hub it minimizes their outlier status.

(08-09-2019 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 02:49 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 12:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

Ken,
I think that both your option 2 and 3 are non-starters.
The only conference that would take both Oklahoma and Texas would be the PAC and then it would be out of survival.
If both went as a pair to either the SEC or the B1G it would alter their cultures to the point that they no longer would be recognized by the original teams in either conference. No commissioner would take that risk.
Oklahoma was not on the B1G's top 20 list when Nebraska was added, and there is no reason to believe that they are now. If they choose to leave the Big 12 the SEC is their most likely landing spot unless they travel to the PAC with Texas.
Texas as we all know isn't going to the SEC and has no reason to join the B1G. Texas already has the ability to schedule home and home games with Ohio State and Michigan and will refuse to waste away in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Texas has three realistic options:
1-stay in the Big 12 with Oklahoma
2-go to the PAC with Oklahoma +2
3-take a partial Notre Dame style membership in the ACC (most likely with TCU in tow).

The premise here is incorrect. Both the SEC and B1G would jump on Texas and Oklahoma pair. The B1G West is right now the forgotten wing, with only Wisconsin a semi-power, while the East has Ohio State Michigan and Penn State (Michigan State is on the Iowa, Wisconsin level).

In the B1G a West with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa has identity as the Plain States division producing a champion to make the B1G Championship game must see. There is no identity problem.

For the SEC it's similar. You'd have an Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Arkansas wing that gives it a Southwest flavor (LSU goes and probably the Mississippi schools go with these guys or alternately Kentucky and Vandy). This group would provide a meaningful Champion to play an East with Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The East would have an Old SEC flavor, putting rivals Auburn and Georgia back together in the same division, ditto Alabama and Tennessee.

The idea the culture would be hurt having both Texas and Oklahoma in either the B1G or SEC is ridiculous. It would create much clearer East/West identity for the Divisions in those conferences and balance the play between them, as well as create a much more important CCG.

Academically both schools fit well, and being flagships they fit these two almost all flagship school conferences.

Getting both would make the two divisions stronger, and 7 of your football games would be in division - meaning the schedule wont be adding only the heavyweights. I do think it would force the SEC to move to 9 games, since there would be only two cross overs.

Division-less football works better if you have 15, meaning you just add one. And that would make sense if you just add one, as you'd probably let everybody in the SEC play, say Texas, or everybody in the B1G play, say Oklahoma, in something of a rotation.

If they do go their separate ways, you have to ask, would one of the two conferences add Kansas? Fair question. The B1G IMO might take KU if they got OU, but Texas went SEC. Their 9 game schedule has problems with an odd number of teams, since one gets either only 8 conference games or 10; and I don't think the B1G would like to go to 10 games. The SEC playing 8 would have no problem with 15 and a rotation.

Other options:
The Pac-12 is out of the question for Texas (travel), and doesn't offer enough money to Oklahoma. There is a small chance Texas values being king so much, and is so unhappy with staying in a B12 without OU and possibly also KU, that would seriously consider the ACC. They'd have the king's chair at ACC meetings, edging UNC to the 2nd seat, and they'd also take some of the "special treatment" ND is getting. The ACC is also an 8 game schedule, so a 15th works well there. Of course Texas could make the ACC accept another Texas school like TCU (they'd fit in a league with Miami, Syracuse, BC, Wake and Pitt) so they'd have a partner and not be an outlier like West Virginia. But the complications of the LHN and the very different structure of the ACC contract with ESPN, along with the level of money makes it hard to see how that could be worked out.

Staying is a decent option until 2031 should only Oklahoma leave. The B12 could survive at 9 for 6 years until the LHN ran out. Or Texas could give a thumbs up and live with BYU (or long shot UCF) for 6 years as a 10th. But if Kansas goes with Oklahoma (B1G scenario ... and they give up on Texas), then it's hard to see Texas remain as the only flagship in a conference with only 2nd tier schools.

Stugray, i Agree with most of what you say except, two of your other options.

IMO the PAC is not out of the question for Texas or Oklahoma. The travel problem is solved if at least four teams from the Big12 go to the PAC. If four teams go, then you would have an eight team division....the four Big12 schools plus Colorado, Utah and the Arizona schools with only one time zone difference. If KU and KSU go, then you could have three six team divisions. If both OU and Texas join the PAC the money should be acceptable. The LHN could probably be worked out.

Also, as I have pointed out to you previously, Texas will not go to the ACC and be on an island, TCU as a travel partner helps the ACC schools, but it still leaves Texas on an island with one school. IMO that will never happen.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-869587.html
This link is to the WSJ Economic Impact Assessments for Universities as it relates to their region of influence. Some say this is the total value of the school, but it is measured in the various ways they impact businesses outside of their athletic department's earnings.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-871659.html
This is the link to the Gross Total Revenue that schools produce. Media money is but a fraction of it. True strength comes in the ability of the school to sell its product and produce loyalty that begets significant donations.

I suggest that everyone not already acquainted with these numbers should study them and ponder their importance.

You will note that the PAC in particular is relatively weak in every facet and that the key Big 12 schools account for more than 2/3rds of the total economic impact valuation of the Big 12 which by the way is greater than that of the entire PAC12.

You will also note that the top product of the Big 12 accounts for 1/3rd of all the revenue received by Big 12 schools and that again it is much greater than what the PAC schools bring in.

It is merely wishful thinking to believe that any merger of the top Big 12 product with the PAC will result in anything but a downgrade in the revenues of the top Big 12 schools. And for the record there are two top Big 12 schools: Texas and Oklahoma. Those two so dwarf the other Big 12 schools in metrics that to add 2 or even 4 more Big 12 schools to a PAC merger only further diminishes the total revenue that such a merger would generate and even if it is only Texas and Oklahoma that are added to the PAC it is an impossibility that they would earn more than they do in the Big 12.

Why? Attendance is worse in the PAC. Ratings are worse in the PAC. The ability of the PAC schools to generate a traveling crowd is less than that of Texas and Oklahoma. The travel is greater and for minor sports is a major revenue drag. And the economic impact and gross total revenue which indicates the reach and economic depth of a school is much less in the PAC.

In short it is an impossibility by any carrier pay model in existence that the move would benefit Texas or Oklahoma.

The entire same is true of any move by either Texas or Oklahoma to the ACC.

Why? Their numbers are a virtual repeat of those of the PAC since those two conferences battle each other for last place in all metrics in the P5.

Therefore the options are three:

Stay put. In this option the key is Oklahoma. If Kansas leaves they add B.Y.U. and get healthier in the main revenue sport, football. If Oklahoma leaves it takes almost 1 billion in economic impact with them, one of only two top brands in football, potentially the best football revenue event (the RRR), and the last rival that Texas fans give a hoot about playing. If Oklahoma stays put Texas cements the Big 12. Kansas can do what it likes.


Move to the Big 10
or,
Move to the SEC.

In either of these scenarios the addition of just 1 of Oklahoma or Texas to either of these conference coupled with the SEC's projected T1 increase and the Big 10's like 5% plus bump with a new contract in 2024 means that the payout in the SEC could well be 56 million (or more) + 3 million per school for the addition of either Texas or Oklahoma which = 59 million plus or the 54 million for the Big 10 plus at least 5% in pay bump + 3 million for the addition of either Texas or Oklahoma= 60 million plus.

The Sooners currently earn 38.7 from Big 12 media rights plus their T3 which is roughly 7 million (average for the contract) so 45.7 million plus another million or so for T3 escalators, so roughly 48 million. Would Oklahoma move for an addition 11 to 12 million or more?

The Horns earn 38.7 plus around 17 million right now for the LHN, so roughly 56 million. Their incentive in any of this to is to keep their scheduling format and business model and they are less likely to leave unless Oklahoma bails.

The Sooners can earn significantly more by moving to either the SEC or Big 10 and the money won't be that different in either.

The Horns if forced to move at least would make enough to cover the LHN revenue. And there are easy work arounds even if they want that contract honored.

Those are the only 3 options that are currently available to Texas and Oklahoma where they make a little to a lot more depending on the school, and where they are moving to a conference where there will be a lot more schools above the conference average Gross Total Revenue and where the economic impact valuations of all involved improve.

The SEC's valuation is North of 7 billion and the Big 10's is north of 5 billion. The Big 12's is around 3.5 billion. The PAC's is at 3 billion and ACC's ~ 2 billion.

If the decision to move is made it will be based on pure business advantages in doing so. These are billion dollar enterprises that will make a solid business decision. There won't be any of this piss ant fans say their school will never do this or that based on some emotion or some past comments of leaders playing to the emotions of their fan base. Teams of attorneys, the A.D.'s, the network carriers, and college presidents will be the only voices listened to with a nod to the most wealthy of donors.

I don't know how many threads and posts are wasted suggesting anything else. Will academics play a part? Absolutely! But they will not be deciding factor unless all other business factors come to the same relative sum between the competing conferences.

Now, I also urge you to use these numbers to see who it is that the SEC and Big 10 will consider.

Without raiding each other there are only 3 schools that hands down would be no brainer additions to either: (1) Texas, (2) Oklahoma, (3) Notre Dame.

Since the latter is tied up with a GOR until 2037 rule them out period.

So if there is any realignment at all in 2023-5 for the P5 it will involved Texas and/or Oklahoma. If they leave for separate conferences then all you need to do to find the list of possible travel mates (if we don't go divisionless) is to take the gross total revenue of the travel mate and add it to the gross total revenue of (Texas/Oklahoma) and divide by two and see if it exceeds the conference average of the Big 10 or SEC. If it does then that school is a possible travel companion. If it doesn't they are not. Repeat the process with the WSJ economic impact numbers.

There are your answers.

In 2037 even if the ACC schools become available the likelihood is that if the SEC and Big 10 split Texas and Oklahoma there still won't be a single school in the ACC (outside of N.D.) that would add enough value to create a move threat. By then Florida State and Clemson will likely not add enough value to the Big 10 or SEC to be considered under any of the current pay models.

So, if Texas and Oklahoma leave, with or without travel companions, and one moves to the SEC and the other to the Big 10, the result will be a P4 in which there are two conferences paying at or near 60 million per school, and two conferences paying at or near 40 million per school. In others words we will have a P2 plus a sub P2.

JR, the data you refer to is compelling and hopefully it will end the senseless posts on realignment. I acquiesce on the metrics you refer to in your post. My comment to Stugray was just that the travel reason he referred to would not prevent Texas going to the PAC.

I agree with you that t-shirt fans will not be making the decisions on any realignment. That will be done by the powers that be you mentioned. IMO politics will have absolutely have no say in what OU decides to do and I seriously doubt that Texas politics will have any effect on what UT decides.

So I guess the big question is..... do OU an UT stay together or go separate ways. Obviously the Big10 and SEC would like to have both.

I believe OU and Texas both prefer the Big10 academics and sports culture. However, athletically they are better fits with the SEC, but neither administration likes the win at all cost football culture. Additionally Texas will not want to follow "little brother" anywhere.

It seems evident that the Big will not accept OSU or Tech, but the SEC seemingly would. That could be an advantage for the SEC.

I believe OU would accept an invitation to the Big10. However Texas being Texas may have conditions, such as including KU and even Missouri. That gives them more area teams they have history with. If UT balks, then you have to wonder would the Big take OU and KU without Texas.

If the SEC does not get OU and UT, they could disrupt things by inviting Texas and Tech, or OU and OSU, or even all four.

As JR says, it will be interesting to see who blinks first.

Meh. By 2037, Liberty will be too big and too rich to ignore and the ACC will scoop them up.

Also, JRSEC (or is it Junior SEC–which makes me think of the Sun Belt) doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

(08-10-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Also, JR doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

Of course I did. None of those schools have the revenue support of donating alums to be relevant to the upper tier for another 30 years. The problem then becomes CFB support period. I've already mentioned numerous times that the Baby Boom which helped to fuel the growth of College Athletics, in particular football, will be essentially a non factor after 2036 when those born in '46 will be 90 or dead, those born in '56 will be 80 or dead, and those born in '62 will be 74.

Past that timeline college football revenue will have peaked and in be in decline. So this realignment is the last hurrah to try to get more revenue for the next decade plus a bit and 10 million in extra revenue per year will be compelling for that reason. I've often wondered why the ACC locked itself into a GOR past the relevance of the Boomers. It seems mighty shortsighted. The X'ers interest is as strong but their collective wealth isn't quite as much and after that all trends are down for quite sometime.

So those you tout are simply going to peak too late for this round, and will probably have to wait a few decades to see if interest in college sports picks back up enough and if their recently graduated growing alumni base has enough wealth to push them to the upper tier of a new age in college sports, if there is one.

Let’s see what the economic factors look like a few years from now. This much earlier than the 2010 shuffle and the BTN wasn’t looking like much- much less the primary factor that kickstarted a realignment round.

Let’s see what the board looks like when it’s closer

(08-10-2019 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Also, JR doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

Of course I did. None of those schools have the revenue support of donating alums to be relevant to the upper tier for another 30 years. The problem then becomes CFB support period. I've already mentioned numerous times that the Baby Boom which helped to fuel the growth of College Athletics, in particular football, will be essentially a non factor after 2036 when those born in '46 will be 90 or dead, those born in '56 will be 80 or dead, and those born in '62 will be 74.

Past that timeline college football revenue will have peaked and in be in decline. So this realignment is the last hurrah to try to get more revenue for the next decade plus a bit and 10 million in extra revenue per year will be compelling for that reason. I've often wondered why the ACC locked itself into a GOR past the relevance of the Boomers. It seems mighty shortsighted. The X'ers interest is as strong but their collective wealth isn't quite as much and after that all trends are down for quite sometime.

So those you tout are simply going to peak too late for this round, and will probably have to wait a few decades to see if interest in college sports picks back up enough and if their recently graduated growing alumni base has enough wealth to push them to the upper tier of a new age in college sports, if there is one.

As all the boomers finally retire, their jobs will need to be filled, same as Gen X. So there is more money coming to the millennials. It’s just taking longer because people live longer and retire later, especially those lofty university types.

(08-10-2019 12:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Also, JR doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

Of course I did. None of those schools have the revenue support of donating alums to be relevant to the upper tier for another 30 years. The problem then becomes CFB support period. I've already mentioned numerous times that the Baby Boom which helped to fuel the growth of College Athletics, in particular football, will be essentially a non factor after 2036 when those born in '46 will be 90 or dead, those born in '56 will be 80 or dead, and those born in '62 will be 74.

Past that timeline college football revenue will have peaked and in be in decline. So this realignment is the last hurrah to try to get more revenue for the next decade plus a bit and 10 million in extra revenue per year will be compelling for that reason. I've often wondered why the ACC locked itself into a GOR past the relevance of the Boomers. It seems mighty shortsighted. The X'ers interest is as strong but their collective wealth isn't quite as much and after that all trends are down for quite sometime.

So those you tout are simply going to peak too late for this round, and will probably have to wait a few decades to see if interest in college sports picks back up enough and if their recently graduated growing alumni base has enough wealth to push them to the upper tier of a new age in college sports, if there is one.

As all the boomers finally retire, their jobs will need to be filled, same as Gen X. So there is more money coming to the millennials. It’s just taking longer because people live longer and retire later, especially those lofty university types.

You miss the mark. Each subsequent generation is having to spend more and they inherit less.

In the 60's the richest 5% of the U.S. population controlled about 85% of the wealth. Now they control about closer to 95% of it. The middle class is suffering erosion.

Yes they will take the jobs left by the Boomers, but those jobs will be in far fewer privately owned businesses and for larger corporations. They will not have pensions, and the 401k's and 403b's will likely have been annuitized preventing the balance in those accounts from ever passing to their heirs.

It seems to me Esayem that you are the one not accounting for the changes of the future.

(08-10-2019 12:49 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Let’s see what the economic factors look like a few years from now. This much earlier than the 2010 shuffle and the BTN wasn’t looking like much- much less the primary factor that kickstarted a realignment round.

Let’s see what the board looks like when it’s closer

I remember betting you two rep points that the Big 12 would not expand past the 10 they became when they took T.C.U. and West Virginia. I was right then and I'm still right now.

The only thing changing is the pay model and it favors the Big 12 even less than than the market model because you only have two brands.

We won't have long to wait. Things will be cleared up by 2023. The only real issue is whether the FAANG's get involved and whether that creates an upper league as opposed to a P4.

(08-10-2019 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Also, JR doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

Of course I did. None of those schools have the revenue support of donating alums to be relevant to the upper tier for another 30 years. The problem then becomes CFB support period. I've already mentioned numerous times that the Baby Boom which helped to fuel the growth of College Athletics, in particular football, will be essentially a non factor after 2036 when those born in '46 will be 90 or dead, those born in '56 will be 80 or dead, and those born in '62 will be 74.

Past that timeline college football revenue will have peaked and in be in decline. So this realignment is the last hurrah to try to get more revenue for the next decade plus a bit and 10 million in extra revenue per year will be compelling for that reason. I've often wondered why the ACC locked itself into a GOR past the relevance of the Boomers. It seems mighty shortsighted. The X'ers interest is as strong but their collective wealth isn't quite as much and after that all trends are down for quite sometime.

So those you tout are simply going to peak too late for this round, and will probably have to wait a few decades to see if interest in college sports picks back up enough and if their recently graduated growing alumni base has enough wealth to push them to the upper tier of a new age in college sports, if there is one.

As all the boomers finally retire, their jobs will need to be filled, same as Gen X. So there is more money coming to the millennials. It’s just taking longer because people live longer and retire later, especially those lofty university types.

You miss the mark. Each subsequent generation is having to spend more and they inherit less.

In the 60's the richest 5% of the U.S. population controlled about 85% of the wealth. Now they control about closer to 95% of it. The middle class is suffering erosion.

Yes they will take the jobs left by the Boomers, but those jobs will be in far fewer privately owned businesses and for larger corporations. They will not have pensions, and the 401k's and 403b's will likely have been annuitized preventing the balance in those accounts from ever passing to their heirs.

It seems to me Esayem that you are the one not accounting for the changes of the future.

It seems to me that Jr. SEC knows exactly what people in the future will spend their disposable income on.

Boomers were hippies and wannabe counter culture that didn’t care about sports. Then they grew up, made money, and spent it on what spectators spend money on.

(08-10-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Also, JRSEC (or is it Junior SEC–which makes me think of the Sun Belt) doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

That bolded part is an assumption. It may or may not be a valid one. But it's also irrelevant in the present. Personally, I'm not in the habit of buying something today that doesn't provide me with value today, in hopes that some day it will provide that value. That's especially true if I believe that I will be allowed to buy it in the future when and if it does.

So why should I expect companies like Fox and ESPN to do what I wouldn't do? If I spend my own money foolishly, I am the only one who would be hurt. If ESPN and Fox do it, they have to answer to stockholders. The schools you mention won't refuse to take ESPN or Fox money ten years from now just because they didn't offer it to them today. So why shouldn't the ones paying the piper wait until the tune is worth paying for?

(08-10-2019 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Also, JR doesn’t account for any growing mega schools like USF, UCF, Houston, Texas State, etc. These schools are absolutely pumping out alumni, some of which will become huge donors.

He’s got a nice viewpoint, but he doesn’t account for any variables created over time.

Of course I did. None of those schools have the revenue support of donating alums to be relevant to the upper tier for another 30 years. The problem then becomes CFB support period. I've already mentioned numerous times that the Baby Boom which helped to fuel the growth of College Athletics, in particular football, will be essentially a non factor after 2036 when those born in '46 will be 90 or dead, those born in '56 will be 80 or dead, and those born in '62 will be 74.

Past that timeline college football revenue will have peaked and in be in decline. So this realignment is the last hurrah to try to get more revenue for the next decade plus a bit and 10 million in extra revenue per year will be compelling for that reason. I've often wondered why the ACC locked itself into a GOR past the relevance of the Boomers. It seems mighty shortsighted. The X'ers interest is as strong but their collective wealth isn't quite as much and after that all trends are down for quite sometime.

So those you tout are simply going to peak too late for this round, and will probably have to wait a few decades to see if interest in college sports picks back up enough and if their recently graduated growing alumni base has enough wealth to push them to the upper tier of a new age in college sports, if there is one.

As all the boomers finally retire, their jobs will need to be filled, same as Gen X. So there is more money coming to the millennials. It’s just taking longer because people live longer and retire later, especially those lofty university types.

You miss the mark. Each subsequent generation is having to spend more and they inherit less.

In the 60's the richest 5% of the U.S. population controlled about 85% of the wealth. Now they control about closer to 95% of it. The middle class is suffering erosion.

Yes they will take the jobs left by the Boomers, but those jobs will be in far fewer privately owned businesses and for larger corporations. They will not have pensions, and the 401k's and 403b's will likely have been annuitized preventing the balance in those accounts from ever passing to their heirs.

It seems to me Esayem that you are the one not accounting for the changes of the future.

It seems to me that Jr. SEC knows exactly what people in the future will spend their disposable income on.

Boomers were hippies and wannabe counter culture that didn’t care about sports. Then they grew up, made money, and spent it on what spectators spend money on.

First it's JRsec and JR is my name. As far as knowing the future I don't, but I don't have to. I know the trends and projecting them out for 5 or even 10 years is usually fairly reliable with the possible exceptions of Thermonuclear War, Super Volcanic Eruptions, and a revisiting of the 1918 Influenza Epidemic.

The finances are changes that have recently taken place, or are currently being proposed, or in fact have already happened, like the abandonment of pensions.

Hippies were a subset, and a minor one of a few years out of the 16 year Baby Boom. I suggest you revisit recent history and educate yourself. Most early Boomers turned 18 in '64 and marched off to Viet Nam when drafted. It was those born about 1949-54 who were the hippies and then just a small well publicized minority of those 5 years. Those born from 55-62 were more socially conservative than those turning 18 during the height of the Viet Nam war from '67-72. So to classify 5 years out of 16 as representative of the whole era is a rank over categorization and flat out asinine.

Most draft dodgers for the era simply worked on masters degrees and phd's and then spent a lifetime justifying their cowardice and privilege. Very much like many grads of UNC seem to do.

The annuitizing of 403b's is already underway as many nonprofits are fearful of losing the principal that backs their retirement funds to retirement and inheritance. So they pay the recipients off of the interest of what is in their name, pay their spouses 75% if the primary dies, and the children inherit nothing. That's fine for a pension plan. But a 401k and 403b are your and your employers contributions on your behalf and those were subject to lump sum distributions and inheritance.

So it's not hard to see where we are headed with those kinds of plans. 401k's can be borrowed against by the companies sponsoring them since they count as an asset.

Under the previous administration Cass Sunstein proposed ameliorating 401k distributions with your SSI so that you could not exceed a limit set on maximum distributions.

As to the wealth of the middle class that is a fact that is still playing out. It's hardly a reading of the tea leaves. They collectively hold less than they did 30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago, and that is adjusted for inflation.

I suggest you plan your retirement accordingly.

And for the record those schools you hyped for promotion all subsidize football by 25% or more and don't average 50,000 in attendance. B.Y.U. is the only one ready for a bump up. Their donor base is thin as well as is illustrated by their Gross Total Revenue breakdowns. They are easily 10 years away and far more likely 20 years away from consideration. It is why the study the Big 12 did revealed that there was no school they could add that would increase their revenues from among the myriad G5 schools with which they had conversations.

(08-10-2019 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Of course I did. None of those schools have the revenue support of donating alums to be relevant to the upper tier for another 30 years. The problem then becomes CFB support period. I've already mentioned numerous times that the Baby Boom which helped to fuel the growth of College Athletics, in particular football, will be essentially a non factor after 2036 when those born in '46 will be 90 or dead, those born in '56 will be 80 or dead, and those born in '62 will be 74.

Past that timeline college football revenue will have peaked and in be in decline. So this realignment is the last hurrah to try to get more revenue for the next decade plus a bit and 10 million in extra revenue per year will be compelling for that reason. I've often wondered why the ACC locked itself into a GOR past the relevance of the Boomers. It seems mighty shortsighted. The X'ers interest is as strong but their collective wealth isn't quite as much and after that all trends are down for quite sometime.

So those you tout are simply going to peak too late for this round, and will probably have to wait a few decades to see if interest in college sports picks back up enough and if their recently graduated growing alumni base has enough wealth to push them to the upper tier of a new age in college sports, if there is one.

As all the boomers finally retire, their jobs will need to be filled, same as Gen X. So there is more money coming to the millennials. It’s just taking longer because people live longer and retire later, especially those lofty university types.

You miss the mark. Each subsequent generation is having to spend more and they inherit less.

In the 60's the richest 5% of the U.S. population controlled about 85% of the wealth. Now they control about closer to 95% of it. The middle class is suffering erosion.

Yes they will take the jobs left by the Boomers, but those jobs will be in far fewer privately owned businesses and for larger corporations. They will not have pensions, and the 401k's and 403b's will likely have been annuitized preventing the balance in those accounts from ever passing to their heirs.

It seems to me Esayem that you are the one not accounting for the changes of the future.

It seems to me that Jr. SEC knows exactly what people in the future will spend their disposable income on.

Boomers were hippies and wannabe counter culture that didn’t care about sports. Then they grew up, made money, and spent it on what spectators spend money on.

First it's JRsec and JR is my name. As far as knowing the future I don't, but I don't have to. I know the trends and projecting them out for 5 or even 10 years is usually fairly reliable with the possible exceptions of Thermonuclear War, Super Volcanic Eruptions, and a revisiting of the 1918 Influenza Epidemic.

The finances are changes that have recently taken place, or are currently being proposed, or in fact have already happened, like the abandonment of pensions.

Hippies were a subset, and a minor one of a few years out of the 16 year Baby Boom. I suggest you revisit recent history and educate yourself. Most early Boomers turned 18 in '64 and marched off to Viet Nam when drafted. It was those born about 1949-54 who were the hippies and then just a small well publicized minority of those 5 years. Those born from 55-62 were more socially conservative than those turning 18 during the height of the Viet Nam war from '67-72. So to classify 5 years out of 16 as representative of the whole era is a rank over categorization and flat out asinine.

Most draft dodgers for the era simply worked on masters degrees and phd's and then spent a lifetime justifying their cowardice and privilege. Very much like many grads of UNC seem to do.

The annuitizing of 403b's is already underway as many nonprofits are fearful of losing the principal that backs their retirement funds to retirement and inheritance. So they pay the recipients off of the interest of what is in their name, pay their spouses 75% if the primary dies, and the children inherit nothing. That's fine for a pension plan. But a 401k and 403b are your and your employers contributions on your behalf and those were subject to lump sum distributions and inheritance.

So it's not hard to see where we are headed with those kinds of plans. 401k's can be borrowed against by the companies sponsoring them since they count as an asset.

Under the previous administration Cass Sunstein proposed ameliorating 401k distributions with your SSI so that you could not exceed a limit set on maximum distributions.

As to the wealth of the middle class that is a fact that is still playing out. It's hardly a reading of the tea leaves. They collectively hold less than they did 30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago, and that is adjusted for inflation.

I suggest you plan your retirement accordingly.

And for the record those schools you hyped for promotion all subsidize football by 25% or more and don't average 50,000 in attendance. B.Y.U. is the only one ready for a bump up. Their donor base is thin as well as is illustrated by their Gross Total Revenue breakdowns. They are easily 10 years away and far more likely 20 years away from consideration. It is why the study the Big 12 did revealed that there was no school they could add that would increase their revenues from among the myriad G5 schools with which they had conversations.

Educate myself? Plan my retirement accordingly? Know a lot of UNC grads?

Haha okay, bub. Look at attendance in the 70's versus now. I generalized hippies, but most kids in the 70's did not prioritize their college sports teams the way they do now.

The bolded part: right! That is exactly what I was suggesting in the first place. By 2037 there will be more players in the game. This is according to the fact that GIANT universities like the Florida twins and other Texas publics are pumping out grads and are located in football first states. Also, Liberty. Liberty is going to be a player, like it or not. They elbowed their way into the FBS and they're not going anywhere.

(08-10-2019 09:11 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  As all the boomers finally retire, their jobs will need to be filled, same as Gen X. So there is more money coming to the millennials. It’s just taking longer because people live longer and retire later, especially those lofty university types.

You miss the mark. Each subsequent generation is having to spend more and they inherit less.

In the 60's the richest 5% of the U.S. population controlled about 85% of the wealth. Now they control about closer to 95% of it. The middle class is suffering erosion.

Yes they will take the jobs left by the Boomers, but those jobs will be in far fewer privately owned businesses and for larger corporations. They will not have pensions, and the 401k's and 403b's will likely have been annuitized preventing the balance in those accounts from ever passing to their heirs.

It seems to me Esayem that you are the one not accounting for the changes of the future.

It seems to me that Jr. SEC knows exactly what people in the future will spend their disposable income on.

Boomers were hippies and wannabe counter culture that didn’t care about sports. Then they grew up, made money, and spent it on what spectators spend money on.

First it's JRsec and JR is my name. As far as knowing the future I don't, but I don't have to. I know the trends and projecting them out for 5 or even 10 years is usually fairly reliable with the possible exceptions of Thermonuclear War, Super Volcanic Eruptions, and a revisiting of the 1918 Influenza Epidemic.

The finances are changes that have recently taken place, or are currently being proposed, or in fact have already happened, like the abandonment of pensions.

Hippies were a subset, and a minor one of a few years out of the 16 year Baby Boom. I suggest you revisit recent history and educate yourself. Most early Boomers turned 18 in '64 and marched off to Viet Nam when drafted. It was those born about 1949-54 who were the hippies and then just a small well publicized minority of those 5 years. Those born from 55-62 were more socially conservative than those turning 18 during the height of the Viet Nam war from '67-72. So to classify 5 years out of 16 as representative of the whole era is a rank over categorization and flat out asinine.

Most draft dodgers for the era simply worked on masters degrees and phd's and then spent a lifetime justifying their cowardice and privilege. Very much like many grads of UNC seem to do.

The annuitizing of 403b's is already underway as many nonprofits are fearful of losing the principal that backs their retirement funds to retirement and inheritance. So they pay the recipients off of the interest of what is in their name, pay their spouses 75% if the primary dies, and the children inherit nothing. That's fine for a pension plan. But a 401k and 403b are your and your employers contributions on your behalf and those were subject to lump sum distributions and inheritance.

So it's not hard to see where we are headed with those kinds of plans. 401k's can be borrowed against by the companies sponsoring them since they count as an asset.

Under the previous administration Cass Sunstein proposed ameliorating 401k distributions with your SSI so that you could not exceed a limit set on maximum distributions.

As to the wealth of the middle class that is a fact that is still playing out. It's hardly a reading of the tea leaves. They collectively hold less than they did 30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago, and that is adjusted for inflation.

I suggest you plan your retirement accordingly.

And for the record those schools you hyped for promotion all subsidize football by 25% or more and don't average 50,000 in attendance. B.Y.U. is the only one ready for a bump up. Their donor base is thin as well as is illustrated by their Gross Total Revenue breakdowns. They are easily 10 years away and far more likely 20 years away from consideration. It is why the study the Big 12 did revealed that there was no school they could add that would increase their revenues from among the myriad G5 schools with which they had conversations.

Educate myself? Plan my retirement accordingly? Know a lot of UNC grads?

Haha okay, bub. Look at attendance in the 70's versus now. I generalized hippies, but most kids in the 70's did not prioritize their college sports teams the way they do now.

The bolded part: right! That is exactly what I was suggesting in the first place. By 2037 there will be more players in the game. This is according to the fact that GIANT universities like the Florida twins and other Texas publics are pumping out grads and are located in football first states. Also, Liberty. Liberty is going to be a player, like it or not. They elbowed their way into the FBS and they're not going anywhere.

They'll need to average 60,000 per game, no longer rely on subsidies and make twice as much off of donations as they do off of TV revenue to even have a shot.

And what you don't get is that their grads aren't coming from Ivy League Schools, top privates or AAU top 50 schools. Their % of CEO's per graduating class will be very small. And wage and low grade salary earners aren't going to be able to donate twice the TV revenue in a country where middle class wealth is evaporating.

We are going to go through a period where there are less P schools not more and that period could be starting by 2025.

If an Amazon gets involved it could shrink even more with the plan they've talked about (essentially paying the top 40 brands between 70 to 80 million each annually to form a league and end conferences for football. While we will cross that bridge in time that concept has already been floated).

And number of graduates doesn't translate into a solid market for football and if anyone should know that it is a graduate of an ACC school.

JRsec,

two things

1) Borrowed money, student fees and institutional transfers count as "revenue"

This skews your totals for valuation. I suspect what is going with KU. They must be borrowing, as donations are only $23M, but $111M ($70M too much) is in the "not by gender or team" category. They are upgrading everything. Already approved Baseball and Basketball facility improvements of $22M. Will this pay off for KU or just be a debt burden like the Cal Stadium renovation (eating a good $10-12M a year out of their athletic budget)? The Football stadium needs it, they are behind the entire B12 in that category.

I prefer to look at the ticket sales and donations, annual expenses for Football and Basketball, and attendance numbers to get a good read on where programs really stand. KU is weak here, but they are investing.

Note: it took some sleuthing, but I found some data from a BYU insider on the 2016-17 season. Basketball and Football tickets sales were about $12.4M for that year, with a little over $400K for the other sports. If you figure they kept pace with inflation, the last three years, then $14-15M is a good estimate for their ticket sales, which is double anyone else in G5 and solidly P5. Donations were only $7.4M, which again we can project to about $8.5M if keeping pace, $10M is doing better -- this is the one category BYU is not solidly P5, but it's still about top 5 G5.

2) Is your name JR or is JR an abbreviation for something like James Robert?

A friend of my grandfather was from Texas and his parents named him "L". So when he went into the Army his name was recorded as 'L only'; so in boot camp his DI called him "Lonely"... the nickname stuck, like a character from some B Western.

(08-10-2019 10:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

two things

1) Borrowed money, student fees and institutional transfers count as "revenue"

This skews your totals for valuation. I suspect what is going with KU. They must be borrowing, as donations are only $23M, but $111M ($70M too much) is in the "not by gender or team" category. They are upgrading everything. Already approved Baseball and Basketball facility improvements of $22M. Will this pay off for KU or just be a debt burden like the Cal Stadium renovation (eating a good $10-12M a year out of their athletic budget)? The Football stadium needs it, they are behind the entire B12 in that category.

I prefer to look at the ticket sales and donations, annual expenses for Football and Basketball, and attendance numbers to get a good read on where programs really stand. KU is weak here, but they are investing.

Note: it took some sleuthing, but I found some data from a BYU insider on the 2016-17 season. Basketball and Football tickets sales were about $12.4M for that year, with a little over $400K for the other sports. If you figure they kept pace with inflation, the last three years, then $14-15M is a good estimate for their ticket sales, which is double anyone else in G5 and solidly P5. Donations were only $7.4M, which again we can project to about $8.5M if keeping pace, $10M is doing better -- this is the one category BYU is not solidly P5, but it's still about top 5 G5.

2) Is your name JR or is JR an abbreviation for something like James Robert?

A friend of my grandfather was from Texas and his parents named him "L". So when he went into the Army his name was recorded as 'L only'; so in boot camp his DI called "Lonely"... the nickname stuck, like a character form some B Western.

Thanks for making an important distinction. I knew that subsidies were included in the totals. I prepared the % of subsidy for those he named out and the least among them was 37.48% but I didn't have the figures for B.Y.U. and hadn't been to the Equity in Athletics site to try to decipher it yet. So thanks on that!

Nice story on Lonely. JR is an abbreviation (and not Junior).

(08-10-2019 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 09:11 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 04:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You miss the mark. Each subsequent generation is having to spend more and they inherit less.

In the 60's the richest 5% of the U.S. population controlled about 85% of the wealth. Now they control about closer to 95% of it. The middle class is suffering erosion.

Yes they will take the jobs left by the Boomers, but those jobs will be in far fewer privately owned businesses and for larger corporations. They will not have pensions, and the 401k's and 403b's will likely have been annuitized preventing the balance in those accounts from ever passing to their heirs.

It seems to me Esayem that you are the one not accounting for the changes of the future.

It seems to me that Jr. SEC knows exactly what people in the future will spend their disposable income on.

Boomers were hippies and wannabe counter culture that didn’t care about sports. Then they grew up, made money, and spent it on what spectators spend money on.

First it's JRsec and JR is my name. As far as knowing the future I don't, but I don't have to. I know the trends and projecting them out for 5 or even 10 years is usually fairly reliable with the possible exceptions of Thermonuclear War, Super Volcanic Eruptions, and a revisiting of the 1918 Influenza Epidemic.

The finances are changes that have recently taken place, or are currently being proposed, or in fact have already happened, like the abandonment of pensions.

Hippies were a subset, and a minor one of a few years out of the 16 year Baby Boom. I suggest you revisit recent history and educate yourself. Most early Boomers turned 18 in '64 and marched off to Viet Nam when drafted. It was those born about 1949-54 who were the hippies and then just a small well publicized minority of those 5 years. Those born from 55-62 were more socially conservative than those turning 18 during the height of the Viet Nam war from '67-72. So to classify 5 years out of 16 as representative of the whole era is a rank over categorization and flat out asinine.

Most draft dodgers for the era simply worked on masters degrees and phd's and then spent a lifetime justifying their cowardice and privilege. Very much like many grads of UNC seem to do.

The annuitizing of 403b's is already underway as many nonprofits are fearful of losing the principal that backs their retirement funds to retirement and inheritance. So they pay the recipients off of the interest of what is in their name, pay their spouses 75% if the primary dies, and the children inherit nothing. That's fine for a pension plan. But a 401k and 403b are your and your employers contributions on your behalf and those were subject to lump sum distributions and inheritance.

So it's not hard to see where we are headed with those kinds of plans. 401k's can be borrowed against by the companies sponsoring them since they count as an asset.

Under the previous administration Cass Sunstein proposed ameliorating 401k distributions with your SSI so that you could not exceed a limit set on maximum distributions.

As to the wealth of the middle class that is a fact that is still playing out. It's hardly a reading of the tea leaves. They collectively hold less than they did 30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago, and that is adjusted for inflation.

I suggest you plan your retirement accordingly.

And for the record those schools you hyped for promotion all subsidize football by 25% or more and don't average 50,000 in attendance. B.Y.U. is the only one ready for a bump up. Their donor base is thin as well as is illustrated by their Gross Total Revenue breakdowns. They are easily 10 years away and far more likely 20 years away from consideration. It is why the study the Big 12 did revealed that there was no school they could add that would increase their revenues from among the myriad G5 schools with which they had conversations.

Educate myself? Plan my retirement accordingly? Know a lot of UNC grads?

Haha okay, bub. Look at attendance in the 70's versus now. I generalized hippies, but most kids in the 70's did not prioritize their college sports teams the way they do now.

The bolded part: right! That is exactly what I was suggesting in the first place. By 2037 there will be more players in the game. This is according to the fact that GIANT universities like the Florida twins and other Texas publics are pumping out grads and are located in football first states. Also, Liberty. Liberty is going to be a player, like it or not. They elbowed their way into the FBS and they're not going anywhere.

They'll need to average 60,000 per game, no longer rely on subsidies and make twice as much off of donations as they do off of TV revenue to even have a shot.

And what you don't get is that their grads aren't coming from Ivy League Schools, top privates or AAU top 50 schools. Their % of CEO's per graduating class will be very small. And wage and low grade salary earners aren't going to be able to donate twice the TV revenue in a country where middle class wealth is evaporating.

We are going to go through a period where there are less P schools not more and that period could be starting by 2025.

If an Amazon gets involved it could shrink even more with the plan they've talked about (essentially paying the top 40 brands between 70 to 80 million each annually to form a league and end conferences for football. While we will cross that bridge in time that concept has already been floated.

And number of graduates doesn't translate into a solid market for football and if anyone should know that it is a graduate of an ACC school.

Amazon University, ugh. I can see it now: on a dark and cloudy January evening, the Amazon Jaguars win their tenth straight national championship.

(08-10-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:49 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Let’s see what the economic factors look like a few years from now. This much earlier than the 2010 shuffle and the BTN wasn’t looking like much- much less the primary factor that kickstarted a realignment round.

Let’s see what the board looks like when it’s closer

I remember betting you two rep points that the Big 12 would not expand past the 10 they became when they took T.C.U. and West Virginia. I was right then and I'm still right now.

The only thing changing is the pay model and it favors the Big 12 even less than than the market model because you only have two brands.

We won't have long to wait. Things will be cleared up by 2023. The only real issue is whether the FAANG's get involved and whether that creates an upper league as opposed to a P4.

Are you suggesting that the FAANG's will tempt and destroy conferences? That FAANGs will buy out all of the conference GOR's and that University administrators will turn their backs on each other for money?

I’m coming around to the idea that Oklahoma will leave the Big 12 in 2026 but that Texas will stick around until the original LHN deal ends.

Here are my thoughts on FAANG:

If they wanted to create a super league they’d make a deal for the SEC rights on the condition that they add 10-14 ACC and Big 12 schools to the consortium. That would lump the lion share of the value of 3 conferences into an organization the size of 2. It’s not truly national but aside from the top half of the Big Ten and top third of the PAC 12 they’d hold the bulk of the market share.

The South seems to be the one place where college football interest is still holding very strong even for programs who perform poorly on the field. Elsewhere, it seems like only the schools who are winning are holding steady.