IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

That's IMO the problem with listening to current media partners about who to expand with. They are (quite naturally) looking out for their interests not yours. They can leave the situation when the contract ends, but the conference is stuck with bad adds basically forever.

So a no-go, IMO.

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.

If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.
If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I just do not know what to think about hoops valuations. One one hand, it is clear that at places like Louisville, the school makes a ton of money off of its hoops. IIRC they make like $30m a year in profit off their team. That is a gold-mine.

But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. I imagine Kansas is similar. Or I may be wrong about this. I mean, sure, big-brand-name hoops teams like Kansas and Duke surely draw high ratings, but from what I've heard, basketball ratings just don't drive much value in media deals. And with Duke we'd have to wonder whether they can sustain after Coach K.

That said, if the SEC was forced to take a single school from the nB12, I would think Kansas was the best choice, because of hoops and their flagship status.

(08-28-2022 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.
If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I just do not know what to think about hoops valuations. One one hand, it is clear that at places like Louisville, the school makes a ton of money off of its hoops. IIRC they make like $30m a year in profit off their team. That is a gold-mine.

But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. I imagine Kansas is similar. Or I may be wrong about this. I mean, sure, big-brand-name hoops teams like Kansas and Duke surely draw high ratings, but from what I've heard, basketball ratings just don't drive much value in media deals. And with Duke we'd have to wonder whether they can sustain after Coach K.

That said, if the SEC was forced to take a single school from the nB12, I would think Kansas was the best choice, because of hoops and their flagship status.

You can multiply hoops valuations x 2.25 if the break away and then use X/2.25xcurrent valuation in a ratio to current earnings over current valuation to determine revenue value. Kansas is second only to N.D. in that valuation formula and Louisville which earns the 15th greatest Gross Total Revenue would shoot up close top 10. But none of that happens with the NCAA in control.

(08-28-2022 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. ...

Hence:

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no....

The media money is in the NCAA Tourney contract, which is used for things like paying the salaries of the people who work for the NCAA, and to cover net tournament costs for the tournaments that are do not cover their costs with ticket revenues, before arriving at the notional profit, which is then distributed in a variety of ways in addition to the distributions to the conferences based on how many appearances their schools had in the tournament.

Get the national college basketball tournament with similar gross earnings to conference revenue relationship as the CFP, and basketball becomes more important to the major conferences. It would still be nowhere near parity, but a shift back down to something like 3:1 overall would substantially change the appeal of a school like Kansas.

(08-28-2022 06:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. ...

Hence:

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no....

The media money is in the NCAA Tourney contract, which is used for things like paying the salaries of the people who work for the NCAA, and to cover net tournament costs for the tournaments that are do not cover their costs with ticket revenues, before arriving at the notional profit, which is then distributed in a variety of ways in addition to the distributions to the conferences based on how many appearances their schools had in the tournament.

Get the national college basketball tournament with similar gross earnings to conference revenue relationship as the CFP, and basketball becomes more important to the major conferences. It would still be nowhere near parity, but a shift back down to something like 3:1 overall would substantially change the appeal of a school like Kansas.

Well, a couple things come to mind, and correct me if I am misapprehending some of your points:

1) Yes, hoops is at a disadvantage when it comes to the post-season, because CFP money goes straight to the conferences, whereas the NCAA takes about 40% of the NCAA tournament money for various expenses.

But, regarding media money, when the B1G signs for $75m a year, that IIRC is for their football regular season, their games and CCG. Has nothing to do with the CFP. They also get paid for their regular season basketball (and conference tournament as well).

So IIRC, when analysts say that football is about 80% of the value of a conference media deal, a figure I see bandied about, then that IMO is an apples-apples comparison of football vs hoops value.

2) I am not sure bringing hoops in to the same kind of arrangement as the CFP solves a problem, because as much as I dislike the NCAA edifice, it does IMO perform essential services. Championships for all those other sports, sports other than hoops and football, will still have to be paid for. Administrators will still have to be paid for pan-conference governance, etc.

Now sure, from a hoops vs football POV, those costs should be split between hoops and football, but I am not sure things change dramatically.

What I mean is, IIRC, a conference like the SEC gets an average of about $90m a year from the CFP, including its Sugar and Orange bowl contracts. That comes out to about $6m per school.

If the NCAA somehow went away and that $450 million NCAA tourney money it keeps for itself (about 40% of $1.1B revenue) went to the conferences, even if the P5 kept all of it, that's an extra $90m for the SEC, or about $6m per school. That's just not that much, IMO. Assuming the G5 gets 20%, same as the CFP, that knocks it down to $72m.

IMO, there just isn't a lot of hoops value locked up in the NCAA that can be unleashed to make the Kansases and Louisvilles of the world significantly more valuable than they are. But maybe I am missing some points.

Really, IMO, probably the largest "oil shale" type body of untapped wealth out there between hoops and football is on the football side not hoops side - the reported increase from $600m in the current CFP to say $1.5 Billion that could be unlocked by expanding to a 12-team football playoff.

(08-29-2022 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 06:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. ...

Hence:

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no....

The media money is in the NCAA Tourney contract, which is used for things like paying the salaries of the people who work for the NCAA, and to cover net tournament costs for the tournaments that are do not cover their costs with ticket revenues, before arriving at the notional profit, which is then distributed in a variety of ways in addition to the distributions to the conferences based on how many appearances their schools had in the tournament.

Get the national college basketball tournament with similar gross earnings to conference revenue relationship as the CFP, and basketball becomes more important to the major conferences. It would still be nowhere near parity, but a shift back down to something like 3:1 overall would substantially change the appeal of a school like Kansas.

Well, a couple things come to mind, and correct me if I am misapprehending some of your points:

1) Yes, hoops is at a disadvantage when it comes to the post-season, because CFP money goes straight to the conferences, whereas the NCAA takes about 40% of the NCAA tournament money for various expenses.

But, regarding media money, when the B1G signs for $75m a year, that IIRC is for their football regular season, their games and CCG. Has nothing to do with the CFP. They also get paid for their regular season basketball (and conference tournament as well).

So IIRC, when analysts say that football is about 80% of the value of a conference media deal, a figure I see bandied about, then that IMO is an apples-apples comparison of football vs hoops value.

2) I am not sure bringing hoops in to the same kind of arrangement as the CFP solves a problem, because as much as I dislike the NCAA edifice, it does IMO perform essential services. Championships for all those other sports, sports other than hoops and football, will still have to be paid for. Administrators will still have to be paid for pan-conference governance, etc.

Now sure, from a hoops vs football POV, those costs should be split between hoops and football, but I am not sure things change dramatically.

What I mean is, IIRC, a conference like the SEC gets an average of about $90m a year from the CFP, including its Sugar and Orange bowl contracts. That comes out to about $6m per school.

If the NCAA somehow went away and that $450 million NCAA tourney money it keeps for itself (about 40% of $1.1B revenue) went to the conferences, even if the P5 kept all of it, that's an extra $90m for the SEC, or about $6m per school. That's just not that much, IMO. Assuming the G5 gets 20%, same as the CFP, that knocks it down to $72m.

IMO, there just isn't a lot of hoops value locked up in the NCAA that can be unleashed to make the Kansases and Louisvilles of the world significantly more valuable than they are. But maybe I am missing some points.

Really, IMO, probably the largest "oil shale" type body of untapped wealth out there between hoops and football is on the football side not hoops side - the reported increase from $600m in the current CFP to say $1.5 Billion that could be unlocked by expanding to a 12-team football playoff.

Well Quo on the average year the NCAA pays out ~250 million in tourney creds of 1.1 billion of the tourney money. Where do you get this it keeps about 40% for itself stuff. It's the institutionalized socialism which you don't really address that's the issue.

With a breakaway hoops tourney worth 1.1 billion the payout would be 50/50 and the schools would get 550 million, not 250 million. No redo your calculations. It's one thing to be shed of the NCAA, it's another to stop funding programs which don't fund themselves.

Oh and this doesn't even touch on the 70 million plus a year endowed by the NCAA into one of their 2 funds. f

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.

If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

Not so sure about a smallish market. Louisville and Kentucky have fan support in a lot of places,not just Kentucky. They both travel well and don't mind spending the money. It's not like there are already states that have 2 schools in their states and if You add 2 N.C school, 2 Va. schools , Florida with maybe 3 schools and with GT there's 4 more with 2 schools in each state. Louisville has a 65000 seat fairly new stadium and a 24000 seat arena top of the line arena. last 2 years were off but when back on track Louisville can be very successful in FB, BB both in MBB, WBB, Baseball, Women's Volleyball, Soccer. Bottom line the city and school are very sports savvy and without a Pro team in state College sports are King.

(08-29-2022 10:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-29-2022 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 06:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. ...

Hence:

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no....

The media money is in the NCAA Tourney contract, which is used for things like paying the salaries of the people who work for the NCAA, and to cover net tournament costs for the tournaments that are do not cover their costs with ticket revenues, before arriving at the notional profit, which is then distributed in a variety of ways in addition to the distributions to the conferences based on how many appearances their schools had in the tournament.

Get the national college basketball tournament with similar gross earnings to conference revenue relationship as the CFP, and basketball becomes more important to the major conferences. It would still be nowhere near parity, but a shift back down to something like 3:1 overall would substantially change the appeal of a school like Kansas.

Well, a couple things come to mind, and correct me if I am misapprehending some of your points:

1) Yes, hoops is at a disadvantage when it comes to the post-season, because CFP money goes straight to the conferences, whereas the NCAA takes about 40% of the NCAA tournament money for various expenses.

But, regarding media money, when the B1G signs for $75m a year, that IIRC is for their football regular season, their games and CCG. Has nothing to do with the CFP. They also get paid for their regular season basketball (and conference tournament as well).

So IIRC, when analysts say that football is about 80% of the value of a conference media deal, a figure I see bandied about, then that IMO is an apples-apples comparison of football vs hoops value.

2) I am not sure bringing hoops in to the same kind of arrangement as the CFP solves a problem, because as much as I dislike the NCAA edifice, it does IMO perform essential services. Championships for all those other sports, sports other than hoops and football, will still have to be paid for. Administrators will still have to be paid for pan-conference governance, etc.

Now sure, from a hoops vs football POV, those costs should be split between hoops and football, but I am not sure things change dramatically.

What I mean is, IIRC, a conference like the SEC gets an average of about $90m a year from the CFP, including its Sugar and Orange bowl contracts. That comes out to about $6m per school.

If the NCAA somehow went away and that $450 million NCAA tourney money it keeps for itself (about 40% of $1.1B revenue) went to the conferences, even if the P5 kept all of it, that's an extra $90m for the SEC, or about $6m per school. That's just not that much, IMO. Assuming the G5 gets 20%, same as the CFP, that knocks it down to $72m.

IMO, there just isn't a lot of hoops value locked up in the NCAA that can be unleashed to make the Kansases and Louisvilles of the world significantly more valuable than they are. But maybe I am missing some points.

Really, IMO, probably the largest "oil shale" type body of untapped wealth out there between hoops and football is on the football side not hoops side - the reported increase from $600m in the current CFP to say $1.5 Billion that could be unlocked by expanding to a 12-team football playoff.

Well Quo on the average year the NCAA pays out ~250 million in tourney creds of 1.1 billion of the tourney money. Where do you get this it keeps about 40% for itself stuff. It's the institutionalized socialism which you don't really address that's the issue.

With a breakaway hoops tourney worth 1.1 billion the payout would be 50/50 and the schools would get 550 million, not 250 million. No redo your calculations. It's one thing to be shed of the NCAA, it's another to stop funding programs which don't fund themselves.

Oh and this doesn't even touch on the 70 million plus a year endowed by the NCAA into one of their 2 funds. f

About where I get the numbers from. The below link says that the NCAA distributed $613m out of its $1.15B revenue in 2021 back to its members. That's about 53%, so my 60% figure was too high.

But OK, let's take those numbers and address the issues of NCAA bloat and also socialism.

I think it likely that the NCAA, like any longstanding bureaucracy, suffers from administrative bloat. Still, it also likely performs functions that any replacement organization would have to, like provide pan-conference governance and run the championships for the other sports. So let's say half of that $500m it keeps is pure inefficient bloat. Saving $250m by eliminating the bloat adds another $250m that can go back to the schools. So we're now at about $870m that can be distributed to the conferences.

If the P5 get all of that, then that is $175m per conference. Right now, each P5 gets on average about $30m in tournament credits each year, so that's a net increase of about $145m a year. That's great, about $10m more per school per year for a 14 team conference, or about $9m for a 16-team conference.

But, the P5 isn't keeping all of that, I don't think. The G5 will get 20% like they do in the CFP, and let's say the other conferences get 5%, bringing the P5 total to 75%. So now we're at around $130m per P5 conference, about $100m if we subtract out what they typically already get. For a 16-team conference, $100m is about $6m - $7m per school.

Excellent. But, IMO not anything like game-changing money.

Also, this number is likely over-estimated, because while the NCAA distributes $600m to schools, only about $170m a year is in the form of the tourney-credit payouts (great bulk of which go to the P5). The rest is stuff like scholarships and other grants. Now, that is surely very socialistic, but the P5 schools get their share of that too. If we assume that the P5 currently get $100m of that $430m "leftover" money that the members get, then that brings the net increase for each P5 down to about $80m per conference per year, or about $5m per school per year.

Beyond that, I'm not sure how adding a Kansas or a Louisville helps the SEC (or any other conference) get more of that. In football, playoff money is largely guaranteed money. In the CFP, in a year where the Sugar Bowl isn't a playoff, the SEC gets about $100m, guaranteed. If an SEC team makes the playoffs, that goes to $106m. Get two in and it is $112m. That's it, the great bulk of the money is guaranteed, having great teams means relatively little.

This is so with the NCAA tourney as well. As mentioned above, about 27% of the $600m distributed to schools is of the "eat what you kill" variety, the tourney credits. Because schools/conferences want guaranteed money. I don't see that changing if NCAA tournament money distributed goes up 40% or so. The same basic model will prevail, IMO. The eat-kill proportion will rise from about $170m to $235m. That's to be divided among everyone, so not game-changing money at all, IMO.

Again, IMO, the real untapped source of wealth out there isn't in the NCAA tourney, it is in the value of an expanded football playoffs. That could bring in an extra $200m or so a year to each P5, if the current money triples. So IMO it is unlikely to be worth it to the SEC or B1G to bring schools on primarily for their hoops.


https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...rns-normal

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.

If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I've waffled back n forth on whether KS or Duke would be more likely to the B10 or the SEC. Just seems like a lot of variables to parse.

I think for Duke it really depends on what happens with NC. I think they are more likely to get added somewhere with them, than without them. Though I think the pair is different for each: SEC - NC and NC state; B10 -NC and Duke.

Kansas really doesn't need a partner for either conference, since SEC has MO, and B10 has NE. So KS could fit in easily in both. Though, I think it leans more towards B10, since KS is more of a bball school than a football one.

And I've been reading your points about Louisville, with interest.

Though I think they only get added to the SEC if the B10 manages to take enough ACC schools that the SEC has an odd number of schools. They may not be first choice, but I think they get an invite if going over 20.

(09-19-2022 09:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.

If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I've waffled back n forth on whether KS or Duke would be more likely to the B10 or the SEC. Just seems like a lot of variables to parse.

I think for Duke it really depends on what happens with NC. I think they are more likely to get added somewhere with them, than without them. Though I think the pair is different for each: SEC - NC and NC state; B10 -NC and Duke.

Kansas really doesn't need a partner for either conference, since SEC has MO, and B10 has NE. So KS could fit in easily in both. Though, I think it leans more towards B10, since KS is more of a bball school than a football one.

And I've been reading your points about Louisville, with interest.

Though I think they only get added to the SEC if the B10 manages to take enough ACC schools that the SEC has an odd number of schools. They may not be first choice, but I think they get an invite if going over 20.

The SEC will land Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina when or should the ACC crack. Duke or NC State will be UNC's call. But, it won't end there. To secure that 4 the SEC might add Duke, both Virginias and Georgia Tech. Tell me those 8 don't want to stick together.

I can even envision all but football additions.

It doesn't matter that only 4 have a real football pedigree and that 2 of them are fading. Georgia Tech is almost half of Atlanta and Georgia and Auburn covers most of the rest with some Clemson and South Carolina tossed in.

The only real stretch for the SEC is Virginia and if Tobacco Road sticks together the presidents will love it, so Va Tech is the cement.

It looks good on paper for the Big Ten but it will be the Texas / Oklahoma storyline all over again.

The B1G will wind up with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, Kansas, Colorado, Notre Dame, and either Missouri, Syracuse or Utah.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

I still see this as more likely should the ACC break up.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

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

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

If Missouri stays Miami is out, Missouri takes Ole Miss's place in the West, Florida State shifts to the East, and Ole Miss goes to the central.

(09-20-2022 12:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 09:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.

If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I've waffled back n forth on whether KS or Duke would be more likely to the B10 or the SEC. Just seems like a lot of variables to parse.

I think for Duke it really depends on what happens with NC. I think they are more likely to get added somewhere with them, than without them. Though I think the pair is different for each: SEC - NC and NC state; B10 -NC and Duke.

Kansas really doesn't need a partner for either conference, since SEC has MO, and B10 has NE. So KS could fit in easily in both. Though, I think it leans more towards B10, since KS is more of a bball school than a football one.

And I've been reading your points about Louisville, with interest.

Though I think they only get added to the SEC if the B10 manages to take enough ACC schools that the SEC has an odd number of schools. They may not be first choice, but I think they get an invite if going over 20.

The SEC will land Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina when or should the ACC crack. Duke or NC State will be UNC's call. But, it won't end there. To secure that 4 the SEC might add Duke, both Virginias and Georgia Tech. Tell me those 8 don't want to stick together.

[...]

The only real stretch for the SEC is Virginia and if Tobacco Road sticks together the presidents will love it, so Va Tech is the cement.

[...]

I still see this as more likely should the ACC break up.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

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

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

If Missouri stays Miami is out, Missouri takes Ole Miss's place in the West, Florida State shifts to the East, and Ole Miss goes to the central.

That would be a solid 8 - though I think Kansas, Miami, or Louisville might sneak in instead of Virginia and/or even Duke. hard to say.

And part of me strongly thinks that Missouri's not leaving the SEC. But then when I look at other circumstances, rivalries, etc. I think maybe Missouri should join the B10. I guess it really just depends on circumstances and how it's handled.

I really get the impression on this board that they wouldn't mind if Missouri and South Carolina left the SEC. But to have a school to actually leave? I dunno. I've asked the question, but the answers haven't seemed very persuasive.

(09-20-2022 12:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It looks good on paper for the Big Ten but it will be the Texas / Oklahoma storyline all over again.

The B1G will wind up with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, Kansas, Colorado, Notre Dame, and either Missouri, Syracuse or Utah.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ND won't happen anytime soon, if ever.

And KS and the PAC schools are possible, some maybe even likely.

But I could well see the B10 also deciding to not add anyone at all.

(08-22-2022 10:42 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Imagine if espn decides that they don't want to fund both the B12 and the PAC. And possibly neither.

The easiest way to do so would be to get the SEC and ACC to grab the stronger (non-texas) schools from the B12. Just tell each conference that they will increase the per-school payments if those schools are added. In other words, spending the money on the ACC and SEC, instead of on the other conferences.

By doing so, it eliminates the Kansas choice for the B10, and nudges them towards PAC schools. Which likely pushes the rest of the PAC schools to the B12.

And the ACC adding schools reduces the ability/options for schools to evade the GoR. So it becomes less of a target on the near term.

So the SEC adds Kansas and OK state. And the ACC adds Cin, WV, and UCF. (and Memphis or USF, for 4).

That reduces the B12 to 7. Stanford and Cal may be less likely to join, but the other 8 likely would. Then just add BSU or SMU, and that's 16, til the B10 comes inviting 4, and then the B12 is back to 12.

If no B10 invite, Call likely joins WCC for all-sports except football, to the MWC.

And then, the PAC is gone - no need for espn to spend money there. And they can decide if it's worth spending money on the new B12.

Q: Could the ESPN, perhaps with some assistance from the other networks, engineer a transformation of the P5 to a P3?

A: Of course they could.

Q: Would it make sense? Should they do so?

A: It's hard to think of any purpose that doing so would serve.

Q: Would there be any disadvantages?

A: Yes, definitely. Instead of having teams competing for 5 different conference titles, there would only be 3 conference titles to compete for. In addition, rather than having conferences representing various regions of the country, there might only be a northern conference, a southern conference, and a central/western conference or something like that. Too much homogenization. Regional variations are inherently interesting.

Q: Are the networks in danger of ruining college football with all their monkeying around?

A: Yes, if they haven't already ruined it (at least, the P5). As the adage goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

(09-20-2022 01:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 12:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 09:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO there are no schools in the nB12 that come close to adding value to the SEC.

Even if ESPN offered to kick in more money now, what about when the deal expires in 2034? Then you are stuck with low-value teams.

So a no-go, IMO.

If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I've waffled back n forth on whether KS or Duke would be more likely to the B10 or the SEC. Just seems like a lot of variables to parse.

I think for Duke it really depends on what happens with NC. I think they are more likely to get added somewhere with them, than without them. Though I think the pair is different for each: SEC - NC and NC state; B10 -NC and Duke.

Kansas really doesn't need a partner for either conference, since SEC has MO, and B10 has NE. So KS could fit in easily in both. Though, I think it leans more towards B10, since KS is more of a bball school than a football one.

And I've been reading your points about Louisville, with interest.

Though I think they only get added to the SEC if the B10 manages to take enough ACC schools that the SEC has an odd number of schools. They may not be first choice, but I think they get an invite if going over 20.

The SEC will land Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina when or should the ACC crack. Duke or NC State will be UNC's call. But, it won't end there. To secure that 4 the SEC might add Duke, both Virginias and Georgia Tech. Tell me those 8 don't want to stick together.

[...]

The only real stretch for the SEC is Virginia and if Tobacco Road sticks together the presidents will love it, so Va Tech is the cement.

[...]

I still see this as more likely should the ACC break up.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

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

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

If Missouri stays Miami is out, Missouri takes Ole Miss's place in the West, Florida State shifts to the East, and Ole Miss goes to the central.

That would be a solid 8 - though I think Kansas, Miami, or Louisville might sneak in instead of Virginia and/or even Duke. hard to say.

And part of me strongly thinks that Missouri's not leaving the SEC. But then when I look at other circumstances, rivalries, etc. I think maybe Missouri should join the B10. I guess it really just depends on circumstances and how it's handled.

I really get the impression on this board that they wouldn't mind if Missouri and South Carolina left the SEC. But to have a school to actually leave? I dunno. I've asked the question, but the answers haven't seemed very persuasive.

(09-20-2022 12:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It looks good on paper for the Big Ten but it will be the Texas / Oklahoma storyline all over again.

The B1G will wind up with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, Kansas, Colorado, Notre Dame, and either Missouri, Syracuse or Utah.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ND won't happen anytime soon, if ever.

And KS and the PAC schools are possible, some maybe even likely.

But I could well see the B10 also deciding to not add anyone at all.

If Missouri left it would be to go with Kansas and it would solely be their choice. South Carolina's not going anywhere. They want to sponsor Clemson.

The thing about N.D. is if the ACC sinks beneath them they'll either need a deal from the SEC or will knuckle under and accept regional play in the Big 10. I doubt they'd take a partial in a diminished B12. No history there.

If the Big 10 stopped at 20 the SEC likely would as well. The issue however will be how effectively the new playoff money and the need for high inventory value as well as more balanced conferences will lead to 24. A single school's value won't be as important as the number of conference games available for broadcast and market reach.

If the Rose and Sugar Bowls are to remain iconic a balance in house will be needed to make them compelling. That is easier for the Big 10 with 6 to 8 PAC schools. The SEC would have only 5 Big 12 schools if the added Kansas, with Arkansas sufficing as a SWC sub for #6.

We'll see.

(09-20-2022 02:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 01:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 12:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 09:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no. BTW, ditto for Duke, and the school which really shoots up in value is Louisville, which financially would be in contention now if not hampered by a smallish state's duplicated market.

I've waffled back n forth on whether KS or Duke would be more likely to the B10 or the SEC. Just seems like a lot of variables to parse.

I think for Duke it really depends on what happens with NC. I think they are more likely to get added somewhere with them, than without them. Though I think the pair is different for each: SEC - NC and NC state; B10 -NC and Duke.

Kansas really doesn't need a partner for either conference, since SEC has MO, and B10 has NE. So KS could fit in easily in both. Though, I think it leans more towards B10, since KS is more of a bball school than a football one.

And I've been reading your points about Louisville, with interest.

Though I think they only get added to the SEC if the B10 manages to take enough ACC schools that the SEC has an odd number of schools. They may not be first choice, but I think they get an invite if going over 20.

The SEC will land Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina when or should the ACC crack. Duke or NC State will be UNC's call. But, it won't end there. To secure that 4 the SEC might add Duke, both Virginias and Georgia Tech. Tell me those 8 don't want to stick together.

[...]

The only real stretch for the SEC is Virginia and if Tobacco Road sticks together the presidents will love it, so Va Tech is the cement.

[...]

I still see this as more likely should the ACC break up.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

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

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

If Missouri stays Miami is out, Missouri takes Ole Miss's place in the West, Florida State shifts to the East, and Ole Miss goes to the central.

That would be a solid 8 - though I think Kansas, Miami, or Louisville might sneak in instead of Virginia and/or even Duke. hard to say.

And part of me strongly thinks that Missouri's not leaving the SEC. But then when I look at other circumstances, rivalries, etc. I think maybe Missouri should join the B10. I guess it really just depends on circumstances and how it's handled.

I really get the impression on this board that they wouldn't mind if Missouri and South Carolina left the SEC. But to have a school to actually leave? I dunno. I've asked the question, but the answers haven't seemed very persuasive.

(09-20-2022 12:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It looks good on paper for the Big Ten but it will be the Texas / Oklahoma storyline all over again.

The B1G will wind up with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, Kansas, Colorado, Notre Dame, and either Missouri, Syracuse or Utah.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ND won't happen anytime soon, if ever.

And KS and the PAC schools are possible, some maybe even likely.

But I could well see the B10 also deciding to not add anyone at all.

If Missouri left it would be to go with Kansas and it would solely be their choice. South Carolina's not going anywhere. They want to sponsor Clemson.

The thing about N.D. is if the ACC sinks beneath them they'll either need a deal from the SEC or will knuckle under and accept regional play in the Big 10. I doubt they'd take a partial in a diminished B12. No history there.

If the Big 10 stopped at 20 the SEC likely would as well. The issue however will be how effectively the new playoff money and the need for high inventory value as well as more balanced conferences will lead to 24. A single school's value won't be as important as the number of conference games available for broadcast and market reach.

If the Rose and Sugar Bowls are to remain iconic a balance in house will be needed to make them compelling. That is easier for the Big 10 with 6 to 8 PAC schools. The SEC would have only 5 Big 12 schools if the added Kansas, with Arkansas sufficing as a SWC sub for #6.

We'll see.

I agree about the bowls.

I think I read that "concern about the rose bowl" was one of the reasons the previous cfb discussions tanked - and then the b10 added the SoCal schools...lol

The PAC is just difficult to assess in terms of whether the B10 should invite.

if we look at bball power - UCLA's already on its way

strong academics? lots of aau, but Stanford obviously stands out.

regional add? well....... big weakness. the distance from LA to Seattle is not minor.

And I think Nebraska really could use some regional help - adding Kansas plus Missouri or Colorado just seems smart. The problem is that they don't bring markets comparable to similar adds: Rutgers/Maryland. So they're a question.

And, I dunno. Just because this is a unique opportunity to add schools from the PAC (minimal costs), that doesn't mean one should. Leaving the PAC intact might be better for the B10 in the long run.

They could just take Stanford as another travel partner for SoCal, and Kansas to bolster Nebraska. And call it good.

Unless/until the GoR is bypassed, taking those two forces SEC to wait, or to "nudge" the gor process along.

I don't think that the SEC is inviting any non-ACC school at this point except maybe KS, OK state (unlikely due to shared OK market), or some other TX school.

And with their sights clearly set on ACC schools, why would they?

(08-29-2022 10:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-29-2022 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 06:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-28-2022 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... But, it seems to me that this is largely "local money". Its money they make from ticket revenue, concessions, box seats, all that stuff. Great for them, they get to keep it all, but doesn't really add value to the conference, as far as I can tell. ...

Hence:

(08-28-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If hoops are freed from NCAA control Kansas could work. Otherwise, no....

The media money is in the NCAA Tourney contract, which is used for things like paying the salaries of the people who work for the NCAA, and to cover net tournament costs for the tournaments that are do not cover their costs with ticket revenues, before arriving at the notional profit, which is then distributed in a variety of ways in addition to the distributions to the conferences based on how many appearances their schools had in the tournament.

Get the national college basketball tournament with similar gross earnings to conference revenue relationship as the CFP, and basketball becomes more important to the major conferences. It would still be nowhere near parity, but a shift back down to something like 3:1 overall would substantially change the appeal of a school like Kansas.

Well, a couple things come to mind, and correct me if I am misapprehending some of your points:

1) Yes, hoops is at a disadvantage when it comes to the post-season, because CFP money goes straight to the conferences, whereas the NCAA takes about 40% of the NCAA tournament money for various expenses.

But, regarding media money, when the B1G signs for $75m a year, that IIRC is for their football regular season, their games and CCG. Has nothing to do with the CFP. They also get paid for their regular season basketball (and conference tournament as well).

So IIRC, when analysts say that football is about 80% of the value of a conference media deal, a figure I see bandied about, then that IMO is an apples-apples comparison of football vs hoops value.

2) I am not sure bringing hoops in to the same kind of arrangement as the CFP solves a problem, because as much as I dislike the NCAA edifice, it does IMO perform essential services. Championships for all those other sports, sports other than hoops and football, will still have to be paid for. Administrators will still have to be paid for pan-conference governance, etc.

Now sure, from a hoops vs football POV, those costs should be split between hoops and football, but I am not sure things change dramatically.

What I mean is, IIRC, a conference like the SEC gets an average of about $90m a year from the CFP, including its Sugar and Orange bowl contracts. That comes out to about $6m per school.

If the NCAA somehow went away and that $450 million NCAA tourney money it keeps for itself (about 40% of $1.1B revenue) went to the conferences, even if the P5 kept all of it, that's an extra $90m for the SEC, or about $6m per school. That's just not that much, IMO. Assuming the G5 gets 20%, same as the CFP, that knocks it down to $72m.

IMO, there just isn't a lot of hoops value locked up in the NCAA that can be unleashed to make the Kansases and Louisvilles of the world significantly more valuable than they are. But maybe I am missing some points.

Really, IMO, probably the largest "oil shale" type body of untapped wealth out there between hoops and football is on the football side not hoops side - the reported increase from $600m in the current CFP to say $1.5 Billion that could be unlocked by expanding to a 12-team football playoff.

Well Quo on the average year the NCAA pays out ~250 million in tourney creds of 1.1 billion of the tourney money. Where do you get this it keeps about 40% for itself stuff. It's the institutionalized socialism which you don't really address that's the issue.

With a breakaway hoops tourney worth 1.1 billion the payout would be 50/50 and the schools would get 550 million, not 250 million. No redo your calculations. It's one thing to be shed of the NCAA, it's another to stop funding programs which don't fund themselves.

Oh and this doesn't even touch on the 70 million plus a year endowed by the NCAA into one of their 2 funds. f

What about a compromise, JR?? Instead of the NCAA keeping 40%, let's decrease that amount to 15%, especially since the presidents and the ADs have gotten cold feet about leaving the NCAA.