If the Big 10 wanted to get big, just absorb the ACC.

(01-25-2023 11:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:24 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 11:27 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.

FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.

Please explain "dilutive" in this context.

That the per school payout would actually go down if the SEC or Big Ten added UVA or Ga Tech. (Not even that they'd be fairly revenue neutral like Oregon, Washington or Stanford seem to be-I suspect Ga Tech or UVA would actually bring down the payout.)

Is that because you feel that their media deal dollars to the conference would not be adjusted (so more mouths to feed = less money per school) or that you don't think an updated media deal with the conference is possible to pay for the extra schools? Or some other reason?

I'm trying to better understand your use of "dilutive" in context of a media deal.

It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.


I’m not sure what you fail to understand about the word “dilutive.” It’s not very hard to understand.


If teams like Georgia Tech and UVA were very valuable, then the ACC would have a better TV contract to begin with.

I don't think that there are any available schools that would pay for itself plus provide the existing P2 conference members either a $$$ boost or a break even proposition.

I would agree that the big 10 is probably at max payout right now and nobody will really increase it do to the more mouths to feed. However, my theory is the big 10 needs to get big to increase the popularity of college sports across the country. I suspect we are at peak popularity and the current big 10 and or sec moves, ie catabolism of other leagues will diminish college sports and it’s payday down the road. Further, I don’t see how the big 10 can function if it only makes a few adds from the pac 12 and or ACC, it needs terminal velocity of adding programs and rivals that regional partners want to play.

(01-25-2023 03:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:24 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote:  FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.

Please explain "dilutive" in this context.

That the per school payout would actually go down if the SEC or Big Ten added UVA or Ga Tech. (Not even that they'd be fairly revenue neutral like Oregon, Washington or Stanford seem to be-I suspect Ga Tech or UVA would actually bring down the payout.)

Is that because you feel that their media deal dollars to the conference would not be adjusted (so more mouths to feed = less money per school) or that you don't think an updated media deal with the conference is possible to pay for the extra schools? Or some other reason?

I'm trying to better understand your use of "dilutive" in context of a media deal.

It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.


I’m not sure what you fail to understand about the word “dilutive.” It’s not very hard to understand.


If teams like Georgia Tech and UVA were very valuable, then the ACC would have a better TV contract to begin with.

Thank you.

It's not that I don't understand the word, I just wanted to find out what you were placing on that word.

Quote:It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.

According to who? Corporate payouts are not done that way at all.

This is why I think the word "dilutive" is kind of ridiculous to ever use in terms of a media deal.

It makes several suppositions, at least one of which is incorrect.

a.) that a media deal means that money is given to individual schools - it's not.

b.) Or that a media deal is a lump sum given to a conference - it's also not that.

c.) that adding schools means less money for a conference. Not likely at all. And "how much" is not at all based upon merely adding a school and saying that that school is worth "x" to a media deal. If someone told you that, they lied to you.

If the media deal is updated or re-negotiated, then who is to say that the more money is going to be "dilutive"? a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who place value on a school based upon recent field success?

Yeah, no.

I have rarely seen anyone - pundit, fan, forum poster, or whomever - use that term and not sound rather foolish when they use it.

It's very use shows a lack of understanding of how this all works - trying to ascribe value in a media deal based upon what a fan values, rather than what a corporate entity values.

And the corporate entity is the one providing the money. So, I think looking from their point of view makes a bit more sense than John Q. Fan's perspective.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying. I had hoped there was perhaps more "there" there in your usage. But I guess not.

(01-25-2023 07:07 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 03:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:24 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Please explain "dilutive" in this context.

That the per school payout would actually go down if the SEC or Big Ten added UVA or Ga Tech. (Not even that they'd be fairly revenue neutral like Oregon, Washington or Stanford seem to be-I suspect Ga Tech or UVA would actually bring down the payout.)

Is that because you feel that their media deal dollars to the conference would not be adjusted (so more mouths to feed = less money per school) or that you don't think an updated media deal with the conference is possible to pay for the extra schools? Or some other reason?

I'm trying to better understand your use of "dilutive" in context of a media deal.

It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.


I’m not sure what you fail to understand about the word “dilutive.” It’s not very hard to understand.


If teams like Georgia Tech and UVA were very valuable, then the ACC would have a better TV contract to begin with.

Thank you.

It's not that I don't understand the word, I just wanted to find out what you were placing on that word.

Quote:It means that the number of teams in the conference would go up about 12% if those teams were added, but the total payout might only go up about 8% or something. That would actually result in about a 4% decrease in the per team payout.

According to who? Corporate payouts are not done that way at all.

This is why I think the word "dilutive" is kind of ridiculous to ever use in terms of a media deal.

It makes several suppositions, at least one of which is incorrect.

a.) that a media deal means that money is given to individual schools - it's not.

b.) Or that a media deal is a lump sum given to a conference - it's also not that.

c.) that adding schools means less money for a conference. Not likely at all. And "how much" is not at all based upon merely adding a school and saying that that school is worth "x" to a media deal. If someone told you that, they lied to you.

If the media deal is updated or re-negotiated, then who is to say that the more money is going to be "dilutive"? a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who place value on a school based upon recent field success?

Yeah, no.

I have rarely seen anyone - pundit, fan, forum poster, or whomever - use that term and not sound rather foolish when they use it.

It's very use shows a lack of understanding of how this all works - trying to ascribe value in a media deal based upon what a fan values, rather than what a corporate entity values.

And the corporate entity is the one providing the money. So, I think looking from their point of view makes a bit more sense than John Q. Fan's perspective.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying. I had hoped there was perhaps more "there" there in your usage. But I guess not.

The word dilutive is used fairly often on this board. Wouldn't you agree that if the Big Ten added something like Kent State and the University of Ohio, that would be dilutive? Why do you think it's impossible for additions to be dilutive?

The reality of the matter is that it's doubtful that teams like UVA and Ga Tech would increase the Big 10's tv contract, and I suspect they'd probably actually decrease the Big 10's tv contract. Those teams don't have the fanbase size of most Big 10 schools. And considering how Maryland's attendance (and if I had to guess probably also their TV viewership) actually fell dramatically after they entered the Big 10, I really don't buy into the idea that UVA and Ga Tech would become a lot more popular if they were in the Big 10.

(01-25-2023 02:41 PM)chess Wrote:  If the Big 10 wanted to get big, just absorb the ACC.

Nice to hear this for a change other than constant SEC-ACC all the time.

(01-23-2023 01:36 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Add Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Kansas and Texas Tech

Create a 12 team Big 10 west with these 10 additions +UCLA and USC. Next move is too create a 10-12 team big 10 east with ACC additions + shifting Rutgers and Maryland to the east. Eventually you will have a big 10 east, central and west consisting of 10-14 members in each division, something like:

Big 10 west (11 members)

Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech

Big 10 East (11 members)

BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, ND, UVA, Va Tech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Miami

Big 10 Central 14 members

NW, ILL, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas
Michigan, MSU, IU, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Pitt

Each division runs as a stand-alone. For football 4 team playoff, east vs west conference winners face the central winner in the rose bowl. The central will have its own title game in indy before the rose bowl.

I don't see how Texas Tech figures in for the B1G as they'd be the 4th or 5th Texas team chosen.

(01-26-2023 06:04 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:36 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Add Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Kansas and Texas Tech

Create a 12 team Big 10 west with these 10 additions +UCLA and USC. Next move is too create a 10-12 team big 10 east with ACC additions + shifting Rutgers and Maryland to the east. Eventually you will have a big 10 east, central and west consisting of 10-14 members in each division, something like:

Big 10 west (11 members)

Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech

Big 10 East (11 members)

BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, ND, UVA, Va Tech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Miami

Big 10 Central 14 members

NW, ILL, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas
Michigan, MSU, IU, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Pitt

Each division runs as a stand-alone. For football 4 team playoff, east vs west conference winners face the central winner in the rose bowl. The central will have its own title game in indy before the rose bowl.

I don't see how Texas Tech figures in for the B1G as they'd be the 4th or 5th Texas team chosen.

I skimmed the OP since it was so silly, and didn't even notice Texas Tech in there.


Texas Tech would definitely not fit the Big 10's academic standards. For in case you've forgotten about how Texas was told they had a "Tech problem" when they briefly flirted with Big 10 membership in 2010.

https://collegefootball.nbcsports.com/20...h-problem/



The OP could have cited Baylor or possibly TCU if they wanted to cite a Texas school that could probably get over the BIG academic threshold. (Not that they'd meet the adding money to the conference threshold.)

No the shouldn't. They should cherry pick the best of the best left when available.

If I'm the B1G, I'm gunning for these ACC schools: Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. The PAC schools will favor the B1G in every scenario so there's no need to jump for more PAC schools until these ACC schools are gone. This moves the B1G step-by-step down the East coast taking AAU schools (except Florida St) in prime locations. I think Florida St would be the exception along with Notre Dame. If you get these four schools, then take in Oregon, Stanford, and Washington and give Notre Dame one final chance to jump aboard. If they reject, then bring in California. I think Notre Dame would balk.

B1G
Atlantic: Florida St, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Midwest: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
Pacific: California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

(01-26-2023 01:33 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I'm the B1G, I'm gunning for these ACC schools: Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. The PAC schools will favor the B1G in every scenario so there's no need to jump for more PAC schools until these ACC schools are gone. This moves the B1G step-by-step down the East coast taking AAU schools (except Florida St) in prime locations. I think Florida St would be the exception along with Notre Dame. If you get these four schools, then take in Oregon, Stanford, and Washington and give Notre Dame one final chance to jump aboard. If they reject, then bring in California. I think Notre Dame would balk.

B1G
Atlantic: Florida St, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Midwest: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
Pacific: California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

If you're going to try for NC, add Duke to the list.

(01-23-2023 04:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  A nice infographic on the matter

I would denote not having a medical school is a serious handicap in that dimension of measure. So if you see somebody near the top and they don't have a medical school, they're doing pretty dang good.

(01-26-2023 01:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If you're going to try for NC, add Duke to the list.

The true package deal in NC is UNC with NCST, not UNC with Duke.

(01-26-2023 02:14 AM)Poster Wrote:  The reality of the matter is that it's doubtful that teams like UVA and Ga Tech would increase the Big 10's tv contract, and I suspect they'd probably actually decrease the Big 10's tv contract. Those teams don't have the fanbase size of most Big 10 schools. And considering how Maryland's attendance (and if I had to guess probably also their TV viewership) actually fell dramatically after they entered the Big 10, I really don't buy into the idea that UVA and Ga Tech would become a lot more popular if they were in the Big 10.

The first half isn't that big of a deal at least in GT's case. If anything, GT's enrollment and alumni base is exploding and given their curriculum GT will continue to be one of the most demanded diplomas in the country going foward.

The second half .... OTOH .... has some real bite. GT going effectively alone to the B1G without some semblance of regional partner would be a severe drag on attendance in the revenue sports. Even if you cut a check bigger than everybody else's, there's no getting the Georgia Tech fanbase excited for a trip to Bloomington, Indiana in October or Minneapolis, Minnesota in November. Similar yawns for them coming to Atlanta. The transplants might like a GT-Ohio State or GT-Michigan game in Atlanta, but the GT fanbase would rather play ACC southern or SEC East potluck over anybody in the current B1G any day. Money can only do so much and go so far and move so many mountains. If Clemson and FSU and some additional NC/VA type schools came along that'd probably be enough.

(01-26-2023 02:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 01:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If you're going to try for NC, add Duke to the list.

The true package deal in NC is UNC with NCST, not UNC with Duke.

NCSU will never get into the P2. There were some (pretty goofy in my opinion) rumors about NCSU being considered by the SEC in 2011, but the bar for the P2 is now higher than it was in those days. They're the third most valuable athletic department (yes, behind Duke) in only the 9th biggest state, and they're one of the ACC's lowest ranked academic schools to boot.

Duke's chances of the P2 are probably 5% at best. The only reason why Duke might have marginally higher odds than Kansas is because of academics.

If UNC demands on dragging NCSU or Duke along, then UNC won't get into the P2. Even Texas and Oklahoma, which are bigger brands than UNC, weren't allowed to drag Texas Tech and Oklahoma State with them to the SEC. Why do people think that UNC will be allowed to drag all these other schools along?

(01-26-2023 01:33 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I'm the B1G, I'm gunning for these ACC schools: Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. The PAC schools will favor the B1G in every scenario so there's no need to jump for more PAC schools until these ACC schools are gone. This moves the B1G step-by-step down the East coast taking AAU schools (except Florida St) in prime locations. I think Florida St would be the exception along with Notre Dame. If you get these four schools, then take in Oregon, Stanford, and Washington and give Notre Dame one final chance to jump aboard. If they reject, then bring in California. I think Notre Dame would balk.

B1G
Atlantic: Florida St, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Midwest: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
Pacific: California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

I expect FSU to be in the AAU before the ACC GoR expires. Beyond it sky-rocketing up the public university rankings, FSU has been enjoying the full support of the State of FL to expand its med school that include new research-focused hospitals and facilities in both Tallahassee and Panama City. Massive funding over the next decade going into brick & mortar and hiring just with its new FSU Health brand. That's to say nothing of its focus on STEM that preceded the growth of the med school. I was once skeptical of FSU's AAU aspirations (a lot of talk going back 20 years). I'm not anymore. I will be keeping a close eye on it's R&D expenditures...I bet there's a significant jump between now and the end of the decade. It'll take time but the future is very bright. And I would not be remotely surprised if FSU winds up in the B1G instead of the more obvious choice (SEC). I have a feeling the SEC would no longer be holding its big spring meeting in Destin (FSU country) if that happens.

(01-26-2023 02:14 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 02:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 01:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If you're going to try for NC, add Duke to the list.

The true package deal in NC is UNC with NCST, not UNC with Duke.

NCSU will never get into the P2. There were some (pretty goofy in my opinion) rumors about NCSU being considered by the SEC in 2011, but the bar for the P2 is now higher than it was in those days. They're the third most valuable athletic department (yes, behind Duke) in only the 9th biggest state, and they're one of the ACC's lowest ranked academic schools to boot.

Duke's chances of the P2 are probably 5% at best. The only reason why Duke might have marginally higher odds than Kansas is because of academics.

If UNC demands on dragging NCSU or Duke along, then UNC won't get into the P2. Even Texas and Oklahoma, which are bigger brands than UNC, weren't allowed to drag Texas Tech and Oklahoma State with them to the SEC. Why do people think that UNC will be allowed to drag all these other schools along?

Yes, but you see NCST actually cares about both revenue sports instead of least important one. Duke could field a Top 25 team year-in and year-out in football and Wallace Wade Outdoor will still be mostly opposing fans and empty bleachers. I don't think they're tuning in on the TV either. If you've seen the changes at FSU since they came into the ACC or Utah since they came into the Pac-12 you'd know that the ceiling doesn't remain the same with an affiliation change, either academically or athletically so long as the institution cares about it and is all in on achieving it.

NCST has a higher ceiling and more immediate ROI than Duke in any P2 move. That won't change until Duke fans and administrators care about football. So it won't change.

(01-26-2023 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 02:14 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 02:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 01:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If you're going to try for NC, add Duke to the list.

The true package deal in NC is UNC with NCST, not UNC with Duke.

NCSU will never get into the P2. There were some (pretty goofy in my opinion) rumors about NCSU being considered by the SEC in 2011, but the bar for the P2 is now higher than it was in those days. They're the third most valuable athletic department (yes, behind Duke) in only the 9th biggest state, and they're one of the ACC's lowest ranked academic schools to boot.

Duke's chances of the P2 are probably 5% at best. The only reason why Duke might have marginally higher odds than Kansas is because of academics.

If UNC demands on dragging NCSU or Duke along, then UNC won't get into the P2. Even Texas and Oklahoma, which are bigger brands than UNC, weren't allowed to drag Texas Tech and Oklahoma State with them to the SEC. Why do people think that UNC will be allowed to drag all these other schools along?

Yes, but you see NCST actually cares about both revenue sports instead of least important one. Duke could field a Top 25 team year-in and year-out in football and Wallace Wade Outdoor will still be mostly opposing fans and empty bleachers. I don't think they're tuning in on the TV either. If you've seen the changes at FSU since they came into the ACC or Utah since they came into the Pac-12 you'd know that the ceiling doesn't remain the same with an affiliation change, either academically or athletically so long as the institution cares about it and is all in on achieving it.

NCST has a higher ceiling and more immediate ROI than Duke in any P2 move. That won't change until Duke fans and administrators care about football. So it won't change.

As Frank notes, Duke basketball is probably the single biggest college basketball brand in the United States.

I seriously doubt that Duke will get a Power 2 invite, but Duke basketball is more valuable than NC State football is.

Duke is definitely superior to NCSU academically, as well.

But, really, I'm not arguing that Duke is a real Power 2 candidate. I'm arguing that NCSU is not by any stretch of the imagination a Power 2 candidate. They're even less of a P2 candidate than Duke, who themselves is not a P2 candidate.

Just merge w/ the SEC & call it the National College Football League & be done w/ it