(06-22-2025 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

$000's by conference per member (Notre Dame included in ACC totals) :

Conf.....FB.....MBB.....Tot.....FB/Total

SEC....732.....110.....842......0.87
B1G....658.....136.....794......0.83
ACC....340.....137.....477......0.71
B12....290......98......388......0.75

EDIT: Thanks to JRsec for spotting that I had inadvertantly divided the B1G's total valuations by 16 instead of 18.

Yep that looks like what I came up with. You should divide the ACC's by 17 & 5/12ths.

What it makes you realize is how it took the Big Ten 4 PAC schools to relatively equal the SEC with 16 having added just Oklahoma and Texas. It should also explain the Big Ten's interest in Florida. It's not just DMAs but they can't afford to have FSU in the SEC or Clemson, or Kansas, or North Carolina, or Duke.

And should the SEC ever move to 20 with 4 of those schools the Big Ten would absolutely have to have Notre Dame as nobody else could catch them up. Notre Dame with Stanford would come close.

(06-22-2025 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

$000's by conference per member (Notre Dame included in ACC totals) :

Conf.....FB.....MBB.....Tot.....FB/Total

SEC....732.....110.....842......0.87
B1G....658.....136.....794......0.83
ACC....340.....137.....477......0.71
B12....290......98......388......0.75

EDIT: Thanks to JRsec for spotting that I had inadvertantly divided the B1G's total valuations by 16 instead of 18.

Yep that looks like what I came up with. You should divide the ACC's by 17 & 5/12ths.

What it makes you realize is how it took the Big Ten 4 PAC schools to relatively equal the SEC with 16 having added just Oklahoma and Texas. It should also explain the Big Ten's interest in Florida. It's not just DMAs but they can't afford to have FSU in the SEC or Clemson, or Kansas, or North Carolina, or Duke.

And should the SEC ever move to 20 with 4 of those schools the Big Ten would absolutely have to have Notre Dame as nobody else could catch them up. Notre Dame with Stanford would come close.

So we're still in a Mexican Standoff.

The SEC takes Clemson and Florida State. The B1G grabs Carolina, Virginia, Duke and Stanford.
Would Notre Dame be happy holding together a conference of: Miami, GT, Wake Forest, State, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, SMU, and Cal?
Does the SEC then take Miami and GT to protect "territory"?

Accretive additions or diminishing returns?

(06-22-2025 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

$000's by conference per member (Notre Dame included in ACC totals) :

Conf.....FB.....MBB.....Tot.....FB/Total

SEC....732.....110.....842......0.87
B1G....658.....136.....794......0.83
ACC....340.....137.....477......0.71
B12....290......98......388......0.75

EDIT: Thanks to JRsec for spotting that I had inadvertantly divided the B1G's total valuations by 16 instead of 18.

Yep that looks like what I came up with. You should divide the ACC's by 17 & 5/12ths.

What it makes you realize is how it took the Big Ten 4 PAC schools to relatively equal the SEC with 16 having added just Oklahoma and Texas. It should also explain the Big Ten's interest in Florida. It's not just DMAs but they can't afford to have FSU in the SEC or Clemson, or Kansas, or North Carolina, or Duke.

And should the SEC ever move to 20 with 4 of those schools the Big Ten would absolutely have to have Notre Dame as nobody else could catch them up. Notre Dame with Stanford would come close.

Just a general line of thinking here, if Notre Dame is far more likely to sign up for the Big Ten as opposed to the SEC then ironically, that gives the SEC quite a bit of power in how certain things play out from here.

ND is not going to just give up the ghost and go to the Big Ten just cuz...

If the SEC moves to 9 leagues games, if an annual scheduling agreement is achieved with the Big Ten, and if the at-large slots in the CFP are dwindled down to essentially none; then that's the sort of scenario that could force Notre Dame's hand.

Interestingly enough, none of that happens if the SEC doesn't go along with it. The Big 12 and clearly the ACC have no motivation to go along with it...as far as they have any influence over a new CFP format. The ACC still must concern itself with survival and that means keeping Notre Dame among others. The Big 12 has no motivation to take a formal backseat to the Big Ten and SEC. I would also argue the SEC has little motivation to formally equalize their reputation with that of the Big Ten.

The only real motivation we have to do anything is go to 9 games if we're getting paid for it...and maybe expand a little with the right additions.

If there's a Mexican standoff, it's between the SEC, Big Ten, and Notre Dame. Problem is that the SEC isn't pointing a gun at ND so it's less of a standoff and more of a proxy war by the B1G.

Can someone tell me why the SEC, much less ESPN, should be fighting a proxy war for the Big Ten?

(06-23-2025 06:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

$000's by conference per member (Notre Dame included in ACC totals) :

Conf.....FB.....MBB.....Tot.....FB/Total

SEC....732.....110.....842......0.87
B1G....658.....136.....794......0.83
ACC....340.....137.....477......0.71
B12....290......98......388......0.75

EDIT: Thanks to JRsec for spotting that I had inadvertantly divided the B1G's total valuations by 16 instead of 18.

Yep that looks like what I came up with. You should divide the ACC's by 17 & 5/12ths.

What it makes you realize is how it took the Big Ten 4 PAC schools to relatively equal the SEC with 16 having added just Oklahoma and Texas. It should also explain the Big Ten's interest in Florida. It's not just DMAs but they can't afford to have FSU in the SEC or Clemson, or Kansas, or North Carolina, or Duke.

And should the SEC ever move to 20 with 4 of those schools the Big Ten would absolutely have to have Notre Dame as nobody else could catch them up. Notre Dame with Stanford would come close.

Just a general line of thinking here, if Notre Dame is far more likely to sign up for the Big Ten as opposed to the SEC then ironically, that gives the SEC quite a bit of power in how certain things play out from here.

ND is not going to just give up the ghost and go to the Big Ten just cuz...

If the SEC moves to 9 leagues games, if an annual scheduling agreement is achieved with the Big Ten, and if the at-large slots in the CFP are dwindled down to essentially none; then that's the sort of scenario that could force Notre Dame's hand.

Interestingly enough, none of that happens if the SEC doesn't go along with it. The Big 12 and clearly the ACC have no motivation to go along with it...as far as they have any influence over a new CFP format. The ACC still must concern itself with survival and that means keeping Notre Dame among others. The Big 12 has no motivation to take a formal backseat to the Big Ten and SEC. I would also argue the SEC has little motivation to formally equalize their reputation with that of the Big Ten.

The only real motivation we have to do anything is go to 9 games if we're getting paid for it...and maybe expand a little with the right additions.

If there's a Mexican standoff, it's between the SEC, Big Ten, and Notre Dame. Problem is that the SEC isn't pointing a gun at ND so it's less of a standoff and more of a proxy war by the B1G.

Can someone tell me why the SEC, much less ESPN, should be fighting a proxy war for the Big Ten?

Hypothetically for a controlling interest in the CFP for ESPN & FOX, meaning more money for them, and, hypothetically more money for the SEC and Big Ten.

The thing is, ATU, that there are more end game scenarios than just the one mini-NFL where the two networks share the controlling interest in the CFP.

One is where the SEC and Big 10 each get a 5 game scheduling agreement with N.D. who keeps Navy as one of its two non P games. In that scenario the ACC's top schools are absorbed by one or both of the SEC and B1G.

Another is where ESPN does what it takes to land Notre Dame more fully setting up the 5 & 5 scheduling agreement with the SEC and ACC and setting up the scheduling agreement with Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech and Notre Dame and perhaps N.C. State, Louisville, & Georgia Tech. The idea being to boost their S.O.S. and revenue for better games both within the ACC and with key SEC schools. That way ESPN scoops FOX on the value of games to which ESPN essentially controls the rights already and by sewing up 10 games for broadcast for Notre Dame once their NBC contract has run its course. I began to suspect that this could be an angle when ESPN essentially moved Stanford and Cal to the ACC.

A third is that the SEC picks up a recalcitrant FSU and pairs them with Kansas to move to 18 and match the Big 10's numbers. Such a move only adds to the SEC's overall lead in value match ups and if Notre Dame is secure with its ACC affiliation and a scheduling agreement is encouraged with the SEC then that maneuver allows the SEC to continue moving forward with a lead not only in valuation but also in media revenue and total revenue essentially locking it into the superior position financially in a new era of professionalism (pay for play).

I still consider the 2-conference upper tier league to be the most likely outcome for no other reason than fan buy in to a clearer CFP structure and because neither FOX nor Disney is in as flush of a position now as say 5 years ago. The demographic shifts and geopolitics also cloud their long-range planning. And the global trade complexities do as well both in regard to the value of currency and the cost of doing business abroad.

That said however, one cannot ever rule out the possibility that ESPN if looking at a clear move to give them the upper hand in any way, would take it.

(06-22-2025 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

$000's by conference per member (Notre Dame included in ACC totals) :

Conf.....FB.....MBB.....Tot.....FB/Total

SEC....732.....110.....842......0.87
B1G....658.....136.....794......0.83
ACC....340.....137.....477......0.71
B12....290......98......388......0.75

EDIT: Thanks to JRsec for spotting that I had inadvertantly divided the B1G's total valuations by 16 instead of 18.

Yep that looks like what I came up with. You should divide the ACC's by 17 & 5/12ths.

What it makes you realize is how it took the Big Ten 4 PAC schools to relatively equal the SEC with 16 having added just Oklahoma and Texas. It should also explain the Big Ten's interest in Florida. It's not just DMAs but they can't afford to have FSU in the SEC or Clemson, or Kansas, or North Carolina, or Duke.

And should the SEC ever move to 20 with 4 of those schools the Big Ten would absolutely have to have Notre Dame as nobody else could catch them up. Notre Dame with Stanford would come close.

If you just divide the ACC's valuation by 17 5/12, you would actually increase their per team valuation slightly. But if, instead, you first count only 5/12 of ND's football valuation toward the ACC's total before dividing by 17 5/12, that drops their football valuation to 308 and their total valuation to 435. That may be a better description of their relative values.

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

It’s a great consolidation of a lot of data.

My observations:

1. Total valuations of football and men’s basketball increased comparably. Football valuations increased 53% (from $21.8B in 2018 to $33.4B in 2024). Men’s basketball valuations increased 56% (from $5.4B to $8.3B). Football valuations are still 4x larger, but both sports are considered to have comparable growth and profitability trajectories.

2. The growth in WSJ valuations is dramatically different across the power conferences.
- B1G members’ total valuation grew 110%, more than doubling in 5 years. The four team expansion from ex-PAC members obviously helped. More impressively, lots of B1G members’ valuations grew by over 80% (e.g., Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State).
- ACC members’ total valuations grew 100%, exactly doubling during the past 5 years. Unlike the B1G and SEC, ACC expansion was obviously not about new members’ inherent valuations…Cal, Stanford and SMU valuations are relatively weak. Nevertheless, both football-first middle class (e.g., VT, NCS, GT & Pitt) and basketball-first blue-blood (e.g., UNC, Duke) members had excellent growth in valuations. FWIW - I still don’t understand why schools like Clemson and FSU don’t get higher WSJ football valuations…at least in 2024, the same phenomenon happened to SEC smaller market programs.
- SEC members’ total valuation grew by 58%. But the SEC growth was driven primarily by acquisitions/expansion. Texas and Oklahoma accounted for $3B (out of the $5B) in SEC total valuation growth. Schools in large markets (e.g., Texas, TAMU, UGA & UF) valuations grew consistently with the average B1G members. Valuations for smaller market programs took a relative hit during the past 5 years.
- B12 members’ total valuations grew 42%, with a lot variables making an impact. OUT total valuations are actually greater than those of the combined new eight members. IMHO - Kansas’ football valuation, and 5 year growth, doesn’t make sense…it’s a knit, but Kansas football valuation growing three fold is a head-scratcher.
-PAC members’ total valuation decreased by 89%. Disbanding the PAC was a large part of the B1G’s growth and B12 stabilization.

3. Per a valuations driven expansion, the ideal SEC expansion would be: Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia Tech. All new markets, basketball blue bloods and a football-first program in a relatively larger and growing area. If the B1G needs to match the SEC in membership size, this leaves the FSU and Miami to augment the B1G’s football depth. Clemson and Notre Dame (partial/non-football) still anchor the ACC.

(07-02-2025 10:30 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-12-2025 04:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Updated table. I tried some color to spice it up, but let me know if it looks garish.

It’s a great consolidation of a lot of data.

My observations:

1. Total valuations of football and men’s basketball increased comparably. Football valuations increased 53% (from $21.8B in 2018 to $33.4B in 2024). Men’s basketball valuations increased 56% (from $5.4B to $8.3B). Football valuations are still 4x larger, but both sports are considered to have comparable growth and profitability trajectories.

2. The growth in WSJ valuations is dramatically different across the power conferences.
- B1G members’ total valuation grew 110%, more than doubling in 5 years. The four team expansion from ex-PAC members obviously helped. More impressively, lots of B1G members’ valuations grew by over 80% (e.g., Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State).
- ACC members’ total valuations grew 100%, exactly doubling during the past 5 years. Unlike the B1G and SEC, ACC expansion was obviously not about new members’ inherent valuations…Cal, Stanford and SMU valuations are relatively weak. Nevertheless, both football-first middle class (e.g., VT, NCS, GT & Pitt) and basketball-first blue-blood (e.g., UNC, Duke) members had excellent growth in valuations. FWIW - I still don’t understand why schools like Clemson and FSU don’t get higher WSJ football valuations…at least in 2024, the same phenomenon happened to SEC smaller market programs.
- SEC members’ total valuation grew by 58%. But the SEC growth was driven primarily by acquisitions/expansion. Texas and Oklahoma accounted for $3B (out of the $5B) in SEC total valuation growth. Schools in large markets (e.g., Texas, TAMU, UGA & UF) valuations grew consistently with the average B1G members. Valuations for smaller market programs took a relative hit during the past 5 years.
- B12 members’ total valuations grew 42%, with a lot variables making an impact. OUT total valuations are actually greater than those of the combined new eight members. IMHO - Kansas’ football valuation, and 5 year growth, doesn’t make sense…it’s a knit, but Kansas football valuation growing three fold is a head-scratcher.
-PAC members’ total valuation decreased by 89%. Disbanding the PAC was a large part of the B1G’s growth and B12 stabilization.

3. Per a valuations driven expansion, the ideal SEC expansion would be: Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia Tech. All new markets, basketball blue bloods and a football-first program in a relatively larger and growing area. If the B1G needs to match the SEC in membership size, this leaves the FSU and Miami to augment the B1G’s football depth. Clemson and Notre Dame (partial/non-football) still anchor the ACC.

Your 'final 4' only includes one of your ACC's "football-first middle class".
The chart's VT football numbers are a head-scratcher.